The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20252844.tiffResolution Approve Adoption of Safety Action Plan for Unincorporated Weld County and Authorize Department of Public Works to Submit Electronically 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 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) launched the "Safe Streets for All (SS4A)" Program to support local, regional, and Tribal initiatives to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and Whereas, on May 13, 2024, the Board of Weld Commissioners approved Resolution #2024-1169, Grant Agreement for Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Planning Grant Program, which was amended on November 4, 2024, by Resolution #2024-2921, between the Department of Public Works, and the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, and Whereas, on September 4, 2024, the Board of Weld Commissioners approved Bid #02400084, and awarded funds to WSP USA, Inc., for Professional Engineering and Consultant Services, in coordination with planning and engineering professionals, local stakeholders, and members of the public, to develop a complete data -driven, community - informed Safety Action Plan, and Whereas, the Safety Action Plan outlines specific strategies, projects, and policy recommendations to improve roadway safety for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, and Whereas, adoption of the Safety Action Plan demonstrates Weld County's commitment to improve public safety and support eligibility for future demonstration project and implementation funding through the SS4A Program and other funding sources, and Whereas, the Safety Action Plan is aligned with the Weld County 2045 Transportation Plan and 's in support of Colorado's Vision Zero, the Colorado Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and other statewide efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Colorado's roadways, with the ultimate goal of reducing 25% of fatal and serious injury crashes per million miles traveled by 2045, and Whereas, the Board has been presented with a Safety Action Plan for Unincorporated Weld County, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said plan, and Whereas, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve and adopt said plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and finds that it is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Lam' PW CEP IC NlonlotlS6/ KH ) lolaala5 2025-2844 EG0083 Adoption of Safety Action Plan for Unincorporated Weld County Page 2 Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Safety Action Plan for Unincorporated Weld County, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, be, and hereby is, approved and adopted. Be it further resolved by the Board that Curtis Hall, Director of the Department of Public Works, or his designee, is authorized to electronically submit the adopted Safety Action Plan for unincorporated Weld County to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in fulfillment of SS4A grant requirements. The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, approved the above and foregoing Resolution, on motion duly made and seconded, by the following vote on the 20th day of October, A.D., 2025: Perry L. Buck, Chair: Aye Scott K. James, Pro-Tem: Aye Jason S. Maxey: Aye Lynette Peppier: Aye Kevin D. Ross: Aye Approved as to Form: Bruce Barker, County Attorney Attest: Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board 2025-2844 EG0083 Con-kvvcl- DaqcfSt BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW PASS -AROUND TITLE: Adoption of the Weld County Safety Action Plan DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: 10/7/2025 PERSON REQUESTING: Evan Pinkham/ Curtis Hall Brief description of the problem/issue: Staff is requesting that the Board of County Commissioner adopt the Weld County Safety Action Plan as drafted. What options exist for the Board? 1. Adopt the Weld County Safety Action Plan as drafted. 2. Request amendments to the Safety Action Plan. Consequences: Staff will not be able to finalize the Weld County Safety Action Plan without Board adoption. Impacts: Weld County will not be able to seek additional Safe Streets for All (SS4A) funding without formal adoption of the Safety Action Plan. Costs (Current Fiscal Year / Ongoing or Subsequent Fiscal Years): No Costs are associated with the adoption of the Safety Action Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Weld County Safety Action Plan as drafted. Support Recommendation Schedule Place on BOCC Agenda Work Session Other/Comments: Perry L. Buck Scott K. James Jason S. Maxey Lynette Peppier Kevin D. Ross 44 risks Aamw PN € " /we Pu.✓ -I Ovft. /0 . 20 ~AAA. 2025-2844 10/20 r -r .er $ a. ft oat a a c_ Weld County Safety Action Plan t.t Adopted October 20th, 2025 r Orb: r .—r z• Pt -oar •�`_' Yl J 4• • J �',' • all 3 a x _ .,. .. .r • pow is 't • ft ice%,3 ; J'• '. I • 1i Introduction IV Commitment to Safety iv Acknowledgments vi Executive Summary viii Glossary ix 1. Why the Safe System Approach? 10 Why the Safe System Approach° 12 What is the Safe System Approach° 14 State of Safety in Weld County 16 Local, State, and National Resources 20 2. Public Outreach and Feedback Collection 22 Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Plan 26 Online Engagement 28 In -Person Engagement 30 Key Takeaways 36 3. Data Analysis and Emphasis Areas 38 Crash Mapping 40 Emphasis Areas 48 4. Toolbox of Safety Countermeasures 62 5. Action Steps and Recommendations 88 6. Prioritized Projects 104 7. Ongoing Measures of Progress 118 Next Steps 119 Conclusion 136 ntroduction In 2023, Weld County, Colorado, received funding through the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program to develop a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. The Weld County Safety Action Plan (SAP) is centered around a thorough safety analysis, looking at existing conditions and historical trends to identify areas of systemic and specific safety needs. Engagement and collaboration with the residents of Weld County and key stakeholders, including the Safety Task Force (STF), will educate the public on safety efforts and seek public feedback that will help shape and inform the SAP. This plan, which builds upon the efforts of the Weld County 2045 Transportation Plan, will align with the principles of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Safe System Approach. The SAP will lay out a framework of actionable, measurable, and innovative strategies that emphasize design enhancements or improvements, including a method of measuring progress over time, to enhance safety for all roadway users and help reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes across the county's transportation system. Commitment to Safety s AL? OFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PHONE: 970-336-7204 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 Dear Weld County Residents, The board of commissioners is excited to introduce Weld County's Safety Action Plan. Developed over the past year, this plan is based on community input and data -driven analysis. It offers guidance, strategies and policies on how to make our transportation system — which stretches more than 2,800 miles — safer for all road users. We firmly believe that every life is valuable, and improvements and enhancements to increase safety and efficiency for the traveling public is a top priority. The intent of the Safety Action Plan is to identify problem areas on roadways throughout Weld County's transportation system as well as the contributing factors that lead to fatal and serious injury traffic crashes. This plan is intended to serve as a guiding document to reduce those risks, informing decision -makers as the county balances multiple competing needs and objectives with limited funds. Having as much information possible to make informed decisions helps us allocate taxpayer resources — and pursue transportation grants — to have the greatest, most beneficial impact. Everyone in Weld County has a role to play in making our roads safer. Whether you're an expert in transportation or simply care about your community, your contribution counts. That's why we're proud that this plan is informed with public feedback, something gathered online and in person, to reflect the needs and desires of Weld County residents. We thank you for your participation in this process and encourage you to read through this plan as we continue our effort to make Weld County's transportation system the best it can be, reaffirming our commitment to safety and efficiency for all who travel throughout Weld County. At Scott K. James, Pro -Tern e Pirry L. Buck, Chair Kevin D. Ross Lynette Pe p1er Acknowledgments Project Team Weld County Evan Pinkham Don Dunker Jennifer Finch Baker Geist Curtis Hall Kevin Hettinger Cameron Parrott Kristen Sigg Safety Task Force Rich Christy, Colorado Department of Transportation Katrina Kloberdanz, Colorado Department of Transportation Nate Mead, City of Dacono Greg Brinck, Town of Eaton Sgt. Craig Loos, Eaton Police Department Miguel Aguilar, Town of Erie Josh Mabis, Town of Erie Mazedur Hossain, City of Evans Peter Wysocki, City of Evans Nate Haasis, City of Firestone Bryce Borders, Firestone Police Department Brian Scott, Firestone Police Department Chris Cross, City of Fort Lupton William Carnes, Fort Lupton Police Department Jason Berg, Town of Frederick Jaclynn Streeter, GoNoCo34 TMO Steven Younkin, City of Greeley WSP Tim Adams Lauren Brown Kevin Carder lzzy Gunderson Bryce Lange, Town of Hudson Brandon Torrez, Town of Johnstown Mark Gray, Town of Keenesburg Jim Jensen, Keenesburg Police Department Stacy Brown, Town of Kersey Sgt. Justin Williamson, Lorimer County Sheriff's Office Sonya Thornton, Town of Lochbuie Cammie Edson, City of Longmont Steff Hedenkamp Austin Rose Le Zhang Kalie Fallon, City of Longmont Dave Matthews, Town of Mead Mykayla Marek, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Troy Renken, Town of Platteville Shani Porter, Town of Severance Richard Werner, Upstate Colorado Cathy Hoover, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment Ulteig Myron Flora Bryan Erickson Araceli Gonzalez Abdullah Kurkcu Luke Sa ba la Kelly Martinez, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment Omar Herrera, Town of Windsor Scott Pearson, Town of Windsor Brian Rowe, Town of Windsor Sgt. Jared Paul, Windsor Police Department Board of County Commissioners Scott James, Pro-Tem, District 2 (Seated -Left) Lynette Peppier, District 3 (Standing -Left) Perry Buck, Chair, At -Large (Seated -Center) Jason Maxey, District 1 (Standing -Right) Kevin Ross, At -Large (Seated -Right) Executive Summary Weld County, one of Colorado's original 17 counties, is the largest county in northeastern Colorado. Weld County has over 5,800 miles of roadway (of which the county maintains a little over 2,800 miles) providing access to 4,017 square miles of land. Weld County is a hub for agriculture and home to the University of Northern Colorado, located in its county seat, Greeley. Weld County's Safety Action Plan aims to create safer speeds, safer roads, and safer people for everyone who works, studies, and plays in Weld County. Safer Speeds: Reducing speeds across Weld County is a crucial factor, as it is often the deciding factor that separates fatal and serious injury crashes from minor injury or property damage. The plan includes several strategies to reduce speeds, such as traffic calming devices, lane reconfiguration, and speed management strategies. Safer Roads: These strategies are intended to make Weld County's roadways safer and more accessible to people of all ages and abilities. These strategies include enhancing delineation at the center and edges of the roadway and other measures that improve infrastructure on and along the roadway. Safer People: The plan includes several strategies to make Weld County safer for drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. These strategies include traffic safety education, enhanced police enforcement, and additional outreach efforts. The goal of the Weld County Safety Action Plan is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes across the county's roadway network, with a specific target of reducing such crashes on unincorporated Weld County roads by 25% per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) by 2045. Since Weld County only has authority over county -maintained facilities, it is recommended that the incorporated jurisdictions included in this plan establish their own targets aligned with the broader goal of reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. Meaning Average Daily Traffic Benefit -to -Cost Ratio Better Utilizing Investments to leverage Development Center for Disease Control and Prevention Colorado Department of Transportation County Health Rankings and Roadmaps Capital Improvement Plan Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Dynamic Curve Warning System Department of Local Affairs Denver Regional Council of Governments Entering Average Daily Traffic Flashing Yellow Arrow Federal Highway Administration Great Outdoors Colorado High Injury Intersection High Injury Network High Risk Network High Friction Surface Treatment Highway Safety Improvement Program Intersection Control Evaluation Intersection Conflict Warning System Infrastructure for Rebuilding America Killed or Seriously Injured Leading Pedestrian Interval LRSP MOST MUT MUTCD MPDG MPH MVMT NFRMPO NHTSA PCN PHB RCUT ROW RRFB RSA SAP SMP STBG STF SRTS SS4A TAP TMO UFR TPR VMT Local Road Safety Plan Motorcycle Operator Safety Training Median U -Turns Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity Miles Per Hour Million Vehicle Miles Traveled N orth Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration Positive Community Norms Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Reduced Collision U -Turns Right -of -Way Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Road Safety Audit Safety Action Plan Speed Management Plan Surface Transportation Block Grant Safety Task Force Safe Routes to Schools Safe Streets and Roads for All Transportation Alternatives Program Transportation Management Organization U pper Front Range Transportation Planning Region Vehicle Miles Traveled Glossary Term ADT BCR BUILD CDC CDOT CHR&R CIP CMAQ DCWS DOLA DRCOG EADT FYA FHWA GOCO HII HIN HRN HFST HSIP ICE ICWS INFRA KSI LPI tits a. OPP t f tab- �4S._ %NC e Why the Safe System Approach? r v0 11 I. I ter, dp air • o 4s Ty.„y- - a Sirs - elves' bit Between 2014 and 2023, Weld County experienced 434 fatal crashes, resulting in 561 lives lost. During this 10 -year period, fatalities peaked in 2017 before beginning to decline; however, that trend has begun to reverse, with 2023 experiencing the same level of fatal crashes as six years prior. Why the Safe System Approach? Fatal crashes are the most impactful type of crash. The impact caused by the loss of life on Weld County's roadways is astronomical; according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Weld County's roadway fatalities equate to a societal impact of approximately $6.4 billion dollars. The Safe System Approach addresses the most impactful crashes. This approach prioritizes policies and practices to ensure that human error will not result in a crash causing a traffic fatality. a) 0 a O it C U- C 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 It should be noted that interstates, highways, and streets within Ault, Berthoud, Brighton, Garden City, Grover, Johnstown, Lochbuie, New Raymer, Northglenn, and Windsor are not part of the Weld County Safety Action Plan. Additionally, Erie, Greeley, Kersey, Longmont, Nunn, and Timnath are completing or have completed their own Safety Action Plans. Fatal Crashes by Year in Weld County 44 41 4 _ 53 50 53 44 36 30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 2021 2022 2023 TIMNATH WINDS (x) BERTH 4 k MEAD PLATJEVILLE LONGMONT FIRESTONE r� L FREDERICK FORT LUPTON DACoNO ,ir? BRIGHTON NORTHGLENN _ XLQGHBUIE THORNTON t GR a VER Weld County Fatal Traffic Crashes KEENESBURG r NEW,RAYMER 41 - Legend Traffic Fatalities Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles 12 CHAPTER 1 • WHY THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH? 13 What is the Safe System Approach? The Safe System Approach is a global traffic safety initiative that originated in Sweden in the late 1990s and is now endorsed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The core principle of Vision Zero is the belief that all traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable and that no loss of life is acceptable. The goal of Vision Zero is to create a transportation system that prioritizes safety above all else, using data -driven analysis to identify the root causes of traffic crashes and addressing them with comprehensive strategies rooted in a Safe System Approach. The Safe System Approach is a comprehensive strategy for managing road safety that is closely aligned with Vision Zero principles; the goal of the Safe System Approach is to create a transportation system that is forgiving of human error and does not rely on individual road users to be perfect. Instead, the approach recognizes that people will make mistakes and that the transportation system must be designed to the extent possible to protect the road user from the consequences of those mistakes. Traditional Approach Traffic deaths are INEVITABLE PERFECT human behavior Prevent COLLISIONS INDIVIDUAL responsibility Saving lives is EXPENSIVE VS Safe System Approach Traffic deaths are PREVENTABLE Integrate HUMAN FAILING in approach Prevent FATAL and SEVERE CRASHES SYSTEMS approach Saving lives is NOT EXPENSIVE a a z cx • Q ere .N The Safe System Approach is based on six foundational principles*: DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES ARE UNACCEPTABLE: A Safe System Approach prioritizes the elimination of crashes that result in death and serious injuries. HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES: People will inevitably make mistakes and decisions that can lead or contribute to crashes, but the transportation system can be designed and operated to accommodate certain types and levels of human mistakes and avoid death and serious injuries when a crash occurs. HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE: Human bodies have physical limits for tolerating crash forces before death or serious injury occurs; therefore, it is critical to design and operate a transportation system that is human -centric and accommodates physical human vulnerabilities. so• ous Injury is ur c/cc@ • I,► Post -Crash Care • Safe Vehicles The SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH to Reducing Traffic Deaths Safe Roads e S'oo"siY bilit is shot RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED: All stakeholders including government at all levels, industry, non-profit/advocacy, researchers, and the • public —are vital to preventing fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways. co • Safe Speeds • Q) SAFETY IS PROACTIVE: Proactive tools should be used to identify and address safety issues in the transportation system, rather than waiting for crashes to occur and reacting afterwards. REDUNDANCY IS CRUCIAL: Reducing e risks requires that all parts of the transportation system be strengthened, so that if one part fails, ago the other parts still protect people. *Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 14 CHAPTER 1 • WHY THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH? 15 , State of Safety in Weld County County Health Rankings and Roadmaps (CHR&R), a program of the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, draws attention to why there are differences in health within and across communities. This program identifies similar counties to Weld County based on key demographic, social, and economic indicators. Looking at Weld County as compared to peer counties for traffic fatalities, Weld County is in the middle of the pack. County Fatalities per 100,000 People Juab County, Utah 39.0 Morgan County, Utah 20.3 Box Elder County, Utah 19.2 Livingston Parish, Louisiana 19.0 Ascension Parish, Louisiana 18.8 Berkeley County, South Carolina 18.0 Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska 17.0 Weld County, Colorado 16.9 Lexington County, South Carolina 16.4 Lonoke County, Arkansas 16.1 Bryan County, Georgia 15.2 Scott County, Kentucky 14.5 Effingham County, Georgia 14.0 Dorchester County, South Carolina 13.8 Montgomery County, Tennessee 13.2 Faulkner County, Arkansas 13.0 Madison County, Mississippi 12.7 16 et, Ns Coun Rates Acr: U.S. Source: C, for Disea and Prevhti. (CDC), and N. Highway Traffic Administration CHAPTER 1 • WHY THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH? Although Weld County has a higher fatality rate than the state of Colorado overall, many municipalities within the county have a low fatality rate. However, Platteville, Grover, Nunn, Fort Lupton, Mead, Hudson, Ault, and Dacono all experience higher traffic -related fatality rates; these communities are overrepresented due to the proportionally high number of fatal crashes compared to their low populations. Garden City, Gilcrest, Keenesburg, LaSalle, and New Raymer have experienced no traffic deaths on their roadway but can benefit from the Safe System Approach to maintain this trend. Municipality Fatalities per Municipality Fatalities per (Included in Plan) 100,000 People (Excluded in Plan) 100,000 People Platteville Fort Lupton Mead Hudson Dacono Weld County Colorado Pierce Severance Thornton Milliken Eaton Firestone Frederick Evans Gilcrest Keenesburg LaSalle Grover Nunn Ault Weld County Kersey Brighton Colorado Greeley Lochbuie Longmont Northglenn Berthoud Timnath Windsor Johnstown Erie Garden City New Raymer Crash Fatality ' Rates by Jurisdictions within Weld County Source: NHTSA, U.S. Census Bureau CHAPTER 1 • WHY THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH? • C-• _._`, I I� ,l•,� _ 'i 1� ^`. ' A � 3'. -. _ i ' r � - 4':.4 i" ` 'wI A., `' j ` y i �, a - { .} Ltl ..1 `-� — S i 444' �v l'�r,.-,Cti.11 Lit 'oil 1ri♦I va, . r'4 -,n � k t-- p:1. � �1 , • r 7 IT. .� \.. a e �f♦ L ''4..,t, A 11 � � • i5� • 5 1t1 . " a r —}� . `� * tilt • a' ' lie y i. WW ;. 11 �" • ' •' �4.t �4 •'Y� I• I • r a'• IP"4 • `• i *rt. [ . *••••,. ♦ r .. 71... .• f •••• l i e 5 t re l 1 f ji... "...I 1 € •f 1 'R„14. r y. ...'vas,. r41 . ,1% -• 1_L- _r'1 a T:c ' *. 14... r�;`' .1!•p rJr, • t9•- eft'11 ' � • it:iii .4cL' ;,i •-'v..i ,e*:%1 Ix .1. fad `".. .: ti IN}` t` ~,,:Uri % 'MC[� .•lh Iv:I• "{x'3/4 •L II u1' 1I,, IP- r. .:^ •• b• w-. '' m+, t t l'.1 ' t '1 1•, �: •- , i { ,,, .. r! ', }h �. Q., { S . •4 '+1 q • !. i— C i ,-1., - I t • l `_ {.. +::• ^ i•� N ,1 _ 'S� I L'' t' � ... I I L 'r 1 il � \i a 1 Z Y ♦1r i ', 1 � •b. 1•1 ,I e• 1ti, 5. i♦ �! �` a, ". I' t 0 "N. w' ` ▪ ~ 1 1._ �'Ll�+' •+�' + 1� � jti k 1 . 1[• r>L• n- j .st• _y ,rky 4 % i' 1•,, . tf • ` .� ,, ` N 1 i y •5 I . y i:` '\ 4,l-. t-,4-,. `;•414,70 \'.�. ►,I,; P4 . �.1.• t•s • 5L • �`� . # �,a•• 1'p •` • ' L . • L 1 A �yK , T , .{'1 '• •-• • ;- } ; 1'.�i r,Q [Irk ; 14 i I• is-, krla .l r i 4.. `loll%• �77, µMy, • 4.10 P4..,•••1 ; • ,♦ }j .yip y �� • I t � !011,1 ' b.• t• " 1 ► \ a r'0*...*.i• .� .•L • .... 4 \ fin'. I ••1 L ! Q' -I 1 •, f WI ` r I li•I 11• ,1` **,e j I � , ,,' , I � �� t 1 1' I • , I t •t � •I . h ' • • i iL ., • ' ft • i t` } . P .. � f i ( L ` I' C ' .` YI • .) Il . •Y se .1 •!s �w / t(C T � 1. y f •1.1• ' -. i n 4- 1 .y —, 1 II I••(.` 5 • . 7 4 I}.. }% tii:.' 4�� ,, 1 1 •,40 ,t f' 1� , 41 11 •ill I. 4 i I I, .. �. `1M � •j1 I 1 •.y • 1 .l . Z. :l . L m{ •Vt.. y .., / a• >\..� � �. �{ I'•- 1'4'1.4♦ Kt' 7` 1! .:< .} i. 1 i1 i• • i U. Y -!}• V \ 1' t 1 11. �' - 411 j1,'� ';.,1► Al i.. kl. • • k 1 ` a• V : ., } 1.• 1 < , . 5 ' . 4•• . 1 •. 't L41• f 1 I j l . 1 I Ir ; • ,• .I, s'5: ! t y• i1. +t •.l J. 1• .0 .I' q^ a I • '11 •111p • t ti a\�. ✓<�. '1 I !'t' 1 '• : `,�`�}77 yet. • �s i4 (,.• . - . I X1. ' _ • a4i1; • 1 i 4 t •1 •. q -y III —. 1V -1;I i. Y!± I I. �� ,f. 1 1,+_•. b. b.. ,rte,≤'• .•ti'` t Z �` I f � .!-`lilt 1 1L ,1 1. x• i. .t .•1. • I. .�'1 ti • . tit N. , . 1 .L 4.. V•. I i.. •. ♦ i.. 4 ... stiltstilt14 L '.•s •• t•'• y . I a ♦Ir- ..r F ,`•I.. ., i 4•1 a1 . .• t L4 '1 la I •{,t •a ; �J .51 .,1. bIr 1r I to • 1 , 15• • 'r10,r• M • ... v • • • a • 1 sourc .r 1N0 ♦ 671/ 444444 As a part of the plan development pro ss, Weld County w• ted to draw on th= -x•res of other municipalities (regionally a nationally) activel king steps to redu* - f and serious injury crashes and understa hat best practices e working within the• communities. Weld County wanted to revie fisting local, re jowl( ate, and national • s to see the strengths within their plans and pole • -land where they ha y► opportunities for im ' ements. This revi • ewlooked at safety initia ' -s in Weld County, th olorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the North Front Ran • - i etropolitan Plannin - rganization (NFRMPO), the Denver Regional �` ouncil of Governments. i 'COG), and the Up _er., ront Range Transportation Planning Region (UFR TPR); additionally, t review identified exist g safety targets and performance measures, safety issues, and fu frig opportunities. The • ings of both theme y action plans review and the policies and plans reviews are found in pendix A. 20 •4 i.• J It• T ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 1 • WHY THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH? 21 1 • t • • • S r S J CreSafer Streets ma wed car*. NIrh'd WITMACIKWRAlle (MS Response Creating Safer Streets fw' Weld Coun MIfQUESTIONS' NM PIS d Jig flint I 2 59 • e -- topics �t + oubelieveec�ch�f�ef�vl'nWIr7�' detS se marke Mint where �dou belie being each o theS t r� riportorit usingtcnkt � /ravkad �b,yv�htb�9 �r�yi Pieta ,Sti Mr hest to +f � 3 4 ed i �► Safer People Focuses on educating road users and enforcing laws /ql Safer Roads Focuses on designing and maintaining safer rood infrastructure riczkitalvI AP Safer Vehicles Focuses an vehicle SQfe�''ra'iatig ana stanch' S eft res OS% Safer S Peeds ocuSea ss on se _ciS to ra OCIinn AD A1/4 Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Public engagement is the cornerstone of the foundation of the Weld County Safety Action Plan, guiding the plan's development and providing community input to define long-term success. The work to meaningfully engage with members of the public and stakeholders was an ongoing effort during the course of the Weld Safe Streets project, informed by the team's data analysis and structured to best support the development of the action plan. This planning effort provided multiple opportunities for interactions with members of the public and stakeholders, which helped to build a positive community of support for developing safety -focused solutions. Weld County worked directly with residents, businesses, community partners, and stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding of current perceptions and expectations associated with transportation safety for the county. Weld County includes 32 incorporated communities and 21 unincorporated communities, and the Weld Safe Streets project developed a Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Plan to engage these different audiences using a variety of outreach and engagement strategies to share key messages and gather feedback. Appendix B includes a dedicated section detailing the project team's comprehensive public outreach and feedback collection efforts. 2024 OCT NOV DEC 2025 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY J U N Data Analysis ��Safety Task Force Meetings Board of County Commissioners Meetings talk • I JUL Action Plan Development Submit to Board of County Commissioners Website Launch AUG I SEP OCT Pop -Up ,a, Public Open Events House Meetings Safety Action Plan Timeline 24 raw - CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION 25 hscr Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Plan The Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Plan outlines how Weld County and the project team conducted public outreach and collected feedback for the Weld Safe Streets project. This plan outlined Weld County's strategic approach to involve members of the public and other stakeholders throughout the Safety Action Plan (SAP) development process, detailing the project's vision, values, challenges, key messages, audiences, outreach tools, and engagement strategies. • I. r,P; r „i •'v.: : "".1r+.Psrt A a. re }• � $ .S' EWi_r it M�q-+=I r t„N�T°�I4Yk wA!^M r""1:41M001 nra Sae owitgureowor treistaing ients'a IS&P %An rot otION wino eciocc toot Ores 1170;e4 et!L"a;r It.�•�' ':'t I Km N % i r rhin.tigersea sise- The Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Plan outlined two engagement types: 'US. "F, Online Engagement: Online Engagement occurred through the Weld Safe Streets webpage (including a quick -poll, an engagement map, and an internal survey for county staff) and social media platforms. - y II t te In -Person Engagement: In -person engagement events included Safety Task Force meetings, pop-up events, and open houses. 26 CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION 27 Online Engagement The Weld Safe Streets team developed a project website that allowed the public and internal and external stakeholders to find updated information about the project, participate in an online quick poll to share more about priorities, and identify locations of safety concern by category on a countywide map. Respondents could leave geo-mapped comments on the engagement map to share safety concerns related to specific areas. The project team received a total of 708 comments due to its online engagement efforts, including quick poll public comments, engagement map pins, and internal survey comments. Online Comment Type *of Comments Internal Survey 76 Quick Poll 349 Engagement Map Total 708 28 J O HNq�STOW N BERTH UQ' � , GILCRESTt (MILLIKEN t ►'Mif O EAD PLATTEVILLE rm��,; v �, LONGMONT _w YW 1:1E_ FIRESTONE FREDERICK_' -� ERIE '-�o -o- rii frArNOD o FORT LUPTON o BRIGHTON NORTHGLENN a1 L`OtCHBUIE THORNTON KEENESBUFl RG NEW RHYMER Comments by Category o Driving Walking Cycling Crossing at Railroad Other Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan N i 10 � Miles SIE CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION 29 In -Person Engagement Safety Task Force The Safety Task Force (STF) played an essential role in the development of the SAP. The STF provided input on the data analysis, public outreach findings, supported the SAP development, and will support the implementation of strategies and activities included in the SAP within their respective roles. To ensure a diverse range of perspectives, the STF included representatives from jurisdictions and governments, community groups, county departments and divisions, as well as county initiatives and programs, and area transportation agencies. STF Organizations: Colorado Department of Transportation City of Dacono Eaton Police Department Town of Erie City of Evans Firestone Police Department City of Fort Lupton Fort Lupton Police Department Town of Frederick City of Greeley GoNoCo34 Transportation Management Organization Town of Johnstown 30 Town of Keenesburg Keenesburg Police Department Town of Kersey Larimer County Sheriff's Office Town of Lochbuie City of Longmont North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Town of Platteville Town of Severance Upstate Colorado Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment Town of Windsor -7tEL CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION 31 Pop-up Events Pop-up events provided opportunities for the project team to engage with the community by meeting them in places where they already planned to be, leveraging existing venues and events like annual gatherings, festivals, and outdoor events. Eight (S) pop -ups were held at existing events between June and August 2025, which collectively drew more than 10,000 attendees. By convening SAP pop -ups at these kinds of existing community events, the project team was able to connect with more members of the public and key stakeholders, and provide more opportunities for community voices to be heard and to share information about how we all play a part in creating safe streets and roads in the county. Participants who visited the project team at the pop-up engagement booths had the opportunity to discuss safety in Weld County and their role in it through dialogue and table -top activities. Similar to the online quick poll, the activities at the pop-up events asked participants to indicate their top five traffic safety concerns and to rank the guiding principles of the Safe System Approach in order of priority by placing dot -shaped stickers onto engagement boards. Pop-up Event Locations a a a • • • • • • • • • • • • 32 June 6th, 2025: Severance Summer Kick-off Concert June 21st, 2025: Frederick in Flight July 4th, 2025: Ft. Lupton Independence Day Celebration July 12th, 2025: Eaton Days a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a July 19th, 2025: LaSalle Days August 2nd, 2025: Dacono Music and Spirits Festival August 5th, 2025: Mead National Night Out August 9th, 2025: Milliken Beef n' Bean Day CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION 33 Open Houses The project team hosted two open houses in Weld County to share more with the public about the project and its importance in creating safer streets and roads. The open houses also provided background on the Safe System Approach and SAP, and progress results related to the safety plan's development (e.g., current trends of fatal and serious injury crashes, public outreach and feedback collection, data analysis results, draft safety countermeasures, strategy recommendations, and more). The open houses featured several engagement activities, including a "dotmocracy where attendees identified priority strategy recommendations, as well as a "gold star voting activity to share which safety countermeasures are most important. Two open houses were hosted in Weld County: one in Firestone in the southern part of the county and one in Greeley to reach key audiences in the central and northern parts of the county. To provide as many opportunities as possible for all residents of the county to provide their comments, a virtual open house was hosted online, which launched the same day as the first open house in Firestone and remained open for two weeks. Comments, prioritized strategy recommendations, and top safety countermeasures were documented from the open houses. CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION She ler GS lam &es Pat la an, Ass Emir pees ie ewe* 11•• Stay 0111•10, . tear .,...... immanymmiteep *mos s, is -- stem, a � nottile ^---- Olt•-.... . ,. -.-..liredireveir fay". aske woeiesehttritettearni t �t CyF#f t�4 4-4 tr. om* Key Takeaways The following were key takeaways from the public outreach and feedback collection process. From Online Engagement: Drivers had concerns especially regarding speeding, street parking reducing visibility, traffic congestion, and unsafe driver behavior. Cyclists were concerned about vehicles speeding, heavy traffic, poor road conditions, and limited visibility. Pedestrians mentioned vehicles speeding and running stop signs, poor visibility and street design, lack of crosswalks and sidewalks, and high traffic and congestion. For railroad crossings, respondents mentioned a lack of safety infrastructure and reports of busier roads due to increased population and growth. The top five traffic safety concerns include Intersection Design, Speeding, Distracted Drivers (Cell Phones), Roadway Design, and Inadequate Road Design. From In -Person Engagement: Speeding and Distracted Driving were the biggest concerns across the county, with 60% of participants selecting these items as top priorities. People were concerned with truck traffic, especially trucks using local and county roads as cut -through routes. The US -85 corridor residents are more concerned about railroad crossings, while the residents in the western areas of the county are more concerned about roadway and intersection designs that may not provide sufficient safety or efficient traffic flow. Residents shared specific information about existing poor or dangerous road conditions by sharing comments in association with the Road Hazards quick -poll item, Participant comments were extremely complimentary of the various county emergency services and management. Overall, people believe vehicles are safe and there is not much they can do to affect that item. Respondents from both online and in -person engagement identified that the top three guiding principles of the Safe System Approach for prioritization include Safer Roads, Safer Speeds and Safer People. 36 @Wek counlyco a la I 7I, tang Wet Wive !Or Voted Carty %\ ,aa.a,Yt.. SI►F�Ty rid AI arcs urea w,fa.of, ._rklealba � .vM wJ�ter-• a -%c 4* -U . -- .was. �.y....n we�•wVa4� .. �:rvu:.�=, �•^ -'. "y•� r - ..-..w. ...., en••• .._.a •� __ 4444--.•••••b .-.s1�.•.�...a»- 4444...-.as...:_.�v.-. _........• w /e+-••• .......... -•• e.._.• • - _-. _ �. w..+ew.+. tee. ..— -.... • �.,.. _„.w{.®,.rte.... •••••••••-••••••••••;Al 4444 .. 4444 �..... 4444 I..-i• *an* -• v.....A...�.... ♦ ... ... a. WM.. h. sr4Mawflra. FWWI. .vai.F.. {�... •.Vi.T.irV ar _-�� Y_ ...to •-••••••••••- �i'.a N.�a\� .a. Y+1.W . . ....r •. \V'. •.Y..\ ... • �.a... ad.11e.. a,.. -� ... saves •••••••••••0••••••••••••••••=1:4R u _ Aalaa\CnN...O... a' u..Yaci•Sa.•. wa a ssl.•....a••••% • '1.• 0- �. mac- -. ' a•vl. Ilk •• 4444 _• — �— '�— wwaaWa.-•.w..Ma1M.•n.Wa`i v Yli\6 4Y \.aN.0 as.la...'. ♦ .. •...1 u♦ - �� \.aMM.n hy.a_{rMJ. a .....1� l�.! 114•.•••4••HM1.al.%la• MMaY•)YM•..•••M••• _�- di 1441• 4444 •..a. r. .w` _� �V1.�N.f�b tv..\V wa.•.iu.r.wi VMvl.) • a..a.,v.aa.{ .w ✓.sR••.-♦.a Y IMWM •{••.X\ ><. • Y aa•{s•a{•M- lCa\aY.•l.\w� - a '. • _ tea! x• It{"N•{i�`r`•�.+ .. •e.• h_1...n...•aa ..aa'.O a .al r.. a.. �— �. h'�PF1•iq• _ r. oxa�r �a-v..w.a• Moinvt.' •Q4aaul,aJah \y1,.}41haa.h EPA ••19 .a•.}'..\.•N•y1,•n � _� •,••--, �_—Yi •/+tl1l aW AVA �si3a.u• s• av,ta••C•<aYlY.AI+•v. \awwaac.�"a.�`aavw•{y` — ••3o.a--- Vi1l••a• uay a.avr •al NbfrfY{R$o\\{ K, W�YCNM u"At'aal\Ya'ea3 Vs �NM1 — I. - Waleglraratiglealaielgettast II anibnlealit CHAPTER 2 • PUBLIC OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK COLLECTION 37 Data Analysis and Emphasis Areas Weld County is a diverse community with numerous unique attributes, ranging from agricultural farmland to densely populated urban areas. To best understand Weld County's current roadway safety environment, it is essential to examine the county through various lenses, including unincorporated Weld County, jurisdictions covered in the action plan, or the county as a whole. Through the findings of this analysis, which looked at ten years of crash data (2014-2023), focused and data -driven decisions can be applied as guiding support for the implementation of this action plan. Additional data trends can be reviewed in Appendix C. Crash Mapping All Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes, 2014-2023 The primary goal of the safety action plan is to reduce crashes that result in people being killed or seriously injured (KSI) in Weld County. A total of 1,828 crashes have resulted in people being killed or seriously injured, with another 10,882 crashes resulting in non -incapacitating (minor) or possible injuries. Although non -injury crashes (aka PDO crashes) make up three-quarters of crashes in the county, this plan is focused on limiting injury crashes, particularly crashes that result in a fatality or serious injury. Crash Severity Fatal Serious Injury Non -incapacitating Injury Possible Injury Property Damage Only Grand Total # of Crashes 434 1,394 4,023 6,859 44,462 57,172 Jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan All Weld County O AA° A 171 -- AA AO A A O Ma a • Legend Fatal Serious Injury Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan By mapping these crashes, it helps frame what roadways should be prioritized to limit KSI crashes. More than half (55%) of all KSI crashes occur in municipal jurisdictions within Weld County (23% being jurisdictions included within this action plan). In unincorporated Weld County, many KSI crashes occur on state highways, such as US 34 and US 85. #of KSI Crashes 428 819 581 %of KSI Crashes 23% 45% 32% 40 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 41 High Injury Network The High Injury Network CHIN) is a mapping tool to help identify where people are being killed or seriously injured within Weld County. This data -driven approach helps focus on using resources in areas of greatest need. The most recently available ten years of crash data (2014-2023) were used to create the HIN. The HIN (including jurisdictions within the plan and unincorporated Weld County) accounts for 9.5% of the county's total roadway miles, but accounts for 65.0% of all KSI non -intersection related crashes. This shows that on these 426 miles of roadway, KSI crashes are nearly seven times more likely to occur. Category HIN (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HIN (Unincorporated Weld County) # of KSI % of KSI # o / of Rep. Crashes Crashes Roadway Roadway Ratio Miles Miles 143 68.4% 102 304 63.5% 324 HIN (Combined) 447 42 65.0% 426 9.5% 6.8 Legend HIN (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HIN (Unincorporated) Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS N 10 ■ Miles 43 High Injury Intersections High Injury Intersections (HII) are another key mapping tool. Like the HIN, the HII uses 10 years of injury crash data to identify the most dangerous intersections to most effectively allocate county resources and give context to transportation safety problems. Weld County has 13,780 intersections overall, all of which were included in the data analysis for the Weld County Safety Action Plan (SAP). For the purposes of the HII analysis, the plan focuses on 7,674 of the county's intersections in two specific categories: 01 5,052 in jurisdictions in action plan 2,622 in unincorporated Weld County HII locations shown below have the highest concentration of intersection crashes in the county. For the purposes of the SAP, the top 100 intersections within the county (50 within jurisdictions in action plan and 50 in unincorporated Weld County) comprise the HII and account for 345 KSI crashes, or 59.1% of KSI crashes within these two categories. These 100 intersections represent 1.3% of the 7,674 intersections in the plan and just 0.7% of all 13,780 intersections in the entire county. # of %of # of %of Rep. KSI KSI Intersections Intersections Ratio Crashes Crashes HII (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HII (Unincorporated Weld County) HII (Combined) 44 r� 1 V :I . • • ..... mom miram .2.• w v i PPLuria,11. 1"-ariE� Mee ringros AEI � 9 da. tips sk. EA, III■._ -�■�e .m . ME■ EPA • • ■M■ Legend HII (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HII (Unincorporated) Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 10 ■ Miles 45 High Risk Network Both the HIN and HI' are based on historical crash data, which is very useful in addressing existing problems where data is available. Since we know that KSI crashes account for a small share of total vehicle interactions, and near misses are rarely reported/recorded, some of the roadways most likely to experience a KSI crash may not be represented in the HIN and HII data. Therefore, the High Risk Network (HRN) can be used to identify streets where KSI crashes are likely to occur, based on existing attributes such as the number of lanes, traffic volumes, roadway functional classes, and speed limits. En 46 Legend HRN (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HRN (Unincorporated) Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS N 10 ■ Miles 47 Emphasis Areas The Weld County Safety Action Plan Task Force selected four emphasis areas based on findings in the data analysis. Emphasis areas provide an opportunity to take a deeper look at potential issues that the action plan aims to identify and address. These emphasis areas include: 48 alb BEHAVIORAL: ar Impaired S. Distracted Driving, Speeding t&jj Pi* ENVIRONMENTAL: Land Use Context, Road Hazards INFRASTRUCTURE: Lighting, Intersection S. Roadway Design MODES OF TRAVEL: Vehicle Types, Vulnerable Road Users EMPHASIS AREAS BEHAVIORAL Examining behavioral factors like impaired driving, distracted driving, and speeding are important to dissecting the root causes of many fatal and serious injury crashes. Understanding unsafe behaviors such as these directly influence roadway safety and help identify where enforcement, education, and policy efforts should be focused. ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental factors such as land use context and road hazards play a significant role in roadway safety by shaping how drivers interact with the built environment. Vehicles in rural areas face different safety challenges compared to those in urban settings. Contextualizing land use and exploring hazards better informs what makes a roadway less safe. INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure elements, such as lighting, intersection design, and roadway design, directly impact how safely and efficiently traffic moves. Analyzing design factors, such as intersection geometry and roadway type, are essential for identifying safety issues and implementing solutions that reduce conflicts and improve traffic flow. MODES OF TRAVEL Different travel modes, such as walking, biking, or driving various types of vehicles, present unique safety challenges and vulnerabilities. Vulnerable road users (VRUs), like pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, are at higher risk in crashes due to lack of protection. Understanding how travel mode affects crash outcomes helps guide the development of safer, more inclusive transportation systems. CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 49 of KSI crashes involve a driver who is either preoccupied or distracted by a passenger. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Impaired & Distracted Driving People aren't perfect. Sometimes, they make mistakes and poor decisions — however, they should not have to pay with their lives o r live their lives permanently altered because of a single moment o r choice. Some behaviors may be considered reckless, or even n egligent, and have an outsized impact on KSI crashes. Impairment, the use of alcohol or drugs while traveling, is one of those. Drivers Killed by Impairment No Impairment Suspected Unknown RX Drugs or Medication Illegal Drugs • 2 Alcohol and Drugs 3 1 0 0 10 20 30 Although jurisdictions in action plan and unincorporated Weld County have a similar # of traffic fatalities, unincorporated Weld County has more than double the alcohol related deaths 40 50 60 Unincorporated Weld County Juristiciton in Action Plan 70 Even if someone is unimpaired, the current world is constantly trying to grab everyone's attention away from the road, making distractions another concern for roadway users. Nearly half of all KSI crashes have n o apparent contributing factor. KSI Crashes by Contributing Factor 141 DUI 93 82 Driver Driver Distracted Inexperience 61 60 57 Other Driver Aggressive Emotionally Driving Upset 52 Asleep at the Wheel 42 Driver Unfamiliar with Area 30 Illness 19 Driver Fatigue •S ig 1a le All Weld County Speeding Speeding is often one of the first thoughts that come to mind when considering reckless driving. Crash Likelihood Based on Posted Speed 3.1x 2.5x 1.6x 5.0x .' Jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County ■ 15-25 mph 30-45 mph 50-55 mph III 60-75 mph For roadways with a posted speed limit of 50-55 mph, we see the trend dip; this is due to most roadway facilities with higher speeds having increased safety infrastructure such as medians, separated pedestrian/bicycle paths, access management, and improved shoulders. As speeds increase, the infrastructure present may not be best suited to adequately handle forces due to these speeds as well as having a higher level of traffic volume. 8 in 10 fatal crashes within all Weld County occur on a road with a posted speed limit of 55 mph or higher. The likelihood of fatality increases exponentially with vehicle speed; for every 10 mph increase, the likelihood of a fatality doubles. Speed is such an impactful factor within crashes for several reasons, including: • The higher the speed, the more forceful the crash • The higher the speed, the narrower the field of vision drivers have • As speeds increase, the amount of time drivers have to react decreases • As speeds increase, so do their braking distances (meaning, drivers may be unable to stop in time) This likelihood of fatality increases more sharply for pedestrians. As the speed of a traveling vehicle increases, so does the risk of death in the event of a crash: Hit by a vehicle Hit by a vehicle Hit by a vehicle traveling at: traveling at: traveling at: 0 30 40 MPH MAAAIMAX 10p Risk of Death MPH AlkAAAMan 40" Risk of Death MPH 80" Risk of Death Source :https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management- for-safety/speed-as-a-safety- problem/ 15°k of KSI crashes involve a vehicle going more than 5mph over the posted speed limit. 50 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 51 95% of Weld County is considered unincorporated (rural). Land Use Context Rural and urban areas within the county often differ in various safety challenges due to the differences in infrastructure, road users, and traffic volume. When examining surface area, more than 95% of Weld County is considered unincorporated (rural). Although jurisdictions account for less than 5% of the county's surface area, more than half of KSI crashes occur within a municipal area. While these urban areas are more represented in terms of the number of KSI crashes, rural (unincorporated) crashes are: 2.8x more likely to result in a fatality than urban crashes 1.7x more likely to result in a serious injury than urban crashes. Certain crash types are significantly more represented in rural areas (when compared to urban areas): Overturning crashes are 3.8x times more likely Embankment or Ditch crashes are 3.7x times more likely Fence or Fence Part crashes are 3.2x times more likely -=� Light or Utility Pole crashes are 2.3x times more likely 4(:1 c Sideswipe Opposite Direction crashes are 2.1x more likely Head-on crashes are 1.7x more likely Rural areas will also have more roadway miles at higher post speeds. 81% of injury crashes in unincorporated Weld County occur on roads with a posted speed limit of 55 mph+ compared to roughly 50% for similar crashes in municipal jurisdictions within Weld County. • ti r I Legend Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles 52 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 53 Road Hazards Road hazards are something drivers can't necessarily control, but these things still need to be accounted for when developing safer roadways. Factors like poor weather and roadside obstacles can pose an increased risk to drivers and vulnerable road users alike. Moisture on the road like water, ice, snow, or mud has a larger impact on injury crashes in unincorporated Weld County compared to municipal jurisdictions in the action plan. Unincorporated Weld County Jurisdictions in Action Plan KSI Crashes by Road Condition 87.5% I 12.5% 90.7% 9.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% • Dry Not Dry Roadside obstacles can be many things such as parked cars, animals, construction equipment, or anything else that can find their way onto a road. 9 /0 of injury crashes involve a fixed object in Weld County. • n 4 of fixed objects involve a fence or fence post. •S Lighting Nationally, the number of fatal crashes occurring in daylight versus darkness is approximately the same; however, the nighttime fatality rate is three times the daytime rate because only 25 percent of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) occur at night.' In Weld County, a little more than half of crashes in urban and rural environments happen in daylight; however, rural (unincorporated) Weld County experiences 7.5% more crashes in unlit conditions at night than in jurisdictions in the action plan. 10.7% Jurisdictions in Action Plan FHWA I Lighting 0.2% KSI Crashes by Lighting Condition 57.5% 32.7% Daylight Dark Lighted I I Dawn or Dusk 3.1% 1 • 6.5% Unincorporated Weld County Dark Un-Lighted 0.2% Unknown Crashes in Weld County on dark (lit or unlit)roads are 1.7X more likely to involve a fatal or serious injury. 57.5% 54 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 55 JAL A Half S of all intersection crashes in Weld County occur at less than 1% of total intersections. Jurisdictions in Action Plan Intersection & Roadway Design Intersections are a natural point of conflict for roadway safety. With the complexity of vehicle movements (e.g., crossing paths, merging, diverging), varying control types, and the potential presence of pedestrians, intersections have many things that can contribute to a hazardous crash environment. Typically, urban intersections see more crashes due to higher traffic volume compared to their rural counterparts. For jurisdictions in the action plan and unincorporated Weld County, segments are the primary location of crashes. When considering KSI crashes in Weld County, segments contain the majority of KSI crashes in the action plan. KSI Crashes by Crash Location Intersection Segment Unincorporated Weld County ttak, dos • 'Lave Roadway design plays a crucial role in traffic safety, influencing both the frequency and severity of crashes. Roadway classification, the number of lanes, and other elements such as access management play a vital role in not only lessening the severity of crashes but also limiting them altogether. In Weld County, half of all KSI crashes occur on a state highway. Crashes on principal arterial - other freeway and expressways roadways are 6.5x more likely in all of Weld County and 7.9x more likely in unincorporated Weld County. Although crashes are more likely on these functional class roads, these roadways have higher traffic volumes and are designed to better limit crash severity. KSI Crashes in All Weld County by Roadway Type • State Highway Frontage Road (State Highway) County Road City Street 2.4% 50.4% Crash Likelihood Based on CDOT Roadway Functional Classification 7.9x • n 4 fatal crashes occur on a local road (CDOT classification). 2.7x 1.3x 2.7x 5.2x 3.3x 2.7x 1.8x 1.2x 4.2x 5.6x 5.3x 1 2.8x 7 1.6x 2.3x 4.9x 4.3x 6.5x Unincorporated Jurisdictions in Weld County Action Plan Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways Principal Arterial - Other ■ Major Collector L i Minor Collector Local All Weld County Minor Arterial 56 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 57 Vehicle Types Different vehicle types impact safety in unique ways. Larger vehicles (like trucks) can lead to more severe crashes as the size and weight can increase damage caused by these vehicles in crashes whereas smaller vehicles (like motorcycles) are at a higher risk of fatalities and serious injuries due to more physical exposure by the driver. Weld County Registered Vehicles (Fiscal Year 2023-2024)* • Passenger (including SUV) • Light Truck (Pickup Truck, Utility Van) ■ Motorcycle ■ Truck/Bus Traitor Farm Equipment Other/Unknown 13.3% 1.3% 2.8% 1.0 11.70/3 23.3% 46.7% *Source: Colorado Department of Revenue Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Annual Report Vehicles type will vary based on geography as well. Rural areas will have more work vehicles like pickup trucks, cargo vans, and farm equipment whereas urban areas will see more passenger vehicles (including SUVs). Looking at specifically heavy trucks, crashes involving a heavy truck make up a small percentage (0.3%) of all crashes within Weld County. Of the 42 crashes involving a heavy truck, 38% resulted in a fatal or serious injury. Unincorporated Weld County Jurisdictions in Action Plan % of KSI Crashes by Vehicle Type 23.2% 9.2% 15.1% 10.7% 0.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% • Passenger Car/van Trucks over 10k/Busses SUV Pickup Truck/Utility Van ■ Motorcycle Unkown/Other Farm Equipment •S li to• Safety equipment usage by vehicle types also varies. Over the last 15 years, Weld County's seatbelt usage has fluctuated. In 2010, Weld County had a usage rate of 84.4% (ranked 11 out of the 25 counties included in the survey), reaching a peak of 89.7% (ranked 5 out 31 counties) in 2018. During this period, Weld County was in the top five counties by seatbelt usage in the entire state for three years (nearly reaching CDOT's 90% threshold for seatbelt usage rate in 2018). However, beginning in 2019, Weld County's seatbelt usage dipped, reaching a low of 71.6% in 2021 (ranked 29 out of 31 counties); between 2019 and 2024, Weld County was ranked in the bottom five counties by seatbelt usage for five out of six years. 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% Weld County Seatbelt Usage (2010-2024) 87.4% 88.0% 85.1% 85.3% 82.2% 81.2% 76.0% 87.7% 89.7% 81.3% 71.6% 80.1% 80.9% 80.6% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Years Weld County in Top 5 Counties by Seatbelt Usage Years Weld County in Bottom 5 Counties by Seatbelt Usage -■-- Weld County Seatbelt Usage -�- Colorado Average Seatbelt Usage Source: CDOT Statewide Seatbelt Survey (2070-2024) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of serious injury or death by up to 65%. Looking at crashes in Weld County by seatbelt usage, a quarter of all serious injury crashes and a third of fatal crashes involved at least one driver with improper or no seatbelt usage. 58 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 59 Vulnerable Road Users Vulnerable road users, made up of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, account for over 21% of all KSI crashes. When we examine transportation mode share in Weld County, vehicle traffic makes up 97% of commute trips but less than 79% of KSI crashes. This means that the other modes of travel in Weld County are far over -represented: Pedestrians are nearly tV 2.0 TIMES as likely to involved in KSI crash a a Bicyclists are nearly 11.2 TIMES as likely to be involved in a KSI crash Motorcyclists are nearly 10.2 TIMES as likely to be involved in a KSI crash For motorcyclists, one contributing factor to this overrepresentation could be low rates of helmet and safety gear usage by motorcyclists, as more than half motorcyclists injured in crashes were not wearing any form of safety gear. Approximately three-quarters of motorcyclists within jurisdictions in the action plan and two-thirds of motorcyclists in unincorporated Weld County were not wearing helmets. Currently, Colorado does not have a law requiring riders 18 and over to wear a helmet. Motorcycle helmet usage is estimated to reduce the risk of death for motorcyclists by 42% and the risk of head injury by 69%.2 Although Colorado legally requires all riders (driver or passenger) to use some form of eye protection, 61.2% of urban (jurisdictions in action plan) riders and 55.6% rural riders killed or injured in a crash were not wearing eye protection. 49.0% Motorcyclists Killed or Seriously Injured by Safety Equipment Used 6.1% 22.4% • 6.1% 16.3% Jurisdictions in Action Plan Helmet and Eye Protection Helmet Only Eye Protection Only 51.4% 2 https://pubmed.ncbinlm.nih.gov/18254047/ 1.4% 13.9% Unincorporated Weld County None NA/Unknown 30.6% 2.8% •S'1 ate• s Legend A Pedestrian Cyclist O Motorcyclists j Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan N 0 5 10 Miles 60 CHAPTER 3 • DATA ANALYSIS AND EMPHASIS AREAS 61 SAFETY ACTION MAN rwe-Crass can tea ION Carnity motley Potable` rd Coin tys o,; wetdk' ratat YOUR I. 1rrin Ml�llCt w4lY�wfi lYM lame Yeaerwvy Deatpn I orglinnu $ Ira Jt intersection Do sign Mpinte nutlC o L Work Zonaa roar rtarrfrdv Sc hood hones snadsquote read design Impaired Drivers Truck Tit orMC Motorcyc bits (NS Gespan se Leck of soot ben u109• Toolbox of Safety Countermeasures ' • SAFETY ACTION PLAN Creating Safer Streets for Weld County YCU HAVE QUESTIONS? WE HAVE ANSW EIS! Why a T.Woty Re Con Plan? The Weld Ctealtytetem Mara Pen aseer-koten Weh the ton as. ara end -' to. mapt..n pen d a rbdal m eternaiw W endlra dsttl►ts Mot Irriicln nthinarbiljen—*Rtl+reiptera. atfd apra�wtc.-a, wheatIe a Salety •ctbon ►seat? • say •n ion Place matinee the treat Impertotn tiedelealng tatters le heat and a trtstir-l'edwl' ubdle c3eelaa why slam orahr i. ate p ula r Input WIre is TM $stsl y Actlan Monfort the Mire Crwrity UMW Sclera Plan!cern Iis tend at tnchie* pop* dirldrie fl tkinv in afloat.* •totals Wa ofry owlr p rison wens the whet weelthe tetepy IiE tan Rbe usb.ed %owtot, tb stamM the wraps*. aleateSs. Postbag. ouraa awourei. and Pranssps Ihe1 n'- oat tdrene titan *mann taxi wham inpales lee art out geode. Hove curt the Eosn munt[y g 1 Ipuohrad? adiccisacnrrrnust1 ewtnla Ilk UMW We Mee hart os Weliahy nn4...c yuu ten tto3d mains. +. y rand Ore pkreting Cornna�Mt. °isn M°"`tri Suva2025 SW, wa,s,i Irrelly+ :,, tantom" Saernattoer at »u e. an ajimmthongYMIVTypae l7I TeiW ChWti"41t1 �f�c�DOQ aYnyscyes tmaa.�' Yutoyt arn1. • . to e a Y -x if r I ", i _ -ter ret) ridre-iiitt • e". or - Shove ytAn essa,yes Ono] Ideas WwW.wolds©t.Streets.Co1"!'1 sa�ostraQY f C'14.1%E. �p►W.ki. tltr Coun Weionrarrirnonl The Weld County Safety Action Plan has a toolbox of infrastructure countermeasures, from engineering and design solutions like signage or lane reconfiguration to education campaigns, that raise awareness about safe road behaviors. Audience This toolbox is simple, straightforward, and created for a wide range of users. Although the primary audience is transportation professionals and safety advocates in roles where they have an impact on what projects are implemented within their community (such as members of a Planning or Public Works department), this toolbox was designed to ensure that anyone could pick it up and understand what these countermeasures are, their benefits, and their applications. Weld County has a variety of different contexts that affect which countermeasures are most appropriate for a given situation. This toolbox features 48 countermeasure tools broken into three sections, dividing countermeasures by the appropriate land use areas: All Weld County Countermeasures (Rural -Urban) Jurisdictions in Action Plan Countermeasures (Urban) Unincorporated Countermeasures (Rural) These countermeasures are also labeled with applicable emphasis areas (Behavioral, Environmental, Infrastructure, or Modes of Travel) to help make the transportation network safer and more accessible for all road users, regardless of the cause, location, or preferred travel method. The toolbox can be utilized in conversations around safety, especially in reaching a shared understanding about creating a safer roadway system for all. With this toolbox, Weld County can tailor its approach to specific road user groups, locations, and conditions, ensuring a holistic and effective strategy towards creating safer roads for all users. 64 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 65 Attribute Descriptions Each countermeasure includes the following: Applicable Emphasis Area: Indicator of the primary type of crash the countermeasure is used to combat; however, this does not indicate an exhaustive list of crash types that could benefit from the countermeasure. Name: The title of the countermeasure. Description: 1-2 sentences describing the countermeasure. Crash Reduction Factor: The potential reduction of crashes due to the implementation of a countermeasure for all crash severities and types, with exceptions for roadway lighting, cable median barrier, and all pedestrian and bicycle safety related countermeasures. Cost: The relative cost for the countermeasure. • $ 410k • $$ $10k - $100k • $$$ $100k - $1M • $$$$ $1M+ Traffic Consideration: Traffic considerations are factors (such as roadway geometry, traffic volume, and number of lanes) that help users decide if a countermeasure may be a good fit for a potential area or project; as behavioral countermeasures are not dependent on the existing geometry of the roadway network, general considerations (such as crash history) are the factors considered. 66 :441.0 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 67 All Weld County Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description mi Crash Reduction Cost Factor Traffic Consideration Behavioral Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Mass Media Campaigns Road Safety Audit (RSA) Speed Limit Reduction / Slow Zones Lateral Shift Gateway Signing I Landscaping Mass media campaigns are intensive communication and outreach activities focusing on key topics regarding safety, health, and well-being (such as driving under the influence) that use radio, television, print, social, and other mass media platforms. A RSA is a safety performance review of a roadway segment or interaction by a multidisciplinary team as a part of a project development process; RSAs investigate existing infrastructure, mode use, and other factors. 1. Speed limit reductions, based on context and activity level, reduce crashes by lowering speeds and increasing sign frequency. 2. Slow zones designate lower speeds (15 - 20 mph) in areas with vulnerable populations, like parks, school zones, and neighborhoods. A lateral shift is a shift of an otherwise straight street to reduce motor vehicle speeds, typically though the use of a median island. 7 Gateway signing I landscaping is a way to give warning to motorists entering a denser region of the county from a more rural area. Landscaping can also be used to calm traffic by visually narrowing the roadway. Varies NA 25% NA 30% $$ $$$ $$ $$ See NHTSA Countermeasures That Work: Mass Media Campaigns Can be employed on any type of facility and during any stage of the project development process, including existing facilities that are open to traffic. RSAs conducted during the pre -construction phase can be particularly effective because there is an opportunity to address a number of safety issues. 1. 2. <5,000 ADT Speed limit <= 35 MPH Midblock locations only, preferably near a streetlight Success Story: Lane Reconfigurations in Genesee County (Michigan) A technical study in Genesee County was completed that evaluated more than 140 miles of four -lane roads to identify potential for reduction to three lanes. After analyzing traffic impact, crash history, and other operational features, a ranking of the best candidates for lane reconfigurations was created for easier project identification and prioritization. After implementing several lane reconfiguration projects, the Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission conducted a before -after analysis of 7 project locations over an 11 -year period. Results showed an overall reduction of crashes: • A 32% reduction in head-on crashes • A 58% reduction in left -turn crashes • A 35% reduction in rear -end crashes • A 36% reduction in rear -end left -turn crashes • A 33% reduction in side -swipe same side crashes • A 39% reduction in side -swipe opposite side crashes • A 32% reduction in all non -alcohol and non - deer crashes The space created from the reduced lane can also be used in other ways to improve the roadway like added bike lanes, pedestrian pathways, or parking. Lane reconfiguration can improve safety, calm traffic, and provide better mobility/access for all road users.3 3 rdig.pdf 68 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 69 All Weld County Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Factor Traffic Consideration Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure All -Way Stop Control Conversion Lane Narrowing Lane Reconfiguration Lighting Reduced Left - Turn Conflict Intersections All -way stop control converts either two- way stops or unwarranted signals to four-way stops, reducing wait times and making intersections more predictable. This countermeasure can also serve as a temporary solution for other, more expensive traffic control solutions, such as roundabouts. 70% Lane narrowing shrinks roadway width while keeping the same number of lanes, slowing traffic, shortening pedestrian crossings, and allowing for the reclaimed space to be used for_ on -street parking or for adding bike/pedestrian facilities. 25% Lane reconfigurations reduce the number of lanes, cutting conflict points, crossing distances, and vehicle speeds. In rural areas without sidewalks, increasing the paved shoulder width by removing a travel lane can accommodate non -motorized users. 35% Street lighting improves visibility, especially at intersections, crosswalks, and other high - traffic areas, reducing crashes and enhancing pedestrian safety. Reduced left -turn conflict intersections redesign left turns to reduce crashes and improve safety. Common types include RCUTs (which modifies the cross -street approach) and MUTs (which modifies the major approaches). 20% 35% tl $$ $$ $$$$ <12,000 ADT(each approach) <=2 thru-lanes (each approach) Avoid on truck routes 4 -to -2 thru lanes: <18,000 ADT 6 -to -4 thru lanes: <36,000 ADT History of nighttime crashes Prior condition: stop -controlled or signalized CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES dl�y�T_�e ! �J „ rti ,1 J 1",re• d' Y'4 4 All Weld County Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Factor Traffic Consideration Systemic Infrastructure Crossing Modifications Systemic crossing modifications improve Y p pedestrian safety and accessibility across busy streets with marked crosswalks, lighting, refuge islands, and clear signage. 30% $$ See FHWA STEP Guide, Table 1 Flashing Yellow Infrastructure Arrows (FYA) FYA traffic signals feature a flashing yellow arrow in addition to the standard red, yellow, and green arrows. When illuminated, the FYA allows waiting motorists to make a left-hand turn after yielding to oncoming traffic. FYAs reduces driver confusion when turning. Protected Infrastructure Left -turn Only Phasing Protected left -turn only phasing provides a green arrow for left -turning vehicles while stopping oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians. This phasing improves safety by limiting confusion and limiting traffic conflicts 25% $ See FHWA MUTCD, Chapter 4A.04 40% See FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, Left -Turn Phasing Retroreflective Retroreflective backplates increase the visibility I Infrastructure Backplates of traffic signals; they also alert drivers to 15% $ intersections during power outages. Modern Infrastructure Roundabout 1. Single -lane roundabouts reduce traffic speed, eliminate dangerous angle crashes, and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. 2. Multi -lane roundabouts handle more traffic but have more conflicts than single -lane roundabouts. Turbo roundabouts add dividers to improve safety. i 70% <30,000 EADT <45,000 EADT CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES All Weld County Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description I Crash Reduction Cost Factor Traffic Consideration Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Intersection Conflict Warning System (ICWS) Corridor Access Management Dedicated Turn Lanes (Intersection) / Offset Turn Lanes An ICWS provides warnings to drivers through warning signs and beacons of potential conflicting vehicles approaching an unsignalized intersection. ICWSs can be installed on the major and/or minor approach. Corridor access management reduces driveway density (i.e., the number of entry and exit points along the roadway, including intersections) to reduce trip delay and congestion, facilitate walking and biking, and enhance safety for all modes of transportation. Dedicated turn lanes separate and protect turning vehicles from travel lanes, providing deceleration before a turn and storage of vehicles waiting to turn. Offsetting turn lanes increases visibility these vehicles, especially at locations with higher speeds or where free -flow or permissive movements are possible. 30% 25% 50% $$$ History of angle crashes See FHWA MUTCD for signage and beacon placement guidance Reanalyze access management after substantial land use changes or development, as travel patterns change, and at time of roadway widening or reconstruction. History of rear -end crashes and/or queueing -related issues 74 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 75 Jurisdictions in Action Plan Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Factor Traffic Consideration High -Visibility Behavioral Saturation Patrols Publicized Behavioral Sobriety Checkpoints Behavioral Automated Enforcement Behavioral Integrated Enforcement Intersection Infrastructure Daylighting A saturation patrol consists of law enforcement officers patrolling a specific area looking for impaired drivers; these patrols usually occur at times and locations where impaired -driving crashes commonly occur and should be publicized extensively and conducted regularly. Sobriety checkpoints are highly visible, regularly conducted stops of motorists at predetermined locations to investigate whether motorists are impaired. Stops are conducted per vehicle or at a regular interval (e.g., every third vehicle). Automated enforcement uses cameras to d etect and document traffic violations like red light running and speeding, notifying vehicle owners by mail. Integrated enforcement is a type of high visibility enforcement focused primarily on behavioral activities, such as driving under the influence, speeding, and seat -belt usage, and is seen in both regular traffic enforcement I crash investigations and specialized checkpoints I saturation patrols. Intersection daylighting improves the sight d istance for road users as they enter and navigate an intersection by restricting curbside vehicle parking spaces or clearing of sight d istances leading up to an intersection. Restrictions can be accomplished through the use of pavement markings and flexible guideposts. NA 10% 25% Varies 30% $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ See NHTSA Countermeasures That Work: High -Visibility Saturation Patrols See NHTSA Countermeasures That Work: Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints Data -informed location selection See NHTSA Countermeasures That Work: Integrated Enforcement Intersections with high pedestrian traffic History of crashes due to limited sight distance Success Story: Carmel, Indiana, and the use of roundabouts Carmel, Indiana, took their passion for roadway safety and channeled it into creating a town with more roundabouts than any other city in the U .S. This conversion of intersections into roundabouts lead to a 47% reduction in overall injury crashes. Their circular d esign reduces the likelihood of severe collisions by better managing speed and traffic flow, with roundabouts being well known for their safety and efficiency in managing traffic volumes."' 4 Yes, Carmel's roundabouts have a huge impact in reducing crashes I wthr.com 76 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 77 Jurisdictions in Action Plan Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Factor Traffic Consideration Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Modes of Travel Modes of Travel Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) Raised Medians Mini - Roundabout Raised Crosswalk / Raised Intersection Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) LPIs give pedestrians 3-7 seconds of crossing time before vehicles are given a green light; LPIs increase pedestrian visibility, increase the yielding behavior of motorists, and can provide additional time to cross. Medians separate traffic, reducing head- on collisions and providing safe havens for pedestrians. Raised medians can be used in conjunction with corridor access management strategies (e.g., reducing driveway access points). Mini -roundabouts are smaller, single -lane versions of traditional roundabouts with traversable centers for larger vehicles without requiring additional ROW. Raised crossings improve pedestrian safety and accessibility by slowing traffic and providing a level crossing surface flush with the sidewalk while simultaneously encouraging motorists to yield. Raised crossings can be extended to cover an entire intersection. RRFBs use flashing lights to improve safety at unsignalized crosswalks, especially multilane crossings under 40 mph. 10% 25% 35% 30% 45% $$$$ $$ $$ See Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE)- Leading Pedestrian Interval History of head-on and angle collisions <20,000 EADT (see FHWA STEP Guide, Table 1) (see FHWA STEP Guide, Table]) CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Jurisdictions in Action Plan Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Traffic Consideration Factor Modes of Travel Modes of Travel Modes of Travel Modes of Travel Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) High Visibility Crosswalk Bicycle Lanes Curb Extensions PHBs use flashing lights to improve driver yielding to pedestrians at unsignalized crossings, especially on higher -speed roadways. High visibility crosswalks create a visible place for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross using a combination of high visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions, advance pavement markings/signs, curb extensions, and lighting. Bicycle lanes make cycling safer and more comfortable by separating cyclists from traffic and pedestrian facilities using paint or physical barriers. Curb extensions and bulb -outs shorten crossing distances, improve visibility, and reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway. Curbs can be extended at midblock crossings or at intersections. 55% 40% 45% 30% $$$ $$ $$ $$ (see FHWA STEP Guide, Table]) Areas of high pedestrian traffic <6,000 ADT and <35 MPH Avoid at high truck -volume intersections SO CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES $I Unincorporated Weld County Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Traffic Consideration Factor Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Center Line Buffer Area Enhanced Curve Delineation Roadside Design Improvements at Curves Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Rumble Strips 8. Stripes A center line buffer area provides extra space between the two solid center line markings, further separating opposing directions of traffic. The width of the buffer area can range between two to ten feet. Enhanced curve delineation uses a combination of signs and pavement markings to significantly reduce curve crashes, such as chevrons, in -lane curve warning pavement markings, retroreflective strips on signposts, delineators, and dynamic warning signs / chevrons. Roadside design improvements, including the establishment of clear zones, flattening slopes, adding or widening shoulders, or installing roadside barriers, allow for a safe recovery for a motorist who has left the I roadway or to stop safely. A LRSP is a plan that identifies, analyzes, and prioritizes roadway safety improvements on local county roads utilizing public and stakeholder engagement, RSA, data analyses, and more. Rumble strips and stripes (strips that have pavement markings painted over them) alert drivers to lane departure, reducing head-on and run -off -the -road crashes. Rumble strips/stripes can be placed at the center line, edge line, or on the shoulder. 35-90%* 30% 20% 25% 15% kit $$ $$ No -passing zones with adequate ROW History of head-on crashes Existing sideslope and distance to roadside features History of roadway departure, nighttime crashes, or crashes during inclement weather History of lane departure crashes Can be in both passing and no passing zones wherever an agency has identified risk factors (such as lane width, shoulder width, median type, horizontal curvature, or crash history) Countermeasures in Action Washington County (Kansas) Curves A study was performed in Washington County, Kansas, to address additional signing on curves to increase roadway curve visibility and safety. Through this study, improvements to existing and new signage were suggested as well as adjustments to advisory speeds to reduce crash volume and limit lane departures. 82 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 83 Unincorporated Weld County Countermeasures Emphasis Area Name Description Crash Reduction Cost Traffic Consideration Factor Shoulder Environmental Installation / Widening Installing or widening shoulders provides space for disabled vehicles, maintenance, and other safety activities. Safety edges can be installed on new or widened existing shoulders. 25% $$$ Most Effective When ADTs >1,000 Wider Edge Environmental Lines Wider edge lines improve visibility, reducing roadway departure crashes, especially on rural two-lane highways. Adding center and edge lines where they are missing further improves safety. 35% $$ Applicable to all facility types (e.g., freeways, multilane divided or undivided highways, two lane highways) Commonly installed on rural two-lane highways, particularly those with a history of single -vehicle roadway departure crashes Environmental Clear Zone Clear zones are areas along the roadside that have been cleared of natural materials and debris, compacted, and leveled; the width of a clear zone depends on a variety of factors, including traffic volumes, speeds, slopes, fixed objects, terrain, and other factors that affect risk. 20% Systemic Infrastructure Stop -control Modifications Systemic stop -control modifications improve intersection visibility with advanced warning signs, retroreflective panels, enlarged signs, rumble strips, and cross -traffic warning signs. 25% $$ History of stop -sign running or nighttime crashes Striping Center Roadway striping, in the form of center lines and edge lines, separates the opposing flows of traffic and Infrastructure Lines / Edge Lines indicates the edge of the paved roadway from the shoulder/the adjacent graded materials. 25% $ History of head-on crashes CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 85 Unincorporated Weld County Countermeasures Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Modes of Travel Modes of Travel Approach Rumble Strips Approach rumble strips are transverse rumble strips installed into the pavement ahead of stop -controlled approaches; when crossed by tires, these create a physical vibration and an audible warning that alerts the motorist of the upcoming approach so that they can safely stop in time. 30% $ History of failure to yield and related crashes Dynamic Curve Warning System (DCWS) DCWSs aim to decrease vehicle speeds at a curve by displaying dynamic feedback of vehicle speed to speeding drivers; messaging could be the driver's speed, "SLOW DOWN," or activation of warning devices. Sequential DCWSs are a series of solar -powered, LED - enhanced chevrons installed through a curve. 45% $$-$$$ Applicable at horizontal curve locations History of high-speed and/or roadway departure crashes Cable Median Barrier Cable median barriers protect against fixed roadside hazards, reducing fatal and serious crashes. 25% $$$ History of median crossover or head-on collisions Safety Edge Safety edges provide a smooth transition between paved roadway and shoulders, preventing tire damage and vehicle loss of control while increasing pavement durability. 0.25 $$$ Curb-less/guardrail-less roadways High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) A HFST is a layer of specialized aggregate locked onto the roadway surface that improves the friction capability for vehicles and should be used at interchange ramps, horizontal curves, intersections, and locations with high -friction demand. History of run-off road, 45% $$ inclement weather, and/or motorcycle crashes 86 CHAPTER 4 • TOOLBOX OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES 87 Action Steps and Recommendations This Safety Action Plan is a response to the lives lost or forever altered in Weld County due to preventable, traffic -related incidents; the SAP presents a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to guide communities towards safer roads for all users. The following recommendations are based on discussions with the project team, the Safety Task Force, community priorities, and a review of the county's current policies, programs, and processes related to transportation safety. This set of recommendations spans three crucial principles based on the Safe Systems Approach: Safer Speeds Safer Speeds will explore measures to curtail excessive speeds, a key contributor to the severity of traffic collisions. Safer Roads Safer Roads will underscore the need for well - designed infrastructure that accommodates diverse modes of travel. Safer People Safer People will tackle education and awareness, fostering a culture of shared responsibility among all road users. 90 CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91 Structure ofRecommendations Name: The title of the recommendation. Recommendation: 1-2 sentences describing the action recommended. Justification: 1-2 sentences providing further description and justification. Cost: The relative cost associated with the recommendation. (-) Not Applicable. ($) Implementable with current staff; minor training and limited costs for equipment or facilities may be necessary. ($$) Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity. Timeline: Relative time frame associated with the descriptions; all timeframes were kept under 5 years to account for (1) the urgency of eliminating traffic fatalities and (2) the plan is anticipated to be updated every 3-5 years and timelines updated. i Timeline Description Short-term Complete in 6 months - 2 years Long-term Complete in 2 - 5 years Ongoing Start within 1 year with no end date Safe System: The applicable component of the Safe System Approach; these recommendations focus on Safer Speeds, Safer Roads, and Safer People, as these are the parts of the transportation network that Weld County can have the most impact on. Emphasis Area: The emphasis area(s) that the recommendation is targeting for safety improvements. Behavioral: Impaired & Distracted Driving, Speeding Environmental: Land Use Context, Road Hazards Infrastructure: Lighting, Intersection & Roadway Design Modes of Travel: Vehicle Types, Vulnerable Road Users Urban/Rural/Both: The land use context that the recommendation is suited for. 92 CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 93 01P4 Safer Speeds Dynamic Screed Display/Feedback Signs /01%.) . . Expand deployment of speed feedback signs (temporary/mobile or permanent) in locations determined through a data -driven process, targeting locations with high rates of speed -related crashes, a high rate of prevailing speeds, a high number of pedestrian and bicycle users, and based on public input. Speed feedback signs dynamically show the driver's speed alongside the posted speed limits and have been shown to slow overall speeds where deployed. They also can help to educate drivers on the importance of safe speeds. Speed Management Plan Develop a Speed ,. ! nagement Plan for county roads. Key elements of the speed management plan should include (1) system -wide speed data collection and analysis, (2) review of statutory speed limits, (3) traffic calming strategies, and (4) public education and awareness. A Speed Management Plan (SMP) systematically reviews posted statutory speed limits and actual prevailing driver speeds across an entire county. SMPs also include a review of policies used in setting speed limits and making recommendations to change speed limits in specific locations, identifying speed management areas, and designating areas for traffic calming implementation. FHWA provides guidance on creating plans and other resources. CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ■1111■ Safer Roads CIP Project Identification and Prioritization .. v Develop .,, . e ocu-. _ er lter , v and app t f i p , }� for transportation project identification and prioritization a , p p J part of each capital improvement plan update. The criteria should include fatal and serious injury crash reductions. Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) outline their infrastructure rimprovements over the next period. plannedn i p d. ♦ E The CIPprocess provides an opportunity toprioritize ro a p p J that align with a community's safety goals. g y 96 Safety Lighting Action Plan Develop and imp ent t.-.. p p �` ice roadway illumination,, aiming P injuries. 1 r ,�and serious fatalities � u lighting, is a proven c unterr ea impro °i� 7C�a'i safety. Enhanced illumination at rsections pedestrian crossings; and high risk areas creases visibility for all road users, thereby reducing the likelihood of crashes during low -light conditions. FHWA provides guidance and resources for creating plans and overall best practices., Quick -Build Funding Program elop c unsinc proor quick -build or d s..:si, tr ` t> n safety improvements. Include monitoring and data gathering to assess the effectiveness of these projects/ allowing for improvements, replication, or making ore permanent. ►�._ tuick build projects are easily adjustable s® t i p ovements typically utilizing paint, posts, signage, and other widely available, low-cost materials. Exa e of quick -build projects include installing paint -and -p rb extensions at pedestrian crossings and intersection access control e.g. paint -and -post medians) at high conflict intersections. CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 97 Safer Roads Intersection Control Evaluation Policy Ado `s ri intersection Control Eva u (ICE) policy. ICE. reports should be conducted for all intersections in capital improvement projects and for collector and arterial street intersections that are constructs. or reconstructed as part of private development projects. Consider waiving the ICE requirement for improvements tha choose roundabouts from the project's outset. lI_ J II_ .cl . - _ _. , . Implementing an ICE process enables � ._r�I p g � sdiction fr,:st make data driven decisions, consider all viable intersection alternatives, and select cost-effective solutions, ultimately enhancing overall road safety • An IC'r y process evaluates safety, traffic operations, pedestrian ant bicycle access, cost, right-of-way impact, and other factors "t determine the appropriate intersection control type for a ne or reconstructed intersection. 0 Street Design Standards Updates pdate taie Weld Co y , gineering a manual to incorporate Safe systems a esign principles, such as: reducing some of the minimum roadway widths, lane idths, and posted speeds within subdivisions; reducing the minimum design speed requirement to over the posted speed (instead of the current 10 mph) ♦ creasing the level of separation cf pedestrian and bike .__ 9 9 9 9 • incorporating N 6 cilities from vehicle traffic(such as incor oratin.-.. an o p g street shared use path or separated bike lanes instead on -street bike lanes in the "Urban Arterial standard c section); changing the design vehicle for urban streets within subdivisions to an SU-30, except where necessary to accommodate large trucks; and including a wider shoulder width as part of the design standards for rural local roads. Weld County's Engineering and Construction r' nual guides the design, review, and constructio all improvements in the public right-of-way safety - focused revisions to the design standards can help to emphasize a safe systems approach to the design of newly constructed streets and improvements along existing streets. Systemic Lane Departure Mitigation Strategy Wit a rural county road resur _ �g projects, c.�; ider incorporating lane de p J � p � systemic p mitigation countermeasures such as rumble strips, wide edge lines, SafetyEdge, and curve delineation improvements. Develop specific criteria for selecting the appropriate countermeasures based on the existing roadway cross- section, traffic volumes and speeds, and crash history. With all new construction and reconstruction, continue following the. Transportation Plan TP.Policy 1.1.. "Ensure County road facilities are constructed and maintained in accordance with the functional classification plan, as well as adoptedCounty standards in the Weld County Engineering and Construction Guidelines with emphasis on roadway shoulders. Incorporating lane departure mitigation treatments into all capital construction and routine resurfacing projects is a cost-effective way to systematically incorporate these safety countermeasures on ccunty roadways throughout the rural areas of the county. Crash types that are related to lane departures (such as overturning, sideswipes, head-on crashes, and embankment/ ditch crashes) are significantly overrepresented in the county's rural areas. 98 CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 99 ■1111■ Safer Roads Road Safety Audits r r r 1 - Include a Roo , e d$with every ,+ In Iu R f $ Audit irnerovement rovement project. Additionally, the county should choose at least one location on the High Injury Network or Highest Risk Network to perform a Road Safety g Audit each year. L. ". .• �� Road Safety Audits follow a formal process _ � a ultidr�cw linergroup that reviews street 7�� p yw safe sects and makes recommendations. Hs:.. of e ekee of RSAs h own up to 60% decrease in crashes where recommendations were implemented. O ;, r 111 __.h© yHI \ t_ ,r.� �• tel: r' II,J Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan 1 L .1 l r J r i A - - . , :. ., Develop a strategic plan for developing c cle and pedestrian friendly ro dwa and y c� trail Weld County. The plan should inventory gaps in sidewalks crossings, multi -use shoulders, and network gaps in trails and bike infrastructure —especially connecting: schools, subdivisions/populated areas, employers, and parks: The plan should develop a prioritized list of potential projer rY` to address these gaps as well as policy recommendation th;:. Hcould improve access to safe walking and bicycling 1 n nn• ,- destrians and bicyclists are over represent +"ous injury crashes compared to other m eld County. A comprehensive plan for impro network connectivity for these active modes of travel can help to address key areas of safety concerns while increasing recreation opportunities and transportation options. O I• I. _ F l , Pi* Fti •S Utilize Appropriate Safety Technoloa �Ir ,ryc'.. e r, ,f hnology-base improvements in roadway c: lvtua section designs. These improvements i. could includeIntersection� .c$ � � ste uld rn lu anst I trig Conflict Warning Systems at intersections or speed reduction notice approaching ersections or curves. t�/ter � D! �. �; r he Weld County Crash data shows 43.7 sous injury crashes happen at 07% of all a ♦ o o. ♦ ♦ intersections in the county. Installation of lows at high - conflict locations can reduce crashes up to 19% (FHW . The judicious use. of ICWS can reduce the number crashes at these locations.. ®'t® •.. O `) LL II 1 100 CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 101 Safer People 102 f cc) CHAPTER 5 • ACTION STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 103 • fr:rwr tr a "star � - • • ire .r. -sus • 1.S'a,- b. s_..- , O • `Yr • .s :10:11t v :}.re m .l a t 4 _ r _` Prioritized Projects Potential safety improvement projects along the High Injury Network, High Injury Intersections, and High Risk Network were identified and prioritized using a data -driven process, drawing on the tools summarized in the Toolbox of Safety Countermeasures. A total of 98 intersections and 267 miles of roadway have been identified as Priority Safety Projects. These projects are intended to offer a broad set of options for the county and the other communities within the Safety Action Plan study area to consider when prioritizing street improvements or pursuing safety -related grant funding. The following pages detail the process used to identify and prioritize these projects, including maps of proposed project locations. A full list of proposed projects with more details can be found in Appendix D. It is important to note that the scope and recommendations for each project are only conceptual recommendations, serving as a starting point for more detailed study during implementation. Project Identification The project identification process involved a high-level review of the High Injury Network, High Injury Intersections, and High Risk Network to select potential safety countermeasures tailored to the specific safety needs and risk factors at each location. Each identified segment and intersection improvement location was categorized under one of the project types listed in the adjacent figures and tables. These project types are drawn from the Toolbox of Safety Countermeasures in Chapter 4 and reflect a planning -level grouping of more specific countermeasures in the toolbox. Throughout this process, the 2014-2023 crash history was referenced to gain a general understanding of crash patterns at each potential project location and to determine which project types would likely be most effective at mitigating those crash patterns. The identified Priority Safety Projects include a broad distribution of different project types, as shown in the map and tables that follow. Proposed Roadway Segment Projects by Type Lane Departure Mitigation Shoulder Installation/Widening Road Safety Audit and Improvements Lane Reconfiguration Speed Management Treatments Median and Access Management 16.4 13.2 10 20 40 60 80 100 Miles of Roadway Segments Proposed Intersection Projects by Type Rural Single -Lane Roundabout Systemic Stop Control Modifications Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout Road Safety Audit and Improvements Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersection Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications Dedicated Turn Lanes Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout Urban Single -Lane Roundabout Intersection Realignment Count of Intersections 106 120 140 CHAPTER 6 • PRIORITIZED PROJECTS 107 Segment Project Types Project Type Crash Estimated No. of Miles of Reduction Cost Projects Projects Factor (Per Mile) Lane Departure Mitigation 25% $150,000 56 131.6 Shoulder Installation Widening 25% $2,000,000 31 93.3 Lane Reconfiguration 35% $700,000 11 13.2 Median and Access Management 25% $3,500,000 3 3.0 Speed Management Treatments 25% $500,000 16 10.0 Road Safety Audit and Improvements Intersection Project Types 20% $3,000,000 6 Project Type Crash Estimated No. of Reduction Cost Projects Factor (Per Location) Rural Single -Lane Roundabout 70% $8,000,000 26 Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout 70% $12,000,000 3 Urban Single -Lane Roundabout 70% $4,000,000 2 Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout 70% $ 6,000,000 11 Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersection 35% $3,000,000 7 Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications 20% $2,500,000 6 Systemic Stop Control Modifications 15% $250,000 25 Intersection Realignment 10% $3,000,000 1 Dedicated Turn Lanes 70% $ 50,000 6 Road Safety Audit and Improvements 25% $1,500,000 11 16.4 Priority Safety Projects by Project Type Legend Project Type O Dedicated Turn Lanes Intersection Realignment Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersection Road Safety Audit and Improvements Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout O Rural Single -Lane Roundabout O Systemic Stop Control Modifications o Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications O Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout Urban Single -Lane Roundabout Project Type Lane Departure Mitigation Lane Reconfiguration Median and Access Management Road Safety Audit and Improvements Shoulder Installation / Widening n lin 't Speed Management Treatments 108 CHAPTER 6 • PRIORITIZED PROJECTS 1O9 Project Prioritization Projects were prioritized based on a two-tier scoring system: 1. A crash severity score was calculated based on the 10 -year total crash counts at each identified project location, scaled based on their severity as follows: • Fatal (K) or serious injury (A) crash = 15 points • Non -incapacitating injury (B) or possible injury crash (C) = 2 points • Non -injury or property damage only crash (O) = 1 point 2. A safety benefit -to -cost ratio (BCR) was calculated for each project based on its planning level -cost estimate and on its 20 -year projected crash reduction benefits, based on the latest USDOT guidance. Next, the percentile ranking of each project's crash severity score and BCR was added together to generate an overall Project Priority Score that ranges from 0 to 200 points. Projects were classified into five roughly equal -sized groups or "Priority Tiers based on their Project Priority Score. This method results in a balance of lower cost or "low -hanging fruit projects as well as higher cost projects that address high -crash locations rising into the top priority tier. Tier 1 projects stand out with an average BCR exceeding 10.0, based solely on anticipated safety benefits. While most Tier 5 projects fall below a BCR of 1.0, this does not mean that they lack value from a safety perspective. Rather, these projects may require greater investment to achieve meaningful safety outcomes, and they may exceed a BCR of 1.0 if other types of benefits are considered, such as advancing economic development, infrastructure rehabilitation, or operational efficiency. The overall BCR of all the identified projects is 2.2, meaning the total safety benefits in terms of potential reduction in fatal and injury crashes outweigh the total cost of all the proposed projects by a factor of 2.2 to 1. Priority Projects by Tier Priority Tier 11O Project Lives Count Saved Serious Benefit -to Injuries Cost Ratio Avoided e i 1IIII NI am whirrilicriS MI CIL' S��ii�iin�w'In normiervirmini -ems dol. . Nis �, 4— r I ll • a 3ilti EMI Pill % Ivor 'lag Its I °NIL sa.ii -"rim .... or r 1 "1 " . ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■. ■i ■�� ova a Priority Projects in Weld County by BCR Tier CHAPTER 6 • PRIORITIZED PROJECTS legend Priority Tier Priority Tier O 1 1 © 2 o 3 3 4 D D D 4 5 5 pp 2 111 Priority Safety Projects by Jurisdiction The Weld County Safety Action Plan covers project prioritization across the entire county. Implementation of the recommended projects will be a shared responsibility among government agencies within Weld County. This section details priority projects according to three agency categories: Weld County, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and other jurisdictions comprising cities and townships within the Weld County Safety Action Plan's study area. It is important to note that the project recommendations shown are conceptual planning -level recommendations only and should undergo further vetting and analysis by the jurisdiction responsible to move toward implementation. Multijurisdictional projects are duplicated across the following maps and tables. For instance, the recommended project at the intersection of Weld County Road 18 and US Highway 85 involves a county -maintained road and a CDOT-maintained highway, and it overlaps with the boundary of the City of Fort Lupton. Therefore, it is included in all three sets of maps and tables. By contrast, the intersection project at Weld County Road 34 and Weld County Road 13 pertains only to Weld County. Weld County Priority Safety Projects The map here shows only the 99 Priority Safety Projects located on roadways which Weld County is responsible for maintaining. Priority Safety Projects by Tier - Weld County Roadways Only Priority Tier 112 Project Lives Count Saved Serious Benefit -to - Injuries Cost Ratio Avoided mow Inel shirib -11 up PLUSi WSW M NE Fa BO Rem■■►\■■■■ai momSEVEN maw r MMA fier■ 1 magma____FT ul i .dittibili _ . MA aim aim NM I an 11111111.11111116.1a 'vs _ sr RE ri _ I _A marpzigram mow CHAPTER 6 • PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Legend Priority Tier 1 2 3 0 4 5 Priority Tier 1 2 3 4 5 113 Priority Safety Projects on State Maintained Highways The map here shows the 124 Priority Safety Projects that are located on roadways which CDOT is responsible for maintaining. Priority Safety Projects by Tier - State -Maintained Highways Only Priority Tier 114 Project Count Lives Saved Serious Injuries Avoided Benefit -to - Cost Ratio Igrall ■ ■A MIR ■■■►i■■■■■ ■� ■�s■s�■n■■■ ie".!s■■■■. I MITI. ma N -a ingasa �■■ w� ■ ■�■■■■■■ 11��■r;■!■■�■■■■ i 1�■t■fi■ilea■ ■ms Ima. _ rir w CHAPTER 6 • PRIORITIZED PROJECTS 1 1 1 Legend Priority Tier 1 ;sr 2 3 4 5 ■ ■ Priority Tier 1 115 Priority Safety Projects in Other Action Plan Jurisdictions The map here shows the 26 Priority Safety Projects that are within or overlap with the boundaries of other jurisdictions covered in the action plan. This includes project recommendations in Dacono, Eaton, Evans, Firestone, Fort Lupton, Frederick, Gilcrest, Hudson, Keenesburg, Kersey, Mead, Milliken, Pierce, Platteville, and Severance. Priority Safety Projects by Tier - Other Action Plan Jurisdictions Only Project Count 116 Lives Saved Serious Benefit -to - Injuries Cost Ratio Avoided a 11.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 0.8 ■ ■ OPERE E Mitt f ■ ■■EINP51 I■■ 11i■MIL ti■■ .is ■■11■■■m■ M■■■■■■ta■■ rIfi 7■Rli■1I■ ire II" rte- 1•r '. ti i. r� ■ta 1a1 a■ice ■ in EN muass • m ■ ■ -11-411010 ■ i • ■1beak 1I:ai:wasto ■ `�11 .. I� �S��■ii�EN ii mein! ■11■a■ ■an •gy .. n.a•inS IR ■■ EN .■ :11VERIIM Nil 1.■iIE___■t■ aril era Irk 'M Y 1 ■ RIK ER= • • ME • CHAPTER 6 • PRIORITIZED PROJECTS Legend Priority Tier 1 2 O 3 4 O 5 Priority Tier 1 3 4 5 117 sr 4:2.1:4101 4.-.«.;.�._.; •r asaa—r ,P Art; CotraL,' -3- `w awls.b t; • -• t.aa . • Atlir s•g~ aka; na.T.rriessetzeansccr rte� p:0 4, I rw• ' elik+• _ !,, LL -'..r.- 't _ 4 :-. ' jl :A4 . y A+yYe� Implementation and Measuring Progress Next Steps This Safety Action Plan is only the beginning of Weld County's efforts in creating safer roads for all. Funding opportunities to support efforts identified in the plan, measures of progress to benchmark and adjust safety efforts, and a data dashboard to communicate key findings and update residents on progress are outlined as next steps moving forward. Funding Opportunities There are several safety -oriented grant programs managed by the NFRMPO, DRCOG, CDOT, and FHWA that can be utilized to execute the strategies and recommendations in the SAP. • Safe Streets for All (SS4A): A Federal DOT multi -layered program that provides grants for Safety Action Plan development (funded this action plan), demonstration projects, and implementation grants to design and construct projects from Safety Action Plans. • Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): Projects selected by CDOT that align with the Colorado Strategic Highway Safety Plan. • Colorado Safe Routes to School (SRTS): Projects selected by a statewide selection advisory committee. In addition to pursuing grants focused on safety, there are other transportation funding opportunities available to support capital improvement initiatives, incorporating safety elements from the SAP where possible. • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. • Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Grants. • Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA): A sub -category in the Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity (MPDG) program. • USDOT Better Utilizing Investments to leverage Development (BUILD). • Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG): A competitive program with flexible funding. This program is allocated through both DRCOG and NFRMPO (project selection is assisted by the Technical Advisory Committee). These grant programs could support the Bike/Pedestrian components of the SAP. • CDOT/NFRMPO Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) • Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Weld County can coordinate through the NFR, UFR, and CDOT Region 4 to find additional opportunities to partner on safety improvements. 12O !Data Dashboard As a part of this planning effort, a data dashboard was developed to show key findings and recommendations; county staff and Weld County residents will use this dashboard to understand safety in the county and make informed decisions. This tool will help Weld County monitor its progress in achieving a 25% reduction in KSI crashes per MVMT by 2045. The reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes will come from implementing recommendations on a short-term and long-term basis, as well as by implementing projects identified through the prioritization process. Weld County staff will update the dashboard annually, as a part of their effort to measure progress. CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 121 Ongoing Measures of Progress The following performance measures, including target actions (countermeasures, recommendations, and prioritized) and outcomes (desired results) are recommended from each of the four emphasis areas. These performance measures were identified and informed through the data analysis and public engagement and outreach feedback. The Target Actions are intended to guide actions in the near/ intermediate term (next five years) with the aim of propelling Weld County toward the Target Outcomes in the longer term, by 2045. Each of the Target Actions for each focus area aim for a 25% reduction in their related KSI crashes per MVMT by 2045, using a five-year rolling average of total KSI crashes.* An annual report on Weld County's progress in reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries will be published on the Weld County site. At least every five years, this Safety Action Plan should be revised and updated, including regularly reviewing progress toward these performance measures and updating them as needed. * Using a five-year rolling average is recommended to control for outliers. To calculate the five-year rolling average for 2045, you would calculate the average number of KSI crashes per year from 2047-2045. =* K • .7.; I• �' a r ♦ Rfi'�r�Rf0:4°. .'�, ° az silt., tt .•If'� :::If4':;:1:1;;OHict#11-C14:1441°F.41-)rair::: 2 ?ge.t'5i:ii •r m l y.. .x. s •sh.4 y 122 ,t' i 'n-1; 3 3 a • • 4 s." _ ' 14'1/4 v. 5? x,f•;, s-' 7 -- Se 14 4 ` A - -" N' -.`-�rail' 4 '''`'• . " -� . V/_-'• h.. .;.'...0•4. t tiltoo.' ▪ -►-• _ - - .l^' i> : "yam. . - .. .VAl• - ••!,,s7.4......„. T \ri..� Via• `__�� .1-` +�y�� Y • 1 `•- .a _211. ant 4'114 a •2 123 CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS Impaired and Distracted Driving (Behavioral) Target Actions: 1. Implement communications and outreach aimed at reducing impaired driving and distracted driving Target Outcome: Reduce KSI Crashes involving impaired and distracted driving by °IMO/ per MVMT by 2045 KSI Crashes Involving Impaired or Distracted Drivers (5 -Year Rolling Average) 3.0 2.5 2.5 v 2.0 to 2 1.5 O to a it 0.5 2.5 ?r. ( Gi)(, ;sr) -"& I\\'', � I I t 1i \'r t/ t i t E5)(f-= c_27/ t' �, ' AS'r'i G3'. 124 VraW CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 125 Speed (Behavioral) Target Actions: 1. Complete speed studies or a Speed Management Plan along all of the High Injury Network and High Risk Network, aiming to identify where speed limits could be lowered based on updated federal guidance and opportunities to implement appropriate safety measures and utilize safety technology 2. Install dynamic speed display I feedback signs (permanent or temporary) 3. Implement communications and outreach aimed at reducing impaired driving and distracted driving. 4. Implement quick -build or permanent traffic calming countermeasures Target Outcome: Reduce KSI Crashes involving speeding by PICO/ per MVMT by 2045 126 t 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 KSI Crashes Involving Speeding in Weld County (5 -Year Rolling Average) sr Historical 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 127 Select Crash Types (Environmental) Looking at the top ten crash types between jurisdictions in the action plan versus unincorporated Weld County, several crash types are overrepresented in unincorporated Weld County (including overturning, embankment or ditch, fence or fence part, light or utility pole, sideswipe opposite direction, and head-on). Target Actions: 1. Update road design standards to align with the Safe System principles, such as reducing roadway/lane width, increasing separation of pedestrian and bike facilities from vehicle traffic, and including wider shoulder widths as a part of the design standards for rural local roads. 2. Implement a systemic lane departure mitigation strategy to reduce risks of lane departure crashes by installing features like rumble strips, wide edge lines, and improved delineation with all roadway projects. 3. Utilize appropriate safety technology and countermeasures targeting overrepresented crash types (e.g., dynamic curve warning systems, center line buffer areas, etc). 4. Assess roadway safety lighting, enhancing roadway illumination in areas with persistent nighttime traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Target Outcome: Reduce KSI Crashes involving overrepresented crash types by "M. 0 j.. per MVMT Nyr by 2045 t s -ten --- a KSI Crashes by Overrepresented Crash Types in Unincorporated Weld County (5 -Year Rolling Average) 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 410rit � y l` 128 srleta".- gew Historical 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 129 County Road Crashes at Segments (Infrastructure) Target Actions: 1. Update road design standards to align with the Safe System principles, such as reducing roadway/lane width, increasing separation of pedestrian and bike facilities from vehicle traffic, and including wider shoulder widths as a part of the design standards for rural local roads 2. Implement a systemic lane departure mitigation strategy to reduce risks of lane departure crashes by installing features like rumble strips, wide edge lines, and improved delineation with all roadway projects. 3. Utilize appropriate safety technology and countermeasures targeting segment crashes (e.g., Local Road Safety Plan, cable median barriers, etc.) Target Outcome: Reduce KSI Crashes on county roads segments (i.e., non -intersection) by pow 85 431:0/5 per MVMT iWr by 2045 130 KSI Crashes on County Road Segments(5-Year Rolling Average) 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.5 to 2 2.0 O v) 1.5 0 1.0 0.5 0.0 orb _� c ON cL9. �"3 �� r �Co rL'� % �� O n�'� �� rb(b rbD` "<0 3� � �� ncb t:\ in A �D4 p� �O �O �O �® �O (O �O9O 90 �O �O �O nO 'O �O �O �O 'O �O �04 p p p p p p p p is Historical 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) - 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) s :t eat • 4,- a Nt� r _ rS - ....••. Arms .- ._...s.._.- M. CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 131 A Seatbelts (Modes of Travel) Target Actions: 1. Implement communications and outreach aimed at increasing countywide seatbelt usage 2. Include a component about the importance of wearing seatbelts in vehicle fleet safety training, distributing educational materials to companies to incorporate into their own fleet vehicle driver training. Target Outcome: Reduce KSI Crashes involving improper or no seatbelt usage by 25010 per MVMT by 2045* lac 3.0 2.5 v 2.0 U) 2 1.5 U 1.0 a 0.5 0.0 KSI Crashes Involving Improper I No Seatbelt Usage (5 -Year Rolling Average) 2.7 1.5 9/ (1:3 ,` p' rg° cbCp cb P' TOtp �o �o r c � �o � �o �o 90 (o �o (o (o r19 (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (yo (o (o 10 �yo �o Historical 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) 5 -Year Rolling Average (KSI) *For this target outcome, a different CDOT dataset was used to determine seatbelt usage in relation to KSI crashes, as the initial dataset (i.e., the dataset used throughout the Safety Action Plan) had omitted seatbelt usage. _.� _ -_ M. c:. _-..� r i+.^^ - R _ �w,�*.� .. _ _ • � — � _ - _-al Slit' — _ s • 1 „ h a a s L _ —_—��•- an. VI {.iy.• - - y CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS VRUs (Modes of Travel) Target Actions: 1. Create a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2. Conduct Road Safety Audits along the High Injury Network and High Risk Network 3. Promote motorcycle rider education 4. Implement a quick -build funding program to support traffic calming countermeasures Target Outcome: Reduce KSI Crashes involving vulnerable road users by 9 c01 n .0 L V per MVMT 2045 by ay 2045 134 KSI Crashes Involving VRUs (5 -Year Rolling Average) O I I . y 1 t :e ill VCi,51I CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 135 Conclusion Over the last year, Weld County has dug deep into ten years of crash data, investigating contributing factors in fatal and serious injury traffic crashes using public input and a data -driven analysis. Public outreach and feedback collection efforts helped identify emphasis areas, which are specific, targeted issues for the action plan to address. These efforts, combined with a plans and policies review at the local, state, and federal level, highlighted what Weld County is already doing and what strategies and policies the county can implement to further efforts in improving safety. Identified strategies and policy improvements were distilled into the toolbox of safety countermeasures and recommendations. Taking it a step further, countermeasures and recommendations (accounting for work already planned or underway through Weld County's Capital Improvement Program) were utilized to identify prioritized projects, targeting areas along the High Injury Network, High Injury Intersections, and High Risk Network. Weld County is and will continue to monitor crash data as the data is received to determine if necessary changes need to be made in the delivery of projects. All of these components together form the Weld County Safety Action Plan, a comprehensive guiding document to help inform decision -makers and provide methods and metrics on how to implement the plan and measure progress in reducing fatal and serious injury crashes on Weld County's roadways. 136 esit% • 0�,C 695 SAFET ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 7 • IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASURING PROGRESS 137 • i Rif Ne, SAFETY ACTION PLAN Appendix A: Best Practices Review Introduction Communities and agencies across the nation are developing Safety Action Plans that meet the requirements of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and implement safety initiatives like Toward Zero Deaths (TZD), Vision Zero (VZ), and Road to Zero (RTZ) with the goal of eliminating all traffic -related fatalities and severe injuries. Weld County is participating in this effort by developing a Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan (SAP). Based on Safe System strategies, the SAP will: Assess current roadway safety issues through the development of high -risk networks (HRNs) and key crash trends Incorporate community and stakeholder input gathered from outreach and engagement Recommend new or revised policies, guidelines, and standards Identify strategies, countermeasures, and implementation actions to mitigate safety i ssues Include next steps for measuring performance and sharing responsibility for safety This memorandum provides a summary understanding and overview of the research process and findings. Appendix A I Best Practices Review Best Practices Literature Review Task Descriptions The research followed a set of tasks described below. Existing Best Practices Document Review The team will follow Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines for the development of the Weld County SAP. The team will review Safety Action Plans for up to five (5) peer communities for information and considerations to be included in the Weld County SAP. In addition, the team will search for relevant literature and best practices from other states, counties, or cities. Emphasis will be placed on sources related to data -driven, analytical, and equitable approaches to safety planning. Key findings of the included literature will be summarized and used to guide the subsequent tasks. Best practices identified across the sources will be distilled and synthesized as recommendations for consideration of changes to existing policies, laws, and ordinances. Plans Review The team will review relevant safety/transportation plans in Colorado and the Weld County area, such as the Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan (STSP), and any local/regional bicycle or pedestrian master plans. The team will also review existing Weld County policies, processes, laws, and ordinances relevant to transportation safety, including but not limited to traffic enforcement, complete streets, traffic calming, crosswalks, project -level safety analysis, etc. An analysis of safety funding programs related to the implementation of safety treatments in the plans, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the Safe Streets and Roads for All, will be reviewed. Relevant information on safety initiatives, safety targets and performance measures, safety issues, legal constraints, and funding opportunities will be included in the summaries. Results of Literature Review Plans Review Findings The literature review encompassed Safety Action Plans from a four -county regional plan in Northwest Ohio; Frederick County, Maryland; Kansas City, Missouri; and Greeley, Colorado. Lessons learned, ideal methodologies, and similar safety analysis techniques can be adapted from these plans to address Weld County's issues effectively. A system wide safety analysis typically starts with an examination of crash data and trends to identify high -risk areas and factors contributing to severe crashes. Community engagement was utilized to gather input from residents and stakeholders. The results from the community 2 Appendix A I Best Practices Review engagement were then used to reevaluate the crash data results. A prioritized project list was formulated based on safety benefits, impact to marginalized communities, and community feedback. Each plan presented methods for implementing and monitoring safety programs and their results. Use of Data in SAP Efforts The data collection and analysis approaches across the Safety Action Plans exhibit striking similarities due to their need to meet SS4A requirements, emphasizing a shared commitment to leveraging detailed crash data, systemic risk analysis, and geographic information systems (GIS) to guide their efforts. These plans implemented a multi -faceted analytical framework that includes: Crash Maps visualizing data and facilitate targeted interventions, including: a. High Injury Network (HIN) and Intersections identifying areas with significant crash concentrations along roadway segments. This approach allows for prioritizing interventions in areas most affected by severe crashes. b. High Risk Network (HRN) extending the analysis by incorporating risk factors identified in the systemic analysis. The HRN approach focuses on understanding where severe crashes are most likely to occur, beyond just where they have historically happened. c. Crash Rate Maps illustrate crash hotspots and help to direct resources more effectively. Crash Summary Statistics focusing on trends, user behaviors, and circumstances contributing to crashes. Systemic Risk Analysis providing a deeper dive into the data, focusing on crash risk factors related to neighborhood context, equity considerations, and physical configuration of roadways. There are differences in what roadways are included in the data sets. The Northwest Ohio plan targets all public roadways except for interstates, interstate ramps, and freeways. The Kansas City analysis is restricted to local access streets, excluding interstates and other access - controlled freeways. However, roads that provide full access but are controlled by MoDOT as part of state jurisdiction, such as MO -1 Highway (NE Antioch Road), are included. Grade - separated highways, such as 1-70 and 1-35, have less direct impact on neighborhood safety and are excluded from the analysis. The Northwest Ohio and Kansas City SAPs prioritize local access streets primarily due to their critical role in daily mobility and the significant safety concerns for all road users. This focus is 3 Appendix A I Best Practices Review driven by equity issues, as data reveals disproportionate impacts of crashes on BIPOC residents and a notable over -representation of individuals in their late 20s and early 30s in Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) crashes. Frederick County and Greeley, on the other hand, collected data from all roads in their jurisdictions, including municipal, county, and state roads. This approach aligns with their emphasis on collaboration with the respective Department of Transportation (DOT) in data gathering and implementation planning. Developing the High Injury Network (HIN) To identify the High Injury Network (HIN), the following data analysis methods were generally employed. Frederick County was an outlier and information about their approach is included below: oe F- a 11 Classification of Crashes: Crashes were classified into categories of fatal, serious injury, and minor injury, and were further divided into intersections or corridor -related crashes. Spatial Analysis and Buffering: A detailed spatial analysis was conducted, linking each crash severity category to the network with specified buffers to ensure comprehensive coverage. This step also facilitated the identification of high -risk areas within the network. Crash Severity Analysis: Each crash -segment pair was aggregated by crash severity and centerline ID to produce a table that counted the number of fatal and serious injury crashes per roadway segment. Network Comparison and HIN/HRN Identification: The table produced from the crash severity analysis was then joined to the original road centerline ID to generate a map illustrating the fatal and serious injury crash rate per centerline mile. The varied methodologies outlined below highlight the importance of a nuanced understanding of local conditions and challenges in developing a HIN. In Northwest Ohio, geolocated crashes were spatially joined to road segments (excluding limited access highways and crashes on limited access highways) within 50 feet of the centerline, creating a record for every intersecting crash -segment pair. Frederick County developed a HIN by dividing county, municipal, and private roads within the Frederick municipal boundary into equal, one -mile segments and counting the number of crashes within each segment. The segments were then color -coded and ranked as "Medium" or "High" based on the total tally of crashes in each segment. Note - they did map the crashes and segments and did not separately count or calculate the percent of crashes or roadway miles. 4 Appendix A I Best Practices Review • Kansas City separated crashes into categories of fatal, serious injury, or minor injury, and further categorized them by intersection or corridor -related incidents. These were joined to the network with a 40 -ft buffer for segments and a 200 -ft buffer for intersections. A point scale was applied based on crash severity, categorizing segments and intersections into four tiers. Greeley developed their HIN using a weighting methodology for crashes. Initially, crashes were categorized based on severity, similar to Kansas City's approach. Additionally, Greeley applied further weighting based on crash type to provide more detail to its network. Table 1 compares the High Injury Network statistics of each jurisdiction reviewed. Three of the four communities had approximately two-thirds of KSI crashes on their High Injury Network; Frederick County did not include a High Injury Network on their plan. Table 1: Comparison of High Injury Network Statistics Jurisdiction % of Severe/KSI Crashes Occur on % of Total Road/Street Miles 63% 8% Northwest Ohio Frederick County, MD Did not include in plan Did not include in plan Greeley, CO 68% 15% Kansas City, MO 68% 13% Trends and Systemic Analysis and Developing the High -Risk Network (HRN) Using the same crash data employed to create the High Injury Network (HIN), additional analysis was conducted to identify human and infrastructure crash factors. The agencies utilized this information during the plan preparation phase and for subsequent project identification and selection. Generally, the plans quantified crashes based on factors such as speed limits, roadway characteristics, driver demographics, proximity to Equity Areas, and the incidence of injuries and fatalities among vulnerable road users. The High -Risk Network (HRN) is designed to pinpoint roadways where fatal and serious injury crashes are likely to occur, considering factors like the number of lanes, traffic volumes, and location within Environmental Justice Areas. Each plan adopts a tailored approach to identifying areas of high crash concentration or risk, reflecting a blend of direct crash data analysis and consideration of roadway and traffic attributes that contribute to safety issues. 5 Appendix A I Best Practices Review • Northwest Ohio combined factors such as speed limits, number of lanes, and land use to develop their HRN. This nearly tripled the miles of roadway in the HIN. • Frederick County does not feature an HRN map on its SS4A website, nor is it mentioned in any related text. In Kansas City and Greeley, the HRN was developed using a risk scoring system derived from systemic analysis and grouped all the roadways based on the scores. This system assesses risk potential based on roadway characteristics, including the location within an Equity Area or along a Bus Route, operational type, functional class, number of lanes, Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), and speed limit. Table 2 compares the High Risk Network statistics of each jurisdiction reviewed. Greeley and Kansas City broke their High Risk Network into different levels of risk, while Northwest Ohio just had one level of High Risk Network. Frederick County did not include a High Risk Network. Table 2: Comparison of High Risk Network Statistics Jurisdiction % of Roads in HRN Northwest Ohio 23% Frederick County, MD Did not include in plan Greeley, CO 9% High, 16% Medium Kansas City, MO 10% High, 8% Higher, 2% Highest Equitable Approaches Equity played a significant role in the criteria and the later selection process to ensure an equitable approach across plans. There are a few base practices used: Utilization of Collision Report Data: The plans utilized police department collision report data to better understand the demographics of persons involved in traffic collisions, acknowledging the need to address inequities in safety datasets. Assessment of Safety Dataset Gaps: A robust assessment of other key gaps in safety datasets is recommended as part of the first update to the plan, indicating a commitment to addressing and rectifying any disparities. Elevation of Community Voices: Community voices are elevated to understand the perception of safety and personal security in the most vulnerable and under -represented communities, ensuring their input is considered in decision -making processes. 6 Appendix A I Best Practices Review 4, Identifying Crash History in Equity Areas: As part of the crash and system analysis, the number and percentages of crashes in equity areas is clearly defined and shown in the plans. 5. Equity as a Factor in High Risk Network: Equity is considered and scored as part of the HRN development. Plans continued to develop the equity area analysis and its use in different ways. Project Selection and Implementation Once HINs/HRNs are determined, the following data -driven approach was employed to identify countermeasures and select projects: ) f1 5 Integration of High Injury Network and Intersections: Projects were formulated by integrating data from the High Injury Network and High Injury Intersections, segmented into coherent projects based on contextual locations. Refinement with High -Risk Network and Public Input Data: Projects underwent further refinement using data from the High -Risk Network and Public Input maps. An iterative process was used to adjust for potential double counting. Linking Countermeasures and Analysis: Proposed countermeasures were linked to each project through high-level planning analysis, allowing for the computation of a safety benefit -to -cost ratio (BCR) to prioritize projects with the most significant potential impacts. All BCR calculations were based on the latest FHWA guidance. Detailed Analysis and Project Recommendations: Each project is detailed with specific recommendations for implementation, serving as a foundation for further analysis and development towards enhancing road safety for all road users. Equity considerations play a significant role in project selection and prioritization, reflecting a commitment to addressing the needs of all community members, especially the most vulnerable. In addition to the data driven approach to safety and countermeasures, various programs and themes are included to prioritize equity in project selection. a Traffic Ticket Diversion Program: Actions are included to create a ticket diversion program specifically for bicyclists and pedestrians, aiming to promote equitable access to safety courses and programs. Partnerships and Outreach Programs: The plan calls for partnerships with community - based organizations and culturally relevant outreach and educational campaigns, demonstrating a commitment to reaching all communities with tailored initiatives. 7 Appendix A I Best Practices Review 3. Emphasis on Engineering, Education, and Enforcement: Engineering and education actions are prioritized first, supported by automated enforcement with consideration for other inequitable impacts such as perpetual surveillance in BIPOC communities and disproportionate impacts of criminal repercussions for unpaid fees. Below is a summary of each plan's selection and implementation: 0 1 Beyond using community engagement and systemic safety analysis to define a HRN that informs the plan's priority actions, the Northwest Ohio SAP mentions using prioritization criteria that highlight areas with roadway, land use, and equity factors that coincide with the most fatal and serious injury. In the Kansas City VZAP, the projects were classified into five groups based on their benefit -to -cost ratio (BCR), with Priority 1 projects exhibiting an average BCR above 5.0 solely from the perspective of safety enhancements. Lower priority projects have a BCR below 1.0 but may still align well with economic development, rehabilitation, or operational objectives. Kansas City's approach also includes a strong emphasis on data -driven analysis to support VZ efforts, combining crash data with public engagement and input from the VZ Task Force. The city outlines specific action steps to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the streets, emphasizing accountability through the identification of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and targets. Frederick County SAP focuses on ten priority actions the county can take to eliminate traffic -related deaths and serious injuries. Some of those actions include increasing impaired driving education and enforcement; building a network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and improving data collection, analysis, and sharing among agencies. Frederick County's additional selection criteria include the extent to which projects provide additional protection for vulnerable road users; the cost effectiveness of improvements; the ability to leverage multiple funding sources; and the equitable distribution of resources, including for rural roads. Frederick County's implementation strategy involves a partnership led by county government with significant input and effort by parties such as the MDOT State Highway Administration, Frederick County Public Schools, Sheriffs Office, as well as community organizations and private sector actors like hospitals and the restaurant/liquor establishment associations. While much of this county's SAP applies to the unincorporated portions of Frederick County, they are mindful that their municipalities have limited capacity to aggressively participate in implementing actions. For this reason, the Frederick County Chapter of the Maryland Municipal 8 Appendix A I Best Practices Review League and its members are critical partners in sharing information and resources to achieve the goal of zero deaths on county roads by 2040. Frederick County applied for and received SS4A grants including approximately $225,000 for support to municipalities seeking to carry out projects that emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety. They have implemented a process for the municipalities to apply to the county for the funds. Greeley includes an Action Plan that addresses the three parts of a safe system; Safe Speeds, Safe Users, and Safe Streets. Each action step is further defined with detailed strategies, a suggested lead implementation department or agency and timelines for implementation. The plan grouped projects based on their BCR, identified potential funding sources, linked programmed projects to SAP recommended countermeasures, and provided a list of early action, low-cost demonstration projects. • Northwest Ohio's SAP outlines several key strategies for implementing and monitoring its VZ initiatives. The plan includes six "Goal Areas" that are essential as part of a holistic effort to make the region's roadways safer for all users. The goal areas are Engineering Practices and Policies; Safety Supportive Practices; Equity; Funding; Education and Awareness; and Evaluation and Accountability. Each goal area is supported by strategies and implementation actions to help the region meet their goal in a tangible way, as well as identify key implementation partners. For some actions, implementation would only occur when and where appropriate based on further analysis, engineering design, and environmental assessment. Other actions may require policy changes in alignment with other agency goals. Monitoring Implementing and monitoring the progress and effectiveness of Safety Action Plans (SAPS) are essential for achieving the objective of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Each reviewed SAP has developed specific strategies for the implementation and ongoing evaluation of their action plans, ensuring that adjustments and improvements can be made based on data and community feedback. In these plans, there is a common emphasis on data -driven approaches for both implementation and monitoring, which ensures that interventions are effectively targeted and adjusted based on performance metrics. Regular reporting and community engagement are also central to the monitoring efforts, fostering transparency and accountability in the pursuit of Vision Zero (VZ) goals. Kansas City, as noted in the implementation section, emphasizes accountability through progress toward Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and targets. Monitoring 9 Appendix A I Best Practices Review progress involves annual recording and reporting of these KPls, with a commitment to transparency and public engagement as integral components of the VZ program. The Vision Zero Task Force continues to meet to monitor progress, city staff uses community meetings and neighborhood associations, and the city's Vision Zero webpage includes information to inform citizens on project progress. The City also pledged to annually record and report the key performance indicators annually on the city's Vision Zero webpage. • Frederick County reports, via a link on its SS4A webpage, on four key performance measures and on the 10 priority actions (strategies), including information on project progress and phasing by two years increments. The Greeley SAP includes a continued reporting requirement in its Action Plan chapter. Northwest Ohio's Goal Area 6 lists four actions for Evaluation and accountability, including maintaining the Safety Task Force, releasing an annual Vision Zero Report, updating the High Priority Network every five years, and partnering with hospitals and trauma centers to improve data sets. Local, Regional, and State Plans Review Findings The review included plans from Weld County, North Front Range (NFR) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Upper Front Range (UFR) Transportation Planning Region (TPR), and the Colorado Department of Transportation. The review focused on Weld County's Transportation Master Plan (TMP) adopted November 9, 2020, and plans from transportation agencies responsible for planning in Weld County. The NFRMPO manages planning for the urbanized areas, while the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region covers unincorporated areas in Larimer and Weld Counties. We examined the NFR 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the NFR Regional Active Transportation Plan, and the UFR 2045 RTP. Statewide plans reviewed included the CDOT 2045 Statewide Transportation Plan (STP) and the 2020-2023 Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan (STSP). The review focused on four main areas: Safety Initiatives Safety Targets and Performance Measures Safety Issues and Legal Constraints Funding Opportunities. 10 Appendix A I Best Practices Review Safety Initiatives Weld County • Does not have an official Zero Deaths initiative • November 2020 - Adopted the 2045 Transportation Master Plan Includes a crash data analysis Top Ten Crash locations • Weld County, as part of this SAP, will adopt an initiative. The TM P's first goal is Safety, with an objective to "develop and maintain a safe, efficient, roadway network." It is worth noting that safety is included in the TMP's mission statement which is, "the purpose of the Weld County 2045 transportation plan is to provide a coordinated county -wide road system that moves people and goods in a safe, economical, and efficient manner." CDOT Adopted a Toward Zero Deaths initiative in 2015. April 2020 - Adopted the STSP Includes a mission statement to eliminate transportation system fatalities and serious i nj u ri es Includes performance targets Includes 15 strategies • Name a Safety Champion to Lead a Proactive Safety Program • Build a Safety Advocacy Coalition • Institutionalize Safety Roles and Responsibilities • Coordinate with Existing Safety Programs • Promote Consistent Safety Messaging • Develop Education Campaigns for High -Risk Behaviors ■ Provide Transportation Safety Education to Students and Families ■ Prioritize Transportation Safety Funding • Prioritize Safety in Transportation Planning, Facility Design, and Project Selection ■ Educate Decision -Makers on the Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Laws ■ Increase Requirements for New and Renewal Driver Licensing ■ Establish a Framework for Streamlining Data Management • Prioritize and Promote Proven Safety Toolbox Strategies • Implement Systemic Infrastructure Safety Improvement Strategies 11 Appendix A I Best Practices Review • Increase Education On and Implementation of Data -Driven and Automated Enforcement • August 2020 - Adopted the 2045 LRTP NFR 0 Includes statements of achieving zero deaths and serious injuries Includes four safety emphasis areas High Risk Behavior Users with Highest Risk Severe Crash Mitigation Programmatic Incorporates and implements the STSP Includes FHWA and FTA Transportation Performance Measures requirements for annually setting data -driven, non-aspirational goals. Adopted Safety Vision: Moving Towards Zero Deaths initiative in 2020. Includes five Action Steps • Continue to prioritize safety in future Calls for Projects • Analyze all available crash data to make more informed decisions for safety related projects • Integrating the Towards Zero Deaths framework in future planning initiatives • Providing regionally specific crash data to compare to statewide crash data when possible • Identifying crash types and characteristics which are most prevalent in the region as well as best practices to mitigate those specific crash types. r} September 2023 - Adopted the 2050 RTP Includes a Safety goal to "Enhance transportation safety and reduce the number of transportation -related fatalities and serious injuries." Includes change in 2023 Call for Projects to "implement a two -tiered approach for safety evaluation by analyzing projects based on crash rates at the project location as well as the implementation of proven safety countermeasures or proactive safety interventions." July 2021 - Adopted the Regional Active Transportation Plan • Reiterates commitment made in Moving Toward Zero Deaths in the 2020 initiative and the 2050 RTP 12 Appendix A I Best Practices Review UFR Their 2045 RTP does not have a Zero Deaths initiative 5 Safety is NOT one of the five focus areas Includes a generic Safety goal "Improve safety throughout the transportation system Safety Targets and Performance Measures As noted above, CDOT and the NFRMPO have requirements for setting safety targets. CDOT used the federal guidelines for establishing their performance measures: N umber of Fatalities Rate of Fatalities per 100 MVMT Number of Serious Injuries Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 MVMT CDOT set a goal in 2023 of reducing fatalities by 15%; this goal was not met. The NFR's safety targets are set annually, using a five-year rolling average. The NFR targets are based on CDOT targets and are a respective subset based on NFR area travel's percentage of the statewide values. The NFR has five safety -related performance measures, and in 2021, values were higher than the five-year rolling average: 0 N umber of Fatalities Rate of Fatalities per 100 MVMT N umber of Serious Injuries Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 MVMT N umber of Non -Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries Weld County did not include safety targets in the TMP. UFR did not include safety targets in the RTP. Safety Issues and Legal Constraints Weld County's TMP includes a crash analysis with mapping of crash locations by intersection and segment. Based on this analysis and improvement potential, it lists the top ten intersections for improvement but does not provide similar information for segments. A review of the mapping indicates that non -intersection -related crashes are distributed throughout the county, with a few roads showing higher crash frequencies. This could be a consideration for determining effective, cost -aligned mitigation during the SAP development as roadways are segmented, crash causes are analyzed, and countermeasures are developed. 13 Appendix A I Best Practices Review The TMP mapping also identifies intersection -related crashes by roadway jurisdictions. Approximately half of these crashes occur at county road/state highway intersections. Coordination with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will be necessary during the SAP process and the implementation plan development since CDOT owns many of the signals and is responsible for setting speed limits. Fifteen municipalities are included in Weld County's SAP, offering a comprehensive view of safety issues and concerns and enhancing community outreach and feedback. Municipalities with their own 5S4A grants from FHWA will not be included in Weld County's recommendations or plan. The municipalities included are: Dacono Eaton Evans Firestone • Fort Lupton (a Frederick Gilcrest Hudson Keenesburg LaSalle 0 Mead Milliken Pierce Platteville Severance Funding Opportunities Each agency involved in transportation within Weld County operates with unique funding streams, requirements, and allocation/selection processes. Agencies that are more closely affiliated with the County generally have greater control and opportunities to secure funds for safety -related improvements and programs that will come from this SAP. The optimal opportunity to obtain funding begins with funds directly collected and allocated by Weld County, followed by those from the North Front Range (NFR) MPO, Upper Front Range (UFR), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and lastly, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). It is noteworthy that the USDOT 554A program, which financed this plan, provides an avenue for Demonstration and Implementation Grants that are allocated directly. Weld County's Master Transportation Plan currently provides a 25 -year list of capital improvement projects. It is important to note that Weld's TMP is not required to be fiscally constrained, meaning the project lists are identified as unfunded and intended to demonstrate Weld County's transportation needs. The 2021-2025 Short -Range Capital Improvement Project List includes 52 projects totaling $215 million. The 2026-2035 Mid -Range Capital Improvement Project List comprises 40 projects valued at $256 million, and the 2036-2045 Long -Range Capital Improvement Project List features 43 projects amounting to $135 million. Overall, the projects listed in the TMP total $606 million. 14 Appendix A I Best Practices Review 3—. ox In 2025, the Weld County Public Works Department will spend $99,798,618, which is $22 million more than the 2024 budget (Figure 1). The focus is on capital improvements projects, with $40 million allocated to Weld's Public Works Department, of which a part is for hiring additional employees and funding these projects. Total PUBLIC WORKS 2 25 EXPENDITURES $99,798,618 (2024 $77,115,128) Bridge Cci .istruct.ion s 0 9 •F 151 'lunicipalil ties $3,591.243 � �a y ��. a� 1 Werner _r maggemerif 73, 696!7 7 a Public Works x-40 3116242 Comisl Row, Msnlgernenr Maintenance 5 upp0d .rs ,888.47.4 $4,171,515 1.2% '• Figure 1: Weld County Public Works 2025 Budgeted Expenditures. Source: Weld County Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2025 Trucking 55,041$ $77 Below are fund types and amounts available by other agencies. Mining 74686,4 b 1 FRy. ,Admintstration $1. 10,057 2% North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization The NFR seeks to achieve a balanced distribution of funds among its 14 member agencies. It is a good idea to examine the NFR's total funding and explore opportunities to access additional funds. Not all funds identified in the NFR 2050 RTP are eligible to be used on SAP projects (Table 3). There is a total of $4,226.8 million in State and NFR Controlled funds, of which $1,242.6 15 Appendix A I Best Practices Review million is flexible. We have identified $399.4 million of these flexible, State and NFR Controlled funds as potential support for the SAP. Table 3: NFR 2050 RTP Plan Funding Sources and Eligibility for Funding Safety Projects NFR 2050 Phan Funds in $1,Ms State Controlled Funding SourceEligible? SW Nan 2! 24x20 0 .2031 2040 2 41-2 50 Highway Safety ety mprove ent Program V 13.1 5.9 5 204 FASTER Safety V 29.0 52!4 643 State Discretionary - RIP Grants V ,1 $ 5.9 715 CDOT - TAP V S 5.4 S 9.4 S 10.4 Maintenance N 85.8 132..8 1470 Surface Treatment N 71.8 115-9 123.5 N 14.3 2.5 24.7 Structures On -System Colorado Bridge Enterprise N 37.6 61.2 62.3 Asset Management - Strategic Projects N 3373 482‘5 4B23 Strategic Projects N 247.8 346.1 336.4 1 Regional Priority Program N 27,8 31,3 1.3 Strategic Transit and Multimodat Projects N 59.9 96..E 96.5 Bustang N $ 2.1 13 $ 3m7 TI:FIA Loans N 137.9 — N FRM'•P0 Controlled Funding Source SS4A Eligible? Plan 2024-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 Surface Treatment Block Gram V S 34.4 S 534 591 Transportation Ahern a tees 3.3 6..1 5.6 M Options u lti recd a Fund L Transportation and Ni i t igation n if $ 73 4M $ - Carbon Reduction Pro grain N 5.9 9L2 s 10.1 Congestion Mitigation a n d Air Quality N 38.4 60 ..4 7 Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region The UFR plan articulates the needs and priorities of the UFR to CDOT and collaborates with CDOT to finance capital improvements. The UFR plan comprises a comprehensive set of 157 projects, amounting to $1.4 billion in future improvements that address the diverse needs and 16 Appendix A I Best Practices Review geographic spread of its area. This list can serve as a foundation for incorporating safety components identified in the SAP. CDOT Figure 2 breaks down CDOT's base budget. Weld County can coordinate through the NFR, UFR, and CDOT Region 4 to find opportunities to partner on safety improvements. 2% 1% Capita Construction $627 8 M a Maintenance and Operations ; $55,3 SUballiocated Programs = $243.6 H A , nitration and Agency Operations = $119.1 Muitimodat Services_ = $69.8 M Debt Se to $81.0 Contingency Reserve si $23,8 M Figure 2: CDOT Statewide Budget Information Other ?pograr' = $27.9 I Grant Programs There are several safety -oriented grant programs managed by the NFRMPO, CDOT, and FHWA that can be utilized to execute the recommendations in the SAP. Safe Streets for All (554A) - A Federal DOT multi -layered program that provides grants for Safety Action Plan development (funded this action plan), demonstration projects, and implementation grants to design and construct projects from Safety Action Plans. Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) - Projects selected by CDOT that align with the Colorado Strategic Highway Safety Plan. o Safe Routes to School (SRTS) - Projects selected by a statewide selection advisory committee. In addition to pursuing grants focused on safety, there are other transportation funding opportunities available to support capital improvement initiatives, incorporating safety elements from the SAP where possible. Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA): A sub -category in the Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity (MPDG) program. 17 Appendix A I Best Practices Review • USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE). NFR Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG): A competitive program with project selection by the NFR MPO, assisted by the Technical Advisory Committee. The funds are flexible. These grant programs could support the Bike/Pedestrian components of the SAP. CDOT/NFRMPO Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) • Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Recommendations The first set of recommendations are those the County should consider while developing the SAP. Adopt a Safety Initiative. Adopting an initiative and implementing it throughout the County organization will help create a county -wide safety culture. • Adopt Safety Goals to Reduce Fatalities and Injuries. The goals should be in line with or exceed those the CDOT and NFRMPO adopted. 1; Develop the High -Risk Network using a risk potential -based scoring system. This system is transparent, should be employed to map high -risk locations, aid in project prioritization, and can be updated. ;rt Do not include access -restricted highways in analysis. These highways are outside Weld's responsibility and do not offer opportunities for Weld to improve safety; this includes sections of 1-25 and 1-76. The second set of recommendations are for consideration as countermeasures and best practice to be included in Weld's safety program. These can be considered individually; however, the approach should be to approach safety with a System Safety Approach and address all the components of a safe system. Include Safety in the Planning and Project Selection Process. Utilize public input as a factor in project selection. This information, coupled with crash data, can help the city address the areas with a crash history as well as those that are perceived as being unsafe. Those perceptions are based on citizens' experiences and can be a harbinger of future crashes. Improve Data and Transparency. Maintain and update a crash dashboard so that the latest crash and roadway data is readily available for analysis and decision -making. Refine and improve the accuracy and utility of crash documentation to enhance the 18 Appendix A I Best Practices Review effectiveness of data -driven interventions and better understand trends in traffic incidents. Develop a Public Facing Dashboard. Incorporating a monitoring and reporting system within the SAP will provide transparency, accountability, and increase safety and understanding. Increase Education and Implement Campaigns. Focusing on partnerships with community organizations and school districts and behaviors of concern can raise awareness and promote safer driving habits in the community. Lead a county wide SS4A grant application. This funding can provide support to municipalities seeking to carry out projects that emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety. Update Design Practices, Guidelines, and Policies. This ensures that future projects incorporate the latest safety standards and best practices. Pursue Additional Funding. Pursue local, regional, state, and federal funding to support these improvements. Look beyond those fund types that are specific to safety (HISPI FASTER Safety) and incorporate safety improvements on projects funded with typical fund types. 19 ttzl‘ coo SAFETY a ! g; 1 ACTION PLAN Appendix B Public Outreach and Feedback Collection WELD COUNTY prioritized public outreach and feedback collection to serve the development of the Safety Action Plan (SAP). The Public Outreach and Feedback Group worked closely with the larger project team to develop a Public Outreach and Feedback Collection Plan (POFCP) outlining effective and accessible strategies and activities for interacting with stakeholders and members of the public. The planning efforts outlined how best to organize and convene community outreach events at what intervals, what types of digital and print materials to create, and what media relations and website content would be most beneficial. All work was coordinated with the Board of County Commissioners, SAP Safety Task Force, county staff, and the project team. The focus of the public outreach and feedback collection efforts was on building connections with the broader community and engaging residents and participating jurisdictions. Feedback collected from public outreach and stakeholder engagement was reviewed and incorporated into the SAP, which assisted the county in developing strategy recommendations and safety countermeasures, as well as identifying priorities for future improvement projects. This Appendix B describes how the public outreach was planned and conducted and highlights key themes of the feedback that was received. Outreach efforts combined online engagement, which allowed people from distant locations to participate, with in -person activities held at events in different venues across the county to ensure diverse community input. Objective The primary objective of the stakeholder engagement and public outreach activities was to establish a strong project identity and facilitate clear, transparent communication from the outset. By building trust with the community and encouraging ongoing participation, the process aimed to share safety plan background and the county's commitment, assess community values and priorities, gather meaningful feedback, and collaboratively shape the plan's shared vision. 1 Scope of Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach Traditionally, community involvement activities have centered on stakeholder meetings and open houses. However, changing habits have prompted professionals to innovate and diversify e ngagement methods, incorporating project websites, social media, and targeted in -person outreach at popular community events already planned to take place. For the WELD COUNTY Safety Action Plan (SAP) , the complete array of these tools was employed. Oversight of the public outreach and feedback collection process was provided by the WELD COUNTY SAP Public Outreach and Feedback Collection (POFC) Group, consisting of communication professionals from both WELD COUNTY and the consulting team, along with the county's Project Manager. Safety Task Force A Safety Task Force (STF) was established, and member stakeholders were instrumental in the action plan development process. Facilitated STF meetings served as a forum through the plan's e arly development phase, when STF members provided crucial feedback in advance of the launch of the public outreach phase, as well as throughout the development of the plan. Serving as initial public reviewers, STF members offered observations on early data analysis, and public outreach materials, approaches, and findings. Their involvement informed the contours of the SAP and also broadened the reach of the public outreach efforts through collaboration with their jurisdictions' respective public information officers and communications specialists. The STF member list was drawn from a diverse group of individuals, including representatives from local government administrations, police and fire departments, community organizations, county departments and divisions, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and other regional transportation planning agencies. The makeup of the STF ensured that a wide range of perspectives and a variety of experts contributed to the entire SAP process. Website A new website was launched for the SAP at www.WeldSafeStreets.com, and the POFC Group was responsible for developing website content, including digital copies of print materials, for interested residents' review and sharing. The new site included an engagement map and quick poll where respondents could share their top traffic safety concerns and priorities. The website also included an events webpage to share details of pop -ups and open houses, including sharing materials and feedback forms. The county's existing website also featured an SAP landing webpage that linked to the SAP website, which was hosted on the Social Pinpoint platform. Internal Survey All county staff were notified via an internal email and through the county's internal employee n ewsletter about the launch of the SAP effort and invited to participate in a password -protected internal survey, also hosted on the SAP website. This closed survey mirrored the questions from the public -facing quick poll and included one key difference in the form of an additional question asking what they, or their department or division, could do to assist with implementing the SAP to reduce fatal and serious -injury crashes and embody the Safe System Approach. Social Media In coordination with the Weld County Public Information Office, the POFC Group developed social media postings to announce key milestones of the SAP on existing county social media channels. From sharing information about the county's ongoing commitment to safety with the launch of the action plan, to disseminating details about the website's interactive aspects and calendar of in -person events across the county, the team strived to have a steady social presence. A total of 14 Facebook, X, and Linkedln posts on the county's existing social media accounts garnered thousands of impressions and views, often driving traffic to the SAP website. Pop -Up Events To further connect with the public and meet them where they live, work and play, a series of eight (8) pop-up events were coordinated throughout Weld County. These events took place at established gatherings and popular community locations such as festivals, fairs and concerts, allowing the team to interact with residents in familiar, lively settings. The selection of venues was guided by input from Safety Task Force members and local jurisdiction public information officers, who helped identify 29 potential events and other sites across the county. Ultimately, the eight (8) events that were chosen by the project team were selected to ensure a diverse representation of communities and event types. Figure 1 Pop -Up Events ensured a diverse representation of communities and event types. Participants in the pop-up engagement booths had the opportunity to discuss safety in Weld County and their role in it through dialogue and table -top activities. Mirroring the online quick poll, the activities at the pop-up events asked participants to indicate their top five traffic safety concerns and to rank the guiding principles of the Safe System Approach in order of priority. Participants placed dot -shaped stickers onto two interactive boards in voting exercises. Open Houses Two in -person public open -houses were hosted in Weld County on August 12 and 13, 2025, in Firestone, CO, and Greeley, CO, respectively. Attendees met the SAP team, viewed exhibit boards and an informative presentation, interacted with a variety of data analysis maps, and participated in a "dotmocracy" activity to collect their feedback on strategy recommendations and safety countermeasures from the draft SAP. In addition, a virtual open house opened online on August 12, 2025, where all of the materials including display exhibits from the in -person open houses were available for review, and comments were received through August 29, 2025. Results of Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach Safety Task Force A total of three (3) Safety Task Force (STF) meetings were convened, early in the process and before the public launch of the action plan took place, midway in the process to review the data analysis and feedback collected to date, as well as to consider the draft Emphasis Areas of the SAP, and near the end of the process when the draft SAP was nearly complete and before the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve it. One important outcome to note is the express desire of the STF to continue to meet on a quarterly basis to assist with SAP implementation and establish a county -wide community of practice to assist with project prioritization and fund development for jurisdictions in the county. Website The website at www.WeldSafeStreets.com served as the main communication platform during the development of the SAP. From the time of its launch to public in early March 2025, until the interactive elements including the quick poll and engagement map were closed to comment at the end of August 2025, the website had 4,402 page views (6,126 views for the overall life of the page) with an average 1:25 minutes spent on a page. M a r Apr M aye Jun Jui Aug '''1 rl `.�j� _ Sep Figure 2 WeldSafeStreets. com Performance Summary The highest spike in website traffic was on July 20, 2025, with 521 overall views, which coincided with a particularly prominent social media post the county shared on its existing social channels. The Engagement Map that was included on the SAP website allowed Weld County residents to share their traffic safety issues and ideas on how to reduce fatality and serious -injury crashes. This information helped to inform the development of the SAP. Website visitors were asked to zoom in and navigate to a location on the map to share their issue or feedback. They could click "Add Marker" to drop their pin in the correct category to indicate where they felt unsafe walking, cycling, driving, crossing at railroad crossings, or to share some other issue or idea. Participants could also upload photos. The following shows the categories of all Engagement Map comments: Breakdown of All Comments i% i%J ■ Driving Walking Cycling • RR Crossing ■ Other Comments by Area: • All Weld County: 359 • Jurisdictions in Action Plan: 124 • Unincorporated Weld County: 171 Figure 3 WeldSafeStreets.com Engagement Map Comments by Category Also on the SAP website, the Quick Poll asked respondents to rank in order of priority the Safe System Approach principles. Overall, there were 324 online respondents. 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 23 2 13 t 0.5 0' 4,31 sate system Approach Principles Ranked on the Quick I SAFER ROADS: Focuses on designing and maintaining safer road infrastructure 3.32 SAFER SPEEDS: Focuses on managing speeds to reduce the severity' at crashes 3.15 SAFER PEOPLE: Focuses on educating road users and enforcing laws 2.09 POST -CRASH CARL Focuses on improving emergency response and medical care after a crash 1.66 SAFER VE HK LES: Focuses on promoting vehicle safety features and st,andaids Figure 4 Ranking of Safe System Approach Principles from Online Quick Poll Also on the SAP website, the Quick Poll asked respondents to share their top five (5) traffic safety concerns from twenty (20) overall selections. Overall, there were 349 online respondents. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 71.92 64.18 Top Ten (10) Traffic SafHty Concerns in Weld County. 54,44 49.57 49 intersection Speeding Distracted Roadway Design Inadequate Design Drivers Road Design (Celt Phones) 45.56► 32.38 24.93 21.2 15.47 Truck Traffic Road Hazards Impaired Drivers Maintenance & lighting Work Zones Figure 5 Ranking of Top Ten (10) Traffic Safety Concerns from Online Quick Poll The Weld Safe Streets transportation planning page served as the county's landing webpage for the project at https://www.weld.gov/Government/Departments/Public-Works/Transportation- Planning/Weld-County-Safety-Action-Plan, which linked to the project website and had 342 page views during the same time period above with an average time on page of one minute. Internal Survey Overall, 76 people responded to the internal survey that was posted to the SAP website. Their responses are depicted below. How familiar are you with the federal Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program, which is sometimes referred to as "Vision Zero"? ■ Never heard of it • Heard of it 1.32% 3.95% Slightly familiar • Moderately familiar Extremely familiar Figure 6 Internal Survey Results - Familiarity with the 554A Program Internal survey respondents also ranked in order of priority the Safe System Approach principles, and the top three principles were Safer Roads, Safer Speeds, and Safer People. Overall, there are several key takeaways from the feedback collected through the various online engagement activities enabled by the SAP website: • DRIVERS had concerns especially regarding speeding, reducing visibility, traffic congestion and unsafe driver behavior. • CYCLISTS were concerned about vehicles speeding, heavy traffic, and limited visibility. • PEDESTRIANS mentioned vehicles speeding and running stop signs, poor visibility and street design, lack of crosswalks and sidewalks, and high traffic and congestion. • For RAILROAD CROSSINGS, respondents mentioned a lack of safety infrastructure and reports of busier roads due to increased population and growth. • TOP 5 traffic safety concerns are Intersection Design, Speeding, Distracted Drivers (Cell Phones), Roadway Design, and Inadequate Road Design. Social Media Overall, the combined reach of all Facebook and X posts was 41,414 people, with 111 comments, 665 link clicks, 95 total likes and 41 shares. The SAP team shared a variety of information: • The county's ongoing commitment to safety with the launch of the SAP • The new SAP website's interactive aspects and calendar of in -person events • Posts on Facebook, X, and Linkedln often drove traffic to the SAP website FACEBOOK REACH PER POST C 0 Vt N N len N M Vt M N 0O N O0 N co Its (11 Cl rat rat M N Lei sal °S'yam j:« cila. Clfre y cc tip,elf a � 'Rog Qo P� �o��,% Qc Q� 0-6: P ��, �,Z, \-.. O o O N N ri Figure 7 Social Media Results - Reach of Facebook Posts FACEBOOK TOTAL ENGAGEMENT PER POST 0.013706453 0.002807412 0.003384095 0.024082569 0.002293578 • 0.004371585 0.009174312 0.007628735 0.004977376 4R CI CD As, Q 'C A0<<,Q Q- P ,S\ J 'Sc) Q° �P \-‘1k\)gQ S<o �� 1/4.(1N° �o ,� n O- �Q' 0Q ' Q° �� oo �Q-- QQ,� Q``� 0.005242464 Figure 8 Social Media Results - Engagement of Facebook Posts ch co X REACH PER POST r� CD fir,CD 14‘ Q ' f � �`P -s �� QUO ft Q `' c, 4 is Q� 0' �� ``4 Q� P QO sic- JQ J is p OQ QOQ o0 c c, LO CO g. OzC O 3 tn Figure 7 Social Media Results - Reach of X Posts 032786885 0.030769231 X TOTAL ENGAGEMENT PER POST ei 0.012048193 0.016129032 C L eN N O O O Q O kV IS O gag QP Q �� p�,• pQ pQ Q P . QOQ Q� ,s`Z`P �O Figure 8 Social Media Results - Engagement of f X Posts Pop -Up Events County and project staff attended community pop-up events to share SAP information and gather feedback, using comment forms and interactive board displays with two questions mirroring the online quick poll. Although the pop -ups where initially planned for two hours per event, setup and teardown extended their presence to about five hours per venue, with four hours during the actual events. This extra time enabled deeper participation by event attendees with the SAP project materials and team members. Having the county project manager and staff present at the pop -ups allowed more in-depth opportunities to discuss with people the guiding principles of the Safe System Approach, the key features of the SAP, as well as county locations, projects, and programs of interest. After each conversation, the staff shared project fact sheets that pointed attendees to the SAP website for additional information. In all cases, the staff asked individuals to note their concerns in person or online for tracking or forwarding to the relevant municipality. Pop-up Event Dates and Locations: • 06/06/2025: Severance Summer Kick-off Concert • 06/21/2025: Frederick in Flight • 07/04/2025: Ft. Lupton 4th of July • 07/12/2025: Eaton Days • 07/19/2025: LaSalle Days • 08/02/2025: Dacono Music Fest • 08/05/2025: Mead National Night Out • 08/09/2025: Milliken Beef n' Beans At each pop-up, participants were provided with five (5) orange dots to mark their top traffic safety concerns in Weld County. gar rlsir ,, , ., SAFETY ACTION !LAN Creating Safer Streets for Weld County 1 won k ea: Siorky Antlers Moan G:i Mm thatnu>rrisr katal U Mit4chrh-'n.Isirr �•c,y �i maths awn* CIO OW fly i} tm nava fi nd r w't rn. 1 WHAT IS A SAFETY ACTION PLAN! r Puri- Grath rn `2: rI 55, Lawrie U'anti ci SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH cu Pc': ?1 Taal r CV.'IIr.� /At Solt k�nda: -*mart main W3 fry Spis.: th, r i. 7 1St tylifid eogisrk'y "Sow Amato ril anti tit 0 1,1:-'rrat ::it :iig rc t ?Intr.! r. c ranzutcrlwrek rt r l er' t:�lr :' `r_ �d-r�r.•: ::1r1 II M :::1:1 I~r at it? ::) I•ci‘. e, I'a? Cir pi•tt'cn. rli I:r rrt :III -3:1111IH7}, FS P..1 :!►Itrrt J : L:1u:4 tStci III? relr.trir im r?.IH:1 HI?tx ?nel!nr_. v+r: •I:ai at .IUHI5>0 kik: I rma,ci� rijrkr aut murk y L*p Md. fl) trvlliv 9rlhlrt3l cicrtcerm 1!I YOUR INPUT i�I,RkMR Cicargyn u1r ika • may atsigti • a Lighting Dago est II§t h Ccvi.Jn Design sr: e 9 a I s • i e, maintem-incku i d4'. liku t li ba n1 s 0 41 e * % • i Ii} lack cif F ttiln at ar railroad o wising u ■' I Rood Hci cards p i 111 - .' . S S. s s dm • a. CI' ;sings • Thar. Taal tit i.L.s c in pLl ILsr 3 wwww•VieldSaireStreetsato Iriudequuta read design { P Impaired 0 ¢'aririirrw 4' * f :• pm w 1., •1,n I.r •, d tY . J. C.ri SG'N.: �P>�ISIroc tJ 3wold.9t . VIC:Ieleountircoin-:tnniorrt #i,Dim raI rl oarl s R • � CoilPhonesV. # ,• 4 muck TIC 0 - el _# 4 A 0 4 , Matnrrcydie 3 i a a * P R • a 4 El tF4sepcaraa • 4 4 a 0 es • • P 4 uii 14 i luta assort Ili U8o P • tip • a * # it a a *'h R d.alani 416 isI rcli44+ '' *Iis 0 # • s tik AnimentilAlfitiftt& cress lr ra • Figure 9 Completed Traffic Safety Board from the Milliken Beef 'n' Beans Day Pop -Up Event Fort Lupton of July 4th Eaton Days LaSalle Days Dacca° Music Fest Mead national Night Out Milliken Beef and Bean Concern Area Severance Frederick in Flight Sper_chnq 6 39 14:'.• 52 14% 27 I 11^W 31 10' 22 11,x: 21 19% 33 107.. '1Islraded Drivers 11 I 51 155: 34 9' : 3 14%1 37 I2':'. -'r 27 14% 11 1O% 39 12'• Maintenance and Work Zones 12 1Ow 15 4% 23 h +6 22 9% ' 34 11% 10 5% 6 5% 23 7 intersection Deslin I 20 161' 30 9% 27 7 15 _ 6% 15 5%, 17 9% 4 4%' 16 59 Truck Traffic 6' _ 21 6% 40 11 • 1O 4% 2?' 9aK, 9 5% ' 1 6% 20 d'.M( ImpairediDrivers = 'F 19 f,' 19 5% 2O - 8% 21 74:; 17 9% 11% 2 cat 8% Peels and Bikes I _ 3? 7 ' 11 29 8% 9 4% 2O r 6% 11 1O I 9% 24 7 Road Hazards 2% 25 7T. 19 5% 19 8% 15 5% 8 6% 15 5% &tool Zones 1 I 3 2%% 16 ' 5 - 20 5% to 2% 13 t 4% 13 -,1 9i. - Motorcyclists 11 9% ■ 35 4`�' 13 3 . 6 2% 14 4% 13 3 3% ` 1 .. � 2 83( Roadway Design 12 1O% 8 r . / 7- 20 89 13 4 14 5 5% 12 41 lnadatluate Road design 12 1O% 16 59'- 11 3. ' 12 5% 9 3m 1.4 it% 3 3% 13 4% 3% 22 61i 16 4% 6 2% 8fr 3% 5� 3% 5 5% 9 3% Lilghtln9 .3 Railroad Crossings I 4 3% 4 ' 1% 19 5% 12 ' 5% H 18 6• . Q . • 0 ( 7 2. 097 17 5t- 11 3% 5 2% ' 7 2%. 3 2% ' 3 3% 6 2% Sigriage U Animal/Wildlife Crosstn9 2% 12 3% 4 1''r 3 1% 14 4% 6 396 l 1% 8 Lack of barriers at RR Crossings 2 >< 2% 3 1% 15 4% a 17 7% ° 5 2%. 0 O%' 1. 1% 7 2 'Lack of Seat B+111 Usage 1 1=' . fi 2u. 2% O 7 2% 1 1% 3 3% 9 3' EMS Response 1 1% 4 19:, 1 I;=., O O% 6 2% 2 1% ' O O% 8 2 Number of Dots 126 344 365 242 315 192 110 332 `Number of Participants 25 69 48 63 38 22 66 - 73 i Figure 10 Ranking of Traffic Safety Concerns by each Pop -Up Event Concern Area Totals Percent of participants 243 12% 60% Speeding Distracted Drivers i 243 12% 60% Maintenance and Work Zones 145, 7% 36% Intersection Design 144 7% 36% 141 7% 35% Truck Traffic Impaired Drivers 139 7% 34% Beds and Bikes 123 6% 30% Road Hazards 1 i 5% 27% School t Zones 110 5% 27% I Motorcyclists 991 5% 24% Roadway Design 90 4% 22% Inadaqu.ate Road design 90I 4% 22% Luting 75 4% 19% Railroad Crossings r 64,' . i 3% 16 Si9nape 52 3% 13% 39Gy 13% AnimabWildlife'Crossing 51 2% 12 t Lack of barriers at RR Crossings 5O Lack of Seat Belt Usage 34 2% 8% EMS Response 22 1% 5% Number of Dots 2026 Number of Participants t 405, Figure 11 Overall Ranking of Traffic Safety Concerns for all Pop -Up Events In addition, at each Pop -Up event, participants were provided with five (5) green dots to rank their top Safe System Approach guiding principles on another board. Creating Safer Streets for Weld County YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? WE HAVE ANSWERS! Why aSafety Action Plano the Weld County Solely Action Ptah ES oasackrted with me usoors sage Streets and Roods tot di program, pars of a global ntdvernent to end traffic deaths that Includes ancrod roeponoteirty for traits safety among all transportation gust n tears, designers, anti operate what is oSafety Action Plan? A Setety Action Plan outilnea the matt Important contributing tattoo. In fatal and aertous-Injury trat& crrsgnes utJng data anatyalrr and pones- Input. Who is this Safety Action Pion for' the Wald County Satsty Action Pion coven alt rood mess Including people driving and riding in vanities. people Waklntapeople bring, and any other porton using tho roadway What waltheSec ty Action Plan ae used for? the Weld County Safety Action Plan will be load to determine the appropriate etratagaes. policies, COlthla,rnatnurm, and processes that Will ever [line, reattee death: and serious injuries on our roads Now con the community gat involved? Lay Outmoding tdmrnunily awards hie this I W* Sao have a dedicated website whore you can add youralaughta. and are planning Carnnwnfty Opon flocnc5 IM August 2025 nhero wa will neat adrlitlonal input on the Wek1 County Safety Actign Plan. Sign -op at WddsafoStroata.com for update -a and recathre information on the upcoming public outreach events We invite you to Ialiaw share and stay engaged with an cm our l ivl media channels I Focubook, * (Twdttar), Youtube, I inkadin, and instagrem) thar..1I, invites ant l -,n:. M,,, yuw.,.ru elm(. >,rnn &t rrrteytt. Da tar rnp Ua x. JOrnse.r , ..'ra^. 4. n'a,l•*AL . buV.ttnl e-p'dnieian nu wI ObisMln Ic,I1h 1.idrJ,:1I inn nlirhn.Y F'CJMDV( sunN,I.wfp'n.., Itar.w.n tlm.m,ran(mn,MrV u, r nu rrmnwrn,lrl'r!m, Datatr oL t %to YOUR INPUT MAT1dRS a • • • • f f 0 • .• *• �• I••t• • ••• • • • • I • n••• • • •i ••it • • •• • ••• • • *tee • • • ••- I • w• using thapttwtthala 07iydote, plecasmatti wnara.you bWieve Oath aftlsef tiophe ranks on a acale d l -e, with I being the least Important and S being theMask - Rune:: in solo re- s to nnit• poi arty aor p,;: ranking. 3 4 $ • S. �••• t• •fi • • • • t•• t0 • • ••• laCT ,Wectart • • • • • •t •• -Fer ?+ n Safer People Focuses an educating rood users and enforcing laws ft • - � � / \ •but r •f • •• •i� •s • • • I 0 • 0 Safer Roads Focuses on designing and maintaining safer road infrastructure 1 Safer Vehicles • • •'L 4••• • • • • • •! • tat 1 - —I • •• • • wt. • ♦ • y •• s Shore 'our Issues and lives vwtirw.WeldSafestraets.earn Cowanr "•. %cI c.w Ua afl r a:eboak SafeStreetS@Weld.gOV Weideountyoavcrameni Focuses On pi amat trig vehicle 3alet if features and EtanrJords. SaferSpeeds rocusos on managing spreads to reduce the severity ai closnes Post -Crash can Focuses on Improving emergency response and medical care after u omen tf Figure 12 Completed Safe System Approach Principles Board from the Milliken Beef 'n' Beans Day Pop -Up Event Scverente Fort Lupton 4th of FvcderAtk In FlightJuly Eaton, Days LaSalle Days Mead National Night Milliken Beef an CF.Ii rrr}rt. I',r1u51C f cst Out Bean Days (Rank s 41 3 7 (S 4 3 ? 4 5 4 3 u l 5 4 3 71 �� - 1 1' � ='' f_ 3 I 11 5I 4i 3' `7= 1' Safer Roach Safer Vehicles Safer Speeds 8 Post Crasn Care 4 8 2 3 3 1 4 2 6- 1.4 6 1 2 , i 3 3 h, 4 1 a J t -, et 1 4 . -1 hi ill U 1 11 7 2 9 5 7 5 6 12I 4 10 7 r; .4 ,1 Ci 4 , l:! 2 2 0 a II 0 7 4 2 0 31 j 1 U 2 c r Li 151 23' 41i 14 3 1 2 F; 4 b 21 1I 25 1 is 12 14 4 30 Figure 13 Ranking of Safe System Approach Principles by each Pop -Up Event When evaluating the feedback collected from the public at all of the eight (8) Pop -Up Events, the team learned that speeding and distracted driving (cell phones) were the leading traffic safety concerns, while EMS response was noted as the least concerning. Issues relating to roadway and intersection design, as well as other infrastructure were ranked in the middle. For the guiding principles of the Safe System Approach, Safer Speeds, Safer Roads, and Safer People received the most dots / highest rankings, and Safer Vehicles and Post -Crash Care were ranked lowest. Average Score Totals Rank 5 4 3 T 2 T 1 Safer Roads 117 61 28 26 6 4.39 Safer People 79 68 37 30 11 3.83 Safer Speeds 40 48 56 43 42 3.11 Post Crash Care 23 29 43 49 70 2.38 Safer Vehicles 7 24 38 57 75 1.96 Figure 14 Ranking of Safe System Approach Principles from all Pop -Up Events Figure 15 Pop -Up Event Participants Responded Well to the Interactive Board Activities Open Houses The POFC Group coordinated, planned, hosted, and facilitated one round of Open Houses consisting of three (3) Public Meetings for Weld County's Safety Action Plan (SAP). These events presented data and analysis, shared initial strategic recommendations and safety countermeasures to the public, gathered feedback, and fostered community discussion. Two (2) of these open houses were held in -person at locations in the northern and southern parts of the county, while the third meeting was offered virtually. The virtual public meeting was offered asynchronously using the project website, allowing for an open period of information sharing and feedback collection from August 12 to August 28, 2025. Members of the project team and the POFC Group attended the meeting to help facilitate discussion with the public. A public advertisement was created and distributed through media channels, and a news release was distributed to news media outlets via the county. Additionally, the team produced open house materials, including a presentation, exhibit boards, roll plot maps, and the project fact sheet. The in -person meetings included a formal presentation and walk-through education at information stations about the Weld County SAP that included interactive ways to provide feedback at each station. The open houses covered the following: • Overview of the Planning Process: A summary of the SAP's objectives, progress, and methodology. • Presentation of Data and Research Findings: Key statistics and research insights to inform participants on the current safety landscape. • Implementable Safety Recommendations: Specific safety measures and countermeasures designed to address public and vested party concerns. The dates, times and locations of the open houses are listed below: 1. Open House #1 (in -person) • 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2025 • Richard E. Hart Training Room, Firestone Police & Municipal Courts Building 9900 Park Avenue, Firestone, CO 80504 2. Open House #2 (in -person) • 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 13, 2025 • Events Room, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O St, Greeley, CO 80631 3. Open House #3 (virtual, asynchronous) • Webpage went Live at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2025 • Materials and Presentation shared on event webpage at WeldSafeStreets.com • Open period of information sharing and feedback collection was August 12-28, 2025 • Online engagement forms and maps were deployed • Feedback and comments were captured Data Analysis &rakdawn ¢ .rt T Y COUNA E AME SSVkES \_ Co� freottC./(IWO" OrindMle! ral.uu'lin "•'•r• ti's rWX'u7ieNi Ant�e`1.Imai61 cvA•n� e. iOi.Vs.Y.b� i•vbancib.+""OrrnaV4 ►M rs if/rd C=�sr+' ti ?WWI'snoeAT ril., PtrNKurna 'plflYYr "Arlin Varat 7,954.1.45: Q'safety Fi,gr{onrtUnca mvlow of U roadway stir -lent or 7nWacton u muviNavacmpt'•au`i yra+, tv.s.0A14,•:),•*tilfs,..timi*S:43,afiK1/40,44.tiani,4 irla[)'B use, and other factors. W cower aavr ACtt0, ►L Data Arsalysls Breakdown of Cr C^y Tr :t- WIN Ore vaults mote hkeh WIGOPft pt • ! 'y i1r/JtTr • C^: y�Ys' Pr-2rpf• h7 J 1 .I. V r : 1.e_ -hi.* •t- • Craig M¢ODFr is Whereme crmMtt tcrear,:, Figure 16 Open House Participants were able to review the draft SAP recommendations before the plan was finalized Overall, there are several key takeaways from the feedback collected through the various in - person engagement activities, including pop-up events and open houses: • Speeding and Distracted Driving were the biggest concerns across the county, with 60% of participants selecting these items as top priorities. • People were concerned with truck traffic, especially trucks using local and county roads as cut -through routes. • The US -85 corridor residents are more concerned about railroad crossings, while the residents in the western areas of the county are more concerned about roadway and intersection designs that may not provide sufficient safety or efficient traffic flow. • Residents shared specific information about existing poor or dangerous road conditions by sharing comments in association with the Road Hazards quick -poll item. • Participant comments were extremely complimentary of the various county emergency services and management. Messaging and Materials For all of the public outreach and feedback collection activities, key messages and materials were developed and refined during the SAP process. The following statement helped to guide Weld County's SAP. "Weld County is making an ongoing and authentic commitment to a systems -based and equitable safety approach through its Safety Action Plan, a dataiiriven strategyto reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries among all road users. The paired Weld County SAP logo and custom Safe System Approach infographic below were developed for use in all SAP materials and assets, including in the Project Fact Sheet and on the Project Website, as well as within SAP social media posts, document templates, sign -in and comment sheets, and presentations: sS e irks • dcfp SAFETY ACTION PLAN Figure 17 Weld County Safety Action Plan Paired Logo ;Gus Milli)/ is Uncle Elec. Weld County is reducing fatalities and severe injuries across its roadway system Weld County is developing a Safety Action Plan to help reduce the number of fatal and severe -injury crashes across the county's transportation system. The plan will build from the efforts of the Weld County 2045 Transportation Plan, adopted in November 2020, which provides technical information for use as a basis for formulating transportation -related, safety -based improvements that ensurea coordinated countywide road system that moves people and goods in a safe, economical, and efficient manner. Furthermore, the Safety Action Plan will be aligned with the USDOT s National Roadway Safety Strategy. which also is associated with the Safe System Approach, an approach that follows several guiding principles to provide a holistic safety approach to all forms of transportation. This effort is part of a grant -Funded initiative, and once completed, the plan could help thecounty become more competitive when applying for federal and state grant dollars for implementation actions that support safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Project Timeline 2024 OCT NOV 3 TiII Safe Road Users Post -Crush Care (, Sate Vehicles The SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH to Reducing traffic Deaths /A\ Safe Roads risibility is shared rn eD . The Weld County Safety Action Plan aims to OIdentify problem areas on roadways throughout Weld County's transportation system. 0 Collect feedback from the community to help Civil Engineers, Transportation Planners, and other officials determine needed improvements Enhance safety for all users 2025 DEC JAN FEB MAR APP JUN Data Analysis I Safety task force meetings Ally; t: Gil Board of County air Commissioners Meetings Wrs Submit to Board of county Corn rnissioncrs gram Wobsito priA Pop -Up �) Public Open Launch Events vci House tvieetings ;I I Aciiaat Plan £leve loprren( This plan, led by Weld county includes the unincorporated area of the county and several municipalities, (occ{ante, Eaton, Evans, Firestone, Fort Lupton, Frederick, Gilcrest, Hudson, Keenesburg, LaSalle, Mead, Milliken, Pierce, Platteville, arid Severance) that do not a ready have their own Safety Action Plan. Figure 18 Weld County Safety Action Plan Fact Sheet 4l slrn' is tars 4 $ :1 Safe Road Users pit Past -Crash Care L.* Safe vehicles SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH to Reducing Trafiit Deaths lit Safe Roads bfNty 1s SThOte 'tel Safe Speeds 1. Figure 18 Customized Safe System Approach Infographic You have Questions? We have Answers! Ve Why a Salaty Action Plan? Thai Wald Cakinry Sakety Action Pam is associated with the USDOI's Safe StreetsandRoods for All pogrom, part of a global movement to end traffic death* Ihgt ilickidesa stored responsibility for traffic safety among all transportation system users, designers, and operators. Safe Streets and Roods for AU or..ltnoWitidcya that human mistakes are inevitable, and transportation systems can rtisitiejatstil z rvl rr orntied to meat elernnnett,, reducing human mistakes and the risk of death or serious anilines when a crash occurs. Illiirwwhat ilia Sat sty Action Plan? 4 Safely Action Pktn outlines the most important tanmblMing factors in tcai and seabuainiwry traffic crashes using data analysis and public input. To address these oontrttrutin j teeter,. Weld county's pion Will lay out actionable, Innovative, arid measurable strategies that emphasize design and policy solutions, and assist in the design ot the transportation system with witty leatures, such as centerline and roadway edge rumble strips, tar keep ail roadway users sole. Who Is this Safety Action Plan For? The Weld County Safety Action Plain covers all rood users, lncilucing people driving and riding In vehicles, people walking, people biking. and any other person using the roadway. Y What will thin Safety Action Plan be used tor? The Weld County Safety Action Plum will brit tact to determine the appropriate strategies, policies, countermeasures, and praises that will, even tlrrne. reduce deaths and serious injuries on our fogs.. These polices and processes may relate to roadway design guideline, funding allocation! education, and emergency respondots. The plan wN also be used to identify a set al Safety Anliarw Pictin mold Irrmpravewew- nnts p►retf ortt end potential system -wide safety pmo€gtarni- This plar Is focused an roadways in unincorporated Weld County maintained by the ro61fity_ u stitsue be mated Hwy el►mr*AmI W sigiss +ys twin t+rai sis Mow, mitt liliethOUtt qiw Prtgrl LiivridM►n Coy, Grams..tonntetaor lochiptak NovNaTi fir and Windavr car nil rani of the MAW afraMJr�y i1>xrrFran t%ut aarinricnn k)} him Qrmwreyi tl am% tetra t,ttnrt anti ifriiroir+ are aornpietkn"; ar Haws co,'y qc tnrrrr chin sowtr Ater , Mans New can the ccrnrnte ritygetinvolved? The public is invited to join us at pap -up meetings starting w i spring 2025 and at a Community Opelr+ House anticipated for *Iigust 2025 where we will seek your input on the Weld County-SafetyAction n Plan. Sign-tsp at WeldSoleStreels con for updates and receive information on the upcoming politic outreach eventsWe invite you to Nohow, sthonL and stay engaged with is on our sal media channels (Faaeboolc, St (Twitter), YouTube, t.inSedtni and tnstagron). Have questions or ideas you want to share? We want to hear from you! ContattUS r Project Manager - Evan Pinkharn Tranrsportcwtion Manner, Public Works (s,) c}7O-A41 -372' ,,r Sialestreets@Weld.gov In Writing: Weld County Colorado P0 Box 75$, Greeley, CO $0623 Weld County Websiitec httpc f /rtnim.weld4oy f G.o f $afetyActionFtlan waiatecissuatsGaa n Stay Engaged with Us Scan the gift code to visit our project website and follow us on social media to stay up to date with protect i nformationt 0 alt 0 rail information can be mat*, c4.all fl4t rr+eiternalfr,ro accnt ie rcenrtett; 0.401-1n rogtw -t for information e-Dout t;btaireng an cat mall.. trjrncit, o'an fact the Weld Courtly ADA Ctxot naiL'e irnei 4DpCn.il a+Azppvi*jgoy. Cc3M kernel, ioaourcet ait (97'1) 400.4234 tat ewe* irr portion or rtumeri frowarcoa. U50 C' Sheet C4 -'hey. CO N -_% IIILS. s.:� pi rd. (1.:n SiSAFETY ACTION PLAN 04 In dJ Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Weld County is developing a SafetyAction Plan to help reduce the number otintal and severe- Ink, ry crashes across the county's transportation system. WHAT IS A SAFETY ACTION PLAN? set.oemotts injury is UryooC t 11-44 a a Anos, IPA Sate Road Users Past -Crash Care Sate Vehicles The SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH to Reducing Traftk Deaths Sale Roods )96';43n bility is Shack° Atka • Sane Speeds b The Weld County Safety Action Pia a ime to O Identify problem areas on roadways throughout Weld County's transportation system e Collect feedback from the community to help Civil Engineers, Transportation Planners, and other officials determine. needed improvernents • Enhance safety far all users YOUR INPUT MATTERS Using the pord the liofit dots, please mark your top five (S) traffic safety concerns to Weld County Roadway Design Lighting Signage Intersection Design Maintenance & Work Zones Lack of barriers at railroad crossings Road Hazards Inadequate road design Share Your Issues and ideas www.weldscifestreets.com Impaired Drivers Contact Us Follow us on Focebook sofeStreetspweld-gov WeloiCountyeavernnient Truck Traffic Motorcyclists EMS Response Distracted Drivers (cell Phones) Lack of seat belt usage Pedestrians & bicyclists Anirnal/Wildlife Crossing Using the provided sticky dots, please mark wit to you Dellavo each of the following topics •r.'' �� YOUR INPUT MATTERS ranks on a state oc li-5, tirtth 1 being the leastlmportont and 5 being the most Important. - ' tint to dot r'dfeor VOW Only put one per ranting i Sl. j I 1 2 3 4 5 i, f � HAW PAOSI au.or t _ _ SAT'�.1' E TY anwn a #4. ACTION PLAN �� At r Creating for Safer Weld County Streets Safer People I roc uses on a lucatinq road users and enforcing laws YOU WE HAVE HAVE QUESTIONS? ANSWERS! A r I Safer Reads Why et Safety The Mad County Salst.y Action Pxwt is associated with Focuses on designing and maintaining safer rood inttostruclure the US1.iOT's at a global a shared responsiblatty transportation salt Streets and Roads for Mi program. port. movement to end trodtie deaths that includes toot traffic safety among act system users., designers. and €operators. ISk) Whtrt is 0 Safety Action Plan? A Safety Action plan eurlinr, the mast importantr corrhit*utinq tasted in fatal and serroUS-in4ury traffic — Safer Vehicles Focuses on prernoting crashes using data analysis and p-.at>cc Mpvt. Who is this Safety Action Pion tor? The Weld County Safety Action Part covets all road users., including people driving and riding in 'vehicles. poopto wanting, people ple hiking, and any other person using the vehicle and standards 'd.tc safety features roadway. O " F I Safer Speeds Wht will the Satiety Action Plano be used for? The Weld County Safely Action P- rl will be used to determine the ctppac'pnare strategies, policies, eautnterrnoosures, and processes tried wi4 over time, Focuses on managing speeds to reduce the savorily of croshes. reduce deaths and serious injuries en our reads. )How can the c-atrmaun➢ty gat Involved? El attending community awarus like this! We also have a -a- dedicated website where you can odd your thoughts, and ore planning Community Open Houses toe August 2025 where we will seek ade6l eonor input on the Weld County I I Post -Crash Gore Focuses un improving satiety Action P an Sign-up at WeldSfeStreeta.com tar updates and receive inlo*r!nation on the upcoming public outreach events. We invite you to follow, share, and stay emergency response and medical care after a crash engaged 'cr?th us on our social media cttonr►eds (Facebook, x (Twitter), YpuTttbe, tlnkedont end lnstagrom)). t&out,r,4r+u.aiiaim atrir+ rat Adpsi tra KAMM ttt!IiiM1 14-11 snnaudscr,n are Your Iss-ues and Ideas f; nniViW. WeldscifeStreets.com Contact US Fallow ucrr^Foccbcla bn4•ty.Coln, ja'cr,'a„zrchat viN+wbo,Iwci. rv,MONc+4w sit nix .., ,, Tsai esUwe %atCwag/cR.IA=unittitrtA:icitcrcai,I'*Daft fartpsyta'fts'+" It Safestreets@Wetd.gov WeldeountySovernment `tints, a ttp0 So *Lr MOON MPS t. luny►. unit ar oara►.ye,titenot+NNllttal Qmi Figure 19 Weld County Safety Action Plan Pop -Up Event Boards I]', ` E , Weld County Safety Action Plan !'� I ifor i PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET - _ - SAFETY ACTION N AN Provide your comments or questions below. If you need more space, use additional comment sheets or include your own pages- Please print clearly and provide contact information to receive a response. Please provide your contact Information. Thank your First and Last Name. _ Weld County Resident: YES NO Organization f Firm 1 Agency: Address. City, State, Zip: Email. Phone: Weld County Colorado, www.weldsaiestreets.com (970) 400-3727 PO Box 758, Greeley, CO 84632 Figure 20 Weld County Safety Action Plan Comment Sheet (Fold here) Weld County Safety Action Plan Weld County Colorado PO Box 75$ Greeley, CO 80632 (Fold here) PLACE POSTAGE HERE (Tape chased— Do not slept) i `,t�" i WELD COUNTY SAFETY ACTION PLAN SAFETY ;�f� Project Sign -Up Sheet r _ AC ACTION P! AN Your attendance and participation area appreciated. Please sign up below to receive updates, upcoming event details, and ways to get involved P P PP P P 9 Name and Affiliation Contact Information Are you interested In hosting a pop-up event for the project? What is your top traffic safety concern? How aid you hear Weld County SAP about the Project? Please Print Name: Weld County Resident! Organization r Firm r Agency:tRrebsi Email: Mailing Address With ZIP YES- NO Mailer - Newspaper Website Social Media Email Other _ Please Print Name: Wald County Resident' Organization ; Firm r Agertcy Email• Mailing Address with ZIP- YES ND Mailer Newspaper Website Social Media Email - Friend - Other Please Print Name ATd County Resident/Organization) Firm / Agency: Email Mailing Address- with ZIP YES NO Mailer Newspaper _ Website Social Media Email - Friend _ Other _ 7'I2a;=e Print Name. 'Ward County Resident / Organization / Firm ? Agency: Email. Mailing Address with ZIP YES NO fvlailer - NeWspaper WWebsile - social Media Email - Friend Other Please Print Name. vtield County Residenl / Organization Film ? Agency: Emslt Mailing Address with ZIP YES NO Mailer Newspaper Website Sad el Media Email Friend Other - Please Print Name Wad County Resident r Organization' Firm 1 Agency: Email Meiling Address with ZIP YES NO - Mailer Newspaper _ Website Social Potedia - Email F Wend Other I'I ase Print Name: vikSd County Resident r Organization ./ Firm ? Agency: Email: Moiling Address with ZIP- YES NC _ Mader - Newspaper Website Socral Media _ Email - Friend - Other Page of _ Figure 21 Weld County Safety Action Plan Sign -Up Sheet IAi ••': rw fif 4s@ 5 EU 1v eitls r-,tCM PCOE a The nta:rei began in Jan- uary when I.rirea. a mari- juana d!mynas re .mist raised tuneer:Ls uh:ru't wand n raid were results Inse- drlte 71tia!_rti used in are ed- ucational campaign .4tikd tic Tar. onIHC.^ptwa ed by roe Co:ntado Sehocji of Ptthlit 13c filth. at 02-7i Au- selutz Medical Campus. Site ?:Toil{a her coin:ern• to L'r Prc..idant Iodd Sin - limn and CU Anachuh& Chancellor Don Elliman. tacit, agreed nce irrs'I}tt•r av!rc racist. and .tad faet1 removed titian 2 • hours. Public' Etat:te eat_ contain- ing a,i'atries inset he cam- paign and t::e 3c;_oid of Public Health wire issuer. within to.tu Tot the icl;ai iii dense and months; 3lut2E continued re apeah, pub:-&b+.*u social me- dal, in...mni .s and in n".r7i media intcritiatS, tli.s;ulit- in , the campaign and sap- itzc landing from the - -state :t. 'ri- Lt my .foul the t;_c fandinll for t:'.L•c' is,rnap iS ptdlcd be :ht %rant." k.mus wiotr on Linkcd]n cis :iu bevy elf becoming aware of thy is c . "i aw working to make :har.bappen.'' ae- eurdiugto an tnr_"ri:Tatioo reird:rt, she itlso gusted on histogram that site "wi:t be .-:pL-akthg. rilh law gins-er- mar .,hutu :.hirf A Gutl,raur's C•it1LC -;pc'k aperson. Ally enlli- v.tn, ,foil .u•- Jali_,1 Fun, wee tnn+lingthe ' The :a on THCprb=:rara Irma Irr'fine :ill rr,,;s ,pet I n_ vulva Pirtle 1: a:1 ss Kp+5: ad eu::-ri; the-,.anapaifl'a ftl3 dirLF 1u the stance Joint Bridge: G:itrltittee before and ntte! lance: -said the tlmdinit she-ild tr1 pt{;,d. .'tie ln'areraQC two5 not indueucadhgr Regent Janes and has onil %cut &a'1.- -▪ .a: of tr.,: finding.' 'Sulli- van wrarctn an email to tl is Chit Cumcra "Hci: ¢.v lilted as. to .tots" CU could Unity spending hundreds. ,i thousands tic deity..' in- vest' atingr a Rc; c-ut :ha; was Res: dotng her int as an Artier cd. utilttuJ " The ccnrttrt is nut 1r..'- cwise Jamey t.aertd the r it'is: iZIa.:S is the dam- paiaa. Flenui.:on said, add- ing that James was right to de SO. stn• censure, she said, tams i'ct'tttrsr_' Junei, later adoocataa fur fund- ing x' be talcum aw•u snare I ti,.• a untpair� 'T:t4: is inuppru;iiate for nn?' rr C:'nl a•l d:% IV ACV - .7.11X for dc•hmainn ar_onc-r n•.va7y irons l'r,° 1?cnni son • Man; Mwutt U:?•s:l ,aid thy tsmsure cam° because Juu.c. STD s;:lc'siy atkt'#cd _sac of C12 -"'s sdtrjtitie aeareh programs tried t~' oind rzt]nc- the inb.Krir: C.l the research and. advocn: 'd t tude hind that P rutmta. Intuit Irirt8> prub:cna;i,, eYl2'tduLly ur a dine aterc.seient:e iynn- dur rimy!, fr-,ii' r:rlrtin eurnrrs of thr. w-'t!arnnronr and fundingfor science. is miry: rani II: I Ire.0 l in'tl It: - l ' 'I , nil ',tors -don't Or..' L.I I r L civil leaden- casting un tenth• l aln Ihl nu it lu X why. of Iholt wore $u'ciwl and Dcirtl yit'u 1'Il,iir !Clio h(nntn,il .aid a tali] Iwo .:' ,111, sil,ltihfirl s'iLI Ukvty rrawn' 4111.IS to Irk- Sham,: I"rrl car n: -pun II?illi; Ind art ridnlssh.rr • :Tr 4Jlt AU. flat: :IV'•vd in.y:err:,fvt IIt IL ,':Lee, Yore 4g.nirl 4 Jail, in in tit until ':h° :nil u? itcr -;rn u a ingctu w ?Q?q, but uL's tan be i t'd. ornmuvcd befnu that iftLe buardde t'v.ie :U.1.Ow a2 uctrd ui quit:Aly a> pueaibic when S'anda c. - pressed hit runc•rm (ubuur lilc tmi3 ts,.:md I bettoL'e if conrActeb irt,tp •llrri- _far la arIvire<ae, lot- findint',.uf a _eci:li'n't^ atatc•randcdrt:Sctirth tn. atr. and to rpti•sfon Lhu t redlbillg of that t;te:well n-i:bcui aro, evident& or .I'iutfll Fir Inch in,',` "rlon- lure? saki Investigation report in -tie sariJR. ''.1" s uni- versity crnnbcL hir^-d hsa Lew li1•rltY Ili deifies. I hat iu4crantlW'' 176t'•i ;ligation. io a Janet. ihten iionaiy ,d'a•1 ing ell urge lurioalv.t. Vivo -t;,,. nrrea lira'. and! •wu -:uasti cicu•L'.aniut Arita The law tint worked to- getr.rr : Inzei—Arr; T.5 nes-e? inchdin', Janus. ,pt:^.arad and reviewed dtic- I.ment3 1 nt1lLli[ C '2-11181.5; ten rressuens. social ere- dra parts and news athc.ec analyzed applicable' gv ' politics and condos wd ,:- ,q.t rematch. The total cast of the Iu- f:O uatciou ea of June is lifivii72,41M, which inc:udes .tomes' ilWeN t;'S:ioi. and a !rpar&tc in sZranur, 111W [teninison. 'shit:t cier.red her :,i allegations :hat she hxdbccn paid tut l-Tin-wfar patt-rims `Pork at Cr Den- ver. 1'22 investigation i a be- ing pad fur by the Cr s.e- trm's (Alec orrisf manage- ment. The r'' uith i e iga- tunr-rcpar: -uuridcaati1ue- line of event= andcsidence that resulted tn,nttazr fin- 'ICSTitratiCTD. {lee fiay. 1'2, 2Up-ic the Te- nor Doted that the states .Join: &tip:: Committee dice s ed ci tinethe The 'Ma on THC cantpa,iui by 1nLillwnbccu:Lxof a need to balance budgets dtip rn dee:ininS tu—tlt i n rev- enue nt jcenans. Tbi oc- cur:: about f. month 3:dtire Jonah ie wuadc uwurc of -hv campaign On tier. iu the Colorado king): of Pubis- duu:ti. an, nuutuCK the launch u± -moon INC' noble Vial:- nuki iLLmptntZ JNIDvY ba,- :'wULS duals 01 t:2: cam- paign and the burritos on Jim 2J• u..:unling c' Ito rr•pr'n On Jar li. James speaks with v. represomu tick. Irvin It; Ci uvcrriur% 41- 1hull: -ht. itungc's' and fundl1K where -het:- turd I sal :n1' s.ili!' 't 11.'1"S49y cuttsidurhn wit inc tlwd- ingtoul :be zahipaigr. for rea.ous unrelated. to the integer, "Whitt Jacras is on the tatte.ne with t1 mutest;- titir. - from the taicIsen)oz-e offs CO, ghc'race nereensiooti. oft etmaeevtor thet over - not end u nh•' ALL seen ttwLr, tctardulgrr the re- port.. '?'1,•. Cut:enus r_•- gluts that thcti are avr-ctsl: ['Cr •1ant2? ttik tg the at , :natal:' tat lases cwhh -the Gcsvernur ubdu:the.Tca on THC cara'i a1-nt.' .rarnW also contacts bur Bean and Elliman un Jlia tJ: and raisc! her concerns atom etc-imL gni Lttortain ttt,s al rergescritorrite train the Catch:urado•5tuu1 of Pluh- lk IIuiiJci: an:acts (fi'l'm R•calthe the p:truer incani- zation lb tit helped leveler: the ran;wir n.. whsle.': lets.- &Loa•- the nu:N;a an:t base tray ueoluxies. Diu oa 152 - Wit A. these cool of Public Healthandum tinbehA of Initiate.. 'The s nt2 day Lilitjriru GPnlarn:S it liras IU a:uVe l :bt lithe r.tLt putt with ire iruax's, and Ini- ti1•r1l eurr.u+lt. Ilk: images from the c•umsaigli s web - she a`hc'r on this day -21 (1w nzs, 'b Le, uva:a'riiii k' the tt.•pun - rr a • On Jam,.1._S .hu5khs_I h P Ib it I I?,,'IIit u r.+L,Nrrrl- t ,y'unitsuxbeitu and limas to a stnawareni front Iattiln:I •iI , lug sigi tins Irll'-hiedI :if+s aa.'unling:uHi'r pun hrors la WE. JALWI, la lo'. Ill bast-%tr tire.,.:Ilan ins cumpaitlt Miunlatutllly Jislt'nust' wi sar+ltig chu :lain INarrruut,nrrIi:'. In hill twin"II rbullxrallee na- n:JE'ns dauun. and nllnrS- :N, S .I'. u l live'• rev's ", lrin•, l 1, r, Mr' rL'u!' "ennnkl in I i'vll- il 'alt• r..''• :'ke a.I hndwm;t ua ..m in t,a1 w•i:L hi:. -1 el. canal iv,n- Tkut ;:ant Jo). Ja,cr-s unrruil as, u'grv,ga Jr n i 'I'l. sht::'. a •Y11 IILu-k Lia'L.rrl.iu,, ye hoot. s:w writes that the is 'L rnrlaag With .he w aitut s ofdre to uny: hmndw&: from An- wt'huty trod "?x 3ng it h!re- 1_og coal: ;LULU!): wuced oa the Ca motile Bnsinc r Of - Lea', vetrwh provides grunts and :raining far Shovel Eu- nit;• Cannabis s Busimcu ?C L.dor. in hr's ipctr+l:',e lei;h chc• low tirrt . law- yers ar-.wd Jame ;beat her swtcm:his.h hp ;h.,:a1 "In .:ea nr eve, 'Tattle:, itutcd. that sic was nun whiting wino inc. emetic nor': rstlict to ball !waling Ikon the Unic:nit)deapitc s. 11111. r ••'K'd. iluirm I. in- Iry thin email,'lhvr vnxead.. Lidding that Janie. _Lubu- raL'd iii' } Iti.a, mr't,uca!r- nor', Qcr`u:: alma' a ralhd the Inuhzy. Cie .lure. ?f1, Jarur+- L, taiU.r. td Lrl :in HI: Mi' in .1w Crier Markus Rerpc•rt, u puh.l-xtion i :a1 Tenor son 11Pv3It, nil, cantnhi& in - :Imam us Salving she'apoie with the go vernal and rt?-n,hr1;'Lf!sI runt i r+loot: it putting titian g fro ru lie bcLmni ,ff P'ibhc Health. In het Interiatr'vnrI rte tats -arras, Janres oaths Fhe :rut tnggquoted I% Green Mar- kel Repair sad tears si:p only >r alit it tucmberg'i filo.ra=+'crr.nn wait. Sltc is parairr'ased at aicesn,+cid urtre:c , n Jun. Ill tha''r .hc wants to see the cst ire cam- paign ;+:hied. and the re- r,aintnq funds directed `a grants fer nusrii''iana busi- ness OP.nlc19 77110 qua.iaV for ioci;il eglii-+- licenses Those le -eases an: available to pvorecce equitable 'eau- na:bit hu tnca"> ',wncr,hip. When asked oc Ccc waiver - Air a law ferns if his skill a?1:llri(Ci . Jarruo mspondc'.i 1 don't':.now, ma/he ye'." adding chic newer a+.aid nmd- imz !Lt's id, at7 c 3r;t!tal reu- nite Misin:ssos, ucc:rrdinx lathe report. On Jua. Si, tmhu mV: a tame. TeD2Catt m:Fr -::un tixttn„ all St mi:liun in funding tor tit: "Tti VD THC" campaign. On F_b 27, James write in an email to a group la- b c:id "alit c k cf Hun tat cucnurebus was "t'cin- lcninr;b.atur.Li 'a vtspvs rather than promo ring _v- gj*imarr.. tcsesret Last'd :dutittion. Tito. i; v .'r :hl. SS inllliuit it 'tinkling w213 puactd. fir m-Iseantra" On ninth I:: I v.• Cu+or- .ourar itricc gubritie Mid- get "cartvbisek'>-.° ukaln Ceti ri$:7. •:•1I1 ch'. S•_ n:El- Ifun nut funds the Tea un :HC eara.al.V u Du ilurcb /U, J':Grl l;idxa. cnn- .n-iacv iQ tirtutoly rziet I_ Ism pond cu., fat=e cat.houl art Pithy Health. 'arrribt:ting the fly: a'1 million In hod- rnt. Censwe;ind sanctions Japes totj talc Daily [piney a p.nlifedusdar that titvStill!alict' h; `Tea nu THC" erapaign "la .not ne "aril.hat'the funding ti vk r, been. pilot.' She xritl: tc-11usel Find Anrcnri- n nt tight to ₹t,} that and burs aas•?irtioracm the mut- ter. "Ent dill [ lobby for Utn: w ha≥ pvn.`.1b uLua•Iu stet," Juno said. Colorado Attorney Ccn- :•TA: LTA: Wei:zr wutuhed in cm Iii': nor tt r on July 31 '.thou :t --osoul on social n:✓ilea plat -Nun E that pr'ttct •liw rivets i+f free t:`'- •arct Shin tad the fair tmut- n::.at of CT' Rz?i. tt the 41c•ani _'tFlt,iii is .vulrld bo`sel: • e' reconsider it£ a e- Uon atiuin7s . s," I-lu said be was oner.rn vJ abcmt nil: sanctioning. adding lhd, I.hu ries,. Aranditx•u: pn'r.,rts t tc right tee snit: c&- nn.'.ESltin nal'ud if l�Gircr Puatinttes t; stand by his ° tt' - Any Jill 18 t ttm°ate .�t:> r , I' ' - ri u.,r ,tee r•d. .Irr•c rc'etaruf C,inneniatioos L.,awreuer Parimei, said to trio. R Wiser': s o i l"re:Hi ^•n IC Hood ..nail fat. I...Viativ. aro:'n'I ei,r. :,l,: 1, ,r,ry-• In•,: pc a,h II Ijn line ',hill Vera -Amp•..nod Ur h' -uniciersi- la r Irk? , ,uu ;cl Intl Lhl:: I Wd LAIN rrrn:. 1Shllc geode :IN ill - lit .find, mime cur ^I11^.,.in'V Mali, L'rnl• and r:nun:! I:all Ur. s.n d' r'>;rnls; irri.ulIn};.nu Ia- isu.r.'n cIci 1 s: Flood a.C,il. "I'tic riGII ,n In:r and Slat , sett II ,hurl:-Imui 7[utu \'1J:0 I rows .bus'.' shin - and it's in•.p+.'rtau; that w..; i t(urce those stan- itarLi2 vomsfs:ant:v; tcitard- .h ss of the ry,:nl and witlt- 'Jttt f,i:C °titter Pitu* and :ar-aa- nicadua b:we also bsc'k,.J JIime.s. Lau:tiding tku Oda - rail) Black Derucrcnas and Ito!' Gnu ter 31wn, C1('nYpr 7dirtist ri. l Lii,inc•u In ad.- .iititnto wc•1dnv,Jaracr.the C, t,ark-let urnaiiivrMin- Ctcrial:0]ianay L.div'aior lie LLnrncdiatc izaignation et re. in. saint itr.r. :iwaaud 1:us nothing to do with hog a rtl that she is nor Ili] Inag Aar SRI in: itn R.•y%ci- nation Ti:;devleivn ,'c:n- suit can tot b.. mad: bp Ih„ 6Barl ui II I;. 111 •,. Thu board b .a power Jbov" Sa- l]nuan and dwcrices ais.txt- plratinn in,. flood .and. Begin. I:u'tn SpicMd -surd a.'ne: of r_c on - vise aedirt:t' tiy'.Iantes. and, hat gupporlel 4a .trasd a litre. Janes hat leased peiscinal aratke *awn two the t o or item ':n haer- hook for eimat lc, p sting an July U that they 'elapse. in br anti Flats- and grand wits 1.1AGA Rt i hicrlas.' She also made commonr.t. :alrnahisorclitlate change. 1k veep:stile. °That is Wm 2 ,w cedCil: 'Lilt I in, willing to set," Hood Shirt "I cake t at err: that:h - norata tells la- terA-ted V7.' Irennrgnn;Nett `That? :e.:72 frustrating" .Iin;#r rented twat and kali It ,:s •-a cr.i ple:e lie' alrtrnisier that the board hoe come to The segentsi:avni atsa. cm her to 11.7 to resnive the re- acted a fa';n of san e:now Ana. against larks ns e, result "ifs time the e: buck of the censitrt .!amas Is ro to work for the auden-x;" prompting people to unrg- he returned liorc; all re. an: James zatd 'I'h app -tars we in.: its :tutee:s in the Tea committee iisiianmcnte-in- Bite :agt tens en Why we anTFIC'L'aLt n cawereao- .i'.c nd nx regent committee are catcted:' ILeitmc, and t -r_ ed Slue- lea4erih a p,.sld, its, and In 'lint. thet aard :tflit- J4c1 who iiJewiSt preventedfr+ti arsfu.prc p:nrareaeur'_dl:cl':_atfal::n Jaitza oleo posted on .aasihno-:ents. She ;eta no- tlalle^rc: af:or thz hoard Faechnoktaat'we need74? be allowed :n attend mid found ':tat he had rep -ea: - make hurt- that NI) CCCE i'crsit; uvunt. Di. a rcr csit edlgcnglrrd inhostile and :on:in'acs :h rttppnr. [tame but slid vn1 il1 be elite rte allusive verbal Ixha:iorter- Duniu cJpieltt'I on her re- attend rc x-intN.ithi sand load women. de ..i+allttkll en itrd au' ti::£a octal:111'.•irgmh tuber To AO' t:Ve. ltro:t ,'Diem :mr who is s'pperitut; her !rf t;: mare. Errr :-:earcp!c. r.T:on and reT:eted 3neu- atould ha ca:Ledalr...` te.an:dill attendCCsait nets, rritit tioytrr:sory En response to 111.0730 tltnna.>;amesbut wt.... Cl7Regen;[nvt,;TigatIon pasta Spiegel tad tae iottget : c> a i:,time ith cr . Daily Camera that "ratline The :atctiytns against; heragen ?cat and httunidu- ,luntcs are Witt until tile list. its never GF. [ ,.wing: - ril of ,:cr writ as mien: 'tally ',lard ev_ry day x. re- in :Al* hut they can he rruinfucusJl on m:''tinily. revised'' It:Tro• id beforc rcy"war6l hate to du e>••cr,• taut if -the hourd decides daf end :he work of being ti, d;7to. Hutnicim euid :he a monk- boar] •sent& :a had a sul-o- plead said sx wants tion and :as held cuuu; per.•:deto moor site and her le4" meetings and MRS h3 vollvnittiuremaintown:- a coup and intltvidau:lc tad :o their work and rz. with Jaime, both hctorc spon£:btlittcs is e gent tr_C -.enstatc invcatrnatlotl ''I remain ee+mmitTed and atter I;, but said J':mo:. to what 1 take WO.'' sari- and r any my work 1Jr sttSc t. and ' Ir:ulics 'fivi work we need du :Q prot cat? if.- a+i os resew:di and ti divot rearc, and roar them to zr' to build a URF vcr--its• t C.o.-oadu that r(— Ut',it :he dh•c r 5iL,. --r Ile Mute..r chi cols. Hood::aid that.. detaining to : meat- J nit's io .his A: - tuition •Nul l:a sigmW IY-' utc:'r t r aunt?; iha xt,uuhiny, and Ira-ing n •iii! red CJ -t4 rr- .amh:.rl.ut:rit ifs abutu hartbeam'anxiLia toc&mi- Jlw .. bus u:+t acbzt t'td uny tr r un,iad_'ar-y, and roiled li r tie hoard to apologize and 'Cn.U* : lb. Ian; Ilona and ca.tutrrc. Pt2nDisnn said the board is not ;sill - log to •lu tnlvsa 1•rata till c Purr.: •v'Letaceet1nt- uh](irr, cr'-,l if hi; an udn:ir- Lela. Ih Lht:r: r:'dtl'Yc aatdc ben or &ime, "We sun. continued to nr'tnrl r,I fetal it piney air puavu. and Mims apin]un °..e. i Y,,...,.tti _ . kind tiipl ly eiiiwierl 'oaIeiit in lirb.l''r aril Bing h. ''y netts: ry zj i111 Get' rune I, :qr:rwl,n;:eiii i)rllirla Ins inatti:r•_ m. Coll 303.473.140 in, Wet stun .rid. r�Qiat3., QUrc?.,,pt JOIN US! Community Open Houses Join us for a hands-on experience creating a plan for safer streets and roads in Weld County! Sec the oar° and analysis, learn more about initial draft Safety Action Plan recom rnendatio n s, share your feedback, and join the -community discussion Can't attend in -person? Visit true project wcbsite to sac tho Safety Action Plan data and materials and share you' 'deoS online during the open period oI iniorrnotibn sharing and feedback collection 12-22, August 2025. g Contort Us! {. (970) &00-3727 ( I aaloStreet;; a'Weld.gov *Wald Wald County Colorado PO Box 756 Greeley, CO 80632 C) Proio• t Manager: Evan F'Inkhcim Transportation Pia nncr Public Works Open House 3t'1 Tuesday, August 12 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Richard E. Hurl TruIN( ig Roerts, Flreslwner POIIas' & FAUricipal Coeds B..11dhig 44Oii Pin': Avent,e ritet.toner .CO 805,34 Open House Wt2 Wednesday, August 13 5:38 to 7;2O p.m. Fvcnis Chiron, Weld Cou-.ty AdmrniePatios' RLdiding Ilh,i:l ca slrect d rerlev, CO 1M6S I Presentations 'tor: at 5x15 pro. Slay Erfgaged with Us? a Scan the QR code end Falio'w us on social media to stay u p tc date withl protect iniormatrcn! @000 Mi eldsafes ureic ells. corn this Inrorniat;inn con be. rtInble mrnjlgble in onernotive uccz:aSib te tarn -iota upon request. I n t loto'ncitinn nhr,irr •it m u d,,,l _ii•alie•noti n-'f.r -'n I _tinier: IJ',�•vtla�l1l f u..nl•y .41)1. C:i,nrfill'cntrir: I rind AJ)At. ' clord nrr icr,i nv?.:cl go't. (:c II I Ito pin n R,asi-urg:e, or 1972: 417C -422a,': r filara?:7r m persnrn nt I.iimnn Resources, -1'-D t? Street, &reelf',', CC' Figure 22 Open Houses Display Ad - Longmont Times Call der.?- 11 :Jt h'7S ,Gri -11 i1.rf:7k NEWS' r'RCMPGOaa budget low comp:feared Medicaid health errerage tvtth a Vel warn-relorring requircte.rt There'.> -also the stns ref the wing; :his year is the 50th anni'.rrsarr cif another federal %ass slut receded :he network of s:ale;Traps n.. protect people with diar,biL- i:ice. and Trump's propas ale repre?ut the '.aegest.po- tential elite in t:tntltalvcwa- turr, advocates said. T:te Groups aee au - taunted to ;take imam. flounced suites to grows houses and interview rest - 'lefts oleic f''ou'regzing tubs -Mots cf pm?le writ:: dieahiltties lust, saidJensen, rtmv pre'-- idc'o: of t:ulrra'1a's advisory council -fiat federal funding t,f eifur' to protest new:]e with mental l]:nascs. Site worries '.teapie with distbiii cs-will have "'nc briekstop" for figx':t- ine, kenning dherimind- tlVnor seeking sander. air icbc'cd ar,titafireud at ions at work The, pt=c,atitt-i I•nLcUco; sot ine,a urn .1 shallop, eft co'sper from each federal (a_-7; any Tkc' arcturtsr;- ecivc not quite stet. mil- lion a year — venous lit h'ave`n in diner 1ioaitrr spending. stump administration touts States' flexibility The prcidttc'n: s (Mice or' I'i-anxc'menl and C'a:t.:r•r hadn't respond to an mail s•:ckm15 u r L'sp': n e to the Mahan, rights $rungs7 rdl i cis¢, But in budge: do cu - create, the udriimetratiou awned. cis proposal?: would girre estate: needed tluxthtl- t•v. The r.s: Eaenar:ntent of Etincainn said earmarking funds for disability tights trntet3 treated an unnec- essary administrative ha- lm fir state.ti 'I rump'.; ,;p budge: ad- viser. Itnsscll Vaught told ycuatara in a letter that e review of dill apendinr: showed too much wen: to thI Lie" rr1tps outside:g'av- ernment "We oleo crmsidcttzl for eat: _:,rnr,ra:li.whetter the ..gove1Tl WEUa..l sr:ice pro- vided could be pin 'titled better by tState or local _sni- ermaer¢-s. (if provided at ul:r,° Vc'si tic •r'rotc-.. Ifrzabi:it's riebts ad- vocates d;,uat ::tat sta:e protection and advocacy grange — knci -m as ills —would See any- dollar no: anemically earmarked TOT thcc. They srie state9, a:; the adrotaate don't want states deciding lt'ite:her their work ,P*-'tifunded. The ]Y'75 ft'Jerat law s::r- tin;np 21.- &.'declared them independent of the ;tares. and ncty*•r laws minion -2d that. "Weds need in indc:an- d ant =return that can held then areal a?ther '•via u,+ccbaeri accountable,' said R*ekti 1*iv to:lig :: K-,nsas<' mzsi -�sc�lti.t du-ector Helping peolewith P disabilities navigate Medicaid IiJ:ho'� !oiler ha, helped [tfatthew Hilt lot !Rani ' ithgetinr,.the state I.0 rust:. •,,.ruo:ci, and IIvU hopes to tied aJub, Hz nsc3 a wheelchair. a Itzdit.,id- pruv'iagd nears'' lmdp* bin ran urr!mdis "I mod :u be dote tv do trail "n I tun kyup a. siruas-k lv' he bald, add- ing :hat ac:itirr preserves his gall's. Ytelicatd app errs - en; tau had -a difficu.t time working through it3 flies -:rcn before then u : ttnd Lr'lr1- ge7 a•r.''e recent changes LET'S REFINISH YOUR COUNTERTOPSI i eaMiracle Method' SURFACE REFINISh ING Visit us at miroclemetbod.r_om/fort-Collins said: lean.la2k3nu, Utsahtl- 1:� utg:its l'exas'rce:udor director. 53.51a fewer dollars, he '_Pia re Zee are C 711111 line na, we're ping to have to take lest' (-saes." rte- fecal group re- atiVes money train a :cal aid foundation and nt:ier ,u tees, Intl federal 1nn& >ti: arc rjt<'.!i, of its drll.ans. The hnusas tenter and Uisalnlity Rig:ns I.rwra stay- tafirl;• :m fcdt-ral fund;. "Fnr the main rity is t':,u1d pi: ohali:s he Ise >::.r higher.' aid Marlene SuL'u, executive, dirzetor of the National Uisabilirs Rights Network which retirement; 'the. Trump Aetna innan- tton?t propcuale StIgit:at it wants to slut down P&As. ?aid Steven Schwartz., wan teinndc d t'e IJantafar Pub- lic Rem -cremation, u It:as- aachasct.-hasadnr„auiza- t!cn that worxs Witt them on ::aw'vuite. Investigating allegations of abuse and pushing states T ivrul finding mean: a cUL is tOUV tts Dixabilir; Rights lows. :aunehcd an iw * rliclt; ice iw:ltjvn :4 a ;?nnrr'nn cmt4uviose men with developmental disahil i:i,''S lit lark::.. ravto Sin' plant. Authorities euid they li'cd in :a danj rutty. bats- infested bun:cLtnttso and were trran is::4 ex :oitcd. Aithuui Lac :lulurs, :a- _e'r.Lvc ejirectur Cuth'.•- rine Jai•-n:uo said, 'That's n:aykc real "un^:hio •'ac cucCJ h.we dens' Ihv Krnsits ucnit-c � -n- t'slt: btIuni.-u' in?Utg:-a+•ilh :inc of J4tsoiN feltrJa' resi- dents eten!-lally led :., long tdera 7rfsunsc-ntcoccsfnr tae emple operating the ICs"fee-an Ho'a:e, a lionte tar people with ntettta: ill- nesses utxaut 2& Hilts north Add Ina Natural Accents ira!eYV&sue. laM Aids% Age Connecting you to the trusted (vetted) resources, information, education and assistance you and your family need when you need its Jigs Welt., Age Wiselfri wwwragewlsecoloraido.org I J20-295-0183 fare sett.- —I'r n sir 'a•'. h -. rl r'.:u s n ...-!, •'•: PI•" ' PO:.., _'felt: Ill . -xi r•Ilr Teel':. Kau In.,: uri. -- 'r., ''Gees }' P atoli,r•I,n•a, , -;' Isar aI Ic ices 4r,:::t VI'lu.i:Ida,•av 1:I it t!:I::v._y I. to C6: n yrk•tu lr ll ypi a -Jg- ii', :. •1'I" It a, I r,` :it . n Jii:,lnr •,dz: • end 1, wasn't nisi. Ills- the s#� :i: io:il to draft a ,LAiJiay 'gore luu'sI filed a ph,n to prA'ide nniinnnUy i'd..'r<tl:a'. sultimam that er_n•ittr (us ti:tildmuwith ;were mental and behaw- lvrat needs, For 1.= yeaev, Sc:urart1 grutr.gandDisabilityRivbts Tcaas have purzt:d :r ted- cral lawsui: aLeging Isaac; warehouses several sand l-f_•Ll ple "with IlttCllea- tlld! anddeveloprnentcd dlr abilities in eosin`:: an:ca without adetria c . cr,,7l::e Texas put at last free men in humus arT2i chcy'd worked in. the Iowa turkot flan lu•tt o:oufa, a f::aural fudge. urdered work tc' start on a plan to cod tine ".L'l'a:r'S• ,1 nd unwfinit" ]ems, Sehwartr said Die- abi:its Rights Texus did inlervicx•s :and gaIhered ducannata crtu•i:J cu tic taw. "Then. Are no bet rr cats. or wrs,": ectlt1 I i / S A FEJT JOIN US! Community Open Houses Join us for a hands-on experience creating a plan for safer streets and roads in Weld County! Sac the tiara and analysts, learn mare about initial draft Safety Action Plan recommendations, share your feedback, and join the community discussion Can't attend in -person? Visit the project website lo sae rho Safety Action Plan date and materials and share your idecus online during the open period ci information sharing and feedback. collection August 12-28, 2025. Contact Us! © (970) 400-3727 Sat eStreets`a'Trt'1Veld.g ov * 1hloid County Colorado PO Box aS Greeley, CO 80632 ® Project Manager: Evan F'ini ham Transportation Planner Public Works Open House #1 Tuesday, August 12 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Richard E Hurl Trulriing Room, Firestone POI Ice Sr Municipal Corte B'.11ding AcC4 PnricAvery fe Ma -stone, CO 8ORC 4 Open HOuSe #2 Wednesday, August 13 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. FvenIs Room, 'JJeld Cciunly Adrninielraliun Bt:ilciing 1150 0 street Greeley. Co 0d63I Freest -nations afar at 5:45 p.rn. Stay Engaged with Us! a ,i.J}•MLI�r aia--wer raj,ci•a L us^ ,Fi• ❑ �L' 7•:- t: 'h':i. Scan the CzR code and fal.':ow. us on social media to stay up to date With project information! 00000 t/x eldSofes B'.reets,com This information can be moat avaitablein alternative acceitiblo forn'tats upon inquest rot information nhnut rihlnining nn nitematiVe bra not, convict 'he Weld Crn.nto drtd eonrliilltlICir: I mclil AUAC.:oordinatortc weld goy, {.:ill I!Limnn ReROI1rcPS nt 197:7.1 400-42L3A, or nppear in person -nt Illrman fr=striaces, '11 O. Street, °me'ieyi;CO Figure 23 Open Houses Display Ad - Greeley Tribune Join us for a hands-on experience creating a plan for safer streets and roads in Weld County! See the data and analysis, learn more about initial draft Safety Action Plan recommendations, share your feedback, and join the community discussion. Can't attend in person? Visit the project website to see the Safety Action Plan data and materials and share your ideas online during the open period of information sharing and feedback collection August 12-28, 2025. Contact Us! ie ) (970) 400-3727 SafeStreets@Weld.gov '• Weld County Colorado PC Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Project Manager Evan Pinkham Transportation Planner Public Works Open House #1 Tuesday, August 12 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Richard E. Hart Training Room, Firestone Po ice & Municipal Courts 3ui (ding 9900 Park Avenue Firestone, CO 80504 Open House #2 Wednesday, August 13 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Events Room, Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 Presentations start at 5:45 pin. Stay Engaged with Us! "fia no I'r`' ..4, .:114.1•`;'• M. ; ,i. " :a 7 1`. , '.... It .'.is. I • an O 1, 't .7 ' . Y a1 .. I .r •1 a.a". £'i" °111..9..11 '".1 t;1 I .a.. ..a: :- a R a.'.`t `........71..w .# .t'. Scan the OR code and follow us on social media to stay up to date with project information! 0 O Weldsafestreets.com This information can be made available in alternative accessible formats upon request. For information about obtaining an alternative format, contact the Weld County ADA Coordinator: Email ADACoordinatoroweld.gov, Call Human Resources at (970) 400-4234, or appear in person at Human Resources, 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO Figure 24 Open Houses Display Ad I. ,4i'oJt44 %cam SAFETY ACIION PLA4 JOIN US! Community Open Houses Join us for a hands;on experience creating a plan for safer streets and roads in Weld County! Whether you join us in Firestone or Greeley, we look forward to seeing you at one of these upcoming events. See the data and analysis, learn more about initial draft Safety Action Plan recommendations, share your feedback, and join the community discussion_ Can't attend hi -person? Visit the project website to see the Safety Action Plan data and materials and share your ideas online during the open period of information sharing and feedback collection August 12-28, 2025., Stay Engaged with Us! Scan the EAR code and follow us on social media to stay up to date with project information! OIII 4ID�o Open House #1 Tuesday, August 12 5:30 to 7:30 p.m, Richard E. Hart Training Room firestone Police & Municipal Courts Building, 9900 Park Avenue tlrestone, CO 80504 Open House #2 Wednesdays Aug u s t 13 5:30 to 7:30 pin. Events Room, Weed County Adnlnistralian Building,1150 O Street Cmerey, CO 80831 Presentations start at 5:45 P.m. Contact Us! WeldSafeStreets.cam Gi (970) 400-3727 SafeStreets@Weld.gov Weld County Colorado PC Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Project Manager: Evan Pinkharn Transportation Planner Public works This information can be made available in alternative accessible formats upon reqt- i-or information about obtaining an alternative format, contact the Weld County ADA Coordinator: Email AOACoordinatorcalweld.gov, Call Human ke.sou.rces at (970) 4400-4231+, or appear in person al Human Pesources,1150 O Street, Greeley, CO Figure 25 Open Houses Flyer Invitation WHAT IS THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH? The USDOT Sate System Approach is a holistic and comprehensive approach that provides a guiding framework to make places sorer for people It works by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent. crushes from happening in the first place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do occur. A Safe System Approach incorporates • ' it the following principles: 150. t+ Q'�'1ar. • Death and'Serious Injuries arc Unacceptable • Humans Mok& tMlistcakes • I Iumans Are Vt;ilri€trc nlir • Responsibility is Shared ▪ iaiisty is Proactive • Redundancy is Crucial weldsafestreets.com Post -Crattii tare fr, SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH to Reducing D .-z tt,l. IA 5afc ROOdS ;s,btpery a =:ntrM,`41 4 Safe Speeds CURRENT TRENDS 250 In 200 u z 0 100 I5 o a 50 U 2014 2015 2016 201: During the past ten years, 561 people have been killed and 2,011 have been seriously injured on Weld County roads. 49 149 48 129 53 131 61 139 57 155 45 160 46 llO 40 199 44 181 56 189 2018 2019 202C 2021 2022 2023 weldsafestreets.com Fatality Serious Injury WHAT WILL A SAFETY ACTION PLAN DO? The Weld County Department of Public Works is spearheading efforts to develop the Weld County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan based on the Safe System Approach. This initiative is lunded through the USDOT's Sale Streets and Routh iar All (SS4A) grunt program. informed by community and stakeholder input. tits plan wit' comprehensively lay out a framework of actionable, measurable,. and innovative strategies that emphasize design enhancements or improvements, which all aim to enhance sofcty for all rocidwdy user.. The project will develop v nearly countywide action plan by: community Input collecting and moor posattng community end stageholaer Input Data -driven Analysis Analyzing to latest county data and corripernnq it to cc•m2Qfc bl.r cQmrnuniti•s tce kind too con.r.autinlactv s ir• local and €*boas injciry traffic crastr s weldsafestreets.com The final plan will include: strategies and Policies Reconmendadons that make ' sense for Via: CcJnly are .its cornett Hide - Implementation Plans cu�ldon;e !or caur ty dipprtriwiltzt vnd Other �ssp:cnsible parties tip Nip thorn apply' tho piOn's IQ►c0- 7-im;adaticTc€ Figure 26 Open Houses Boards 1-4 WHAT WILL THE SAFETY ACTION PLAN BE USED FOR? The Safety Action Plan will be used to identify strategies, policies, countermeasures, and processes that wilt over time, eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads. These policies and processes Include: • Street Design Guidelines • Funding Allocations • Education f Emergency Responders • Street Reconstruction Projects • Potential System -Wide Safety Programs weldsafestreets.com This Safety Action Plan covers ail roadusers involved in fatal and serious injury crashes. This includes people driving and riding in vehicles, people walking, people biking, and any other person using the street. i I PMezl Port Wn l t,1 Meta CoL nI M e tlud*z IA0 unlncorporoiod area of the county and 'event IYwnleipOlltros (Doeona, Caton. Evans, firesgone. fan caftan. ruck. I ilcre-s1, Hudson, Keenestkurg Ea5cal{e. ► woc.I. Milliken.'Pioscv. P'fatiarifill t. and erara) that do not already have their own Safety Action Plan. • Il 44) WHAT WILL FUND THESE CHANGES? The Weld County Safety Action Plan Is funded through the LISDOT•s Safe Streets and Roads for Ail (Ss4A,) grant program. 5 4 S A i ne Bipartisan infrastructure Law (Sri) established the Safe Streets and Roads ler AN (SS4,A) discretionary program, with $5 billion in appropriated kinds over 5 years (2022-2026Y The SS4A program funds regional, local" and Tribal initiotivos through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injurkes.1his program supports the U.S. Deportment of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy and the goal of zero roadway deaths ut 1ng the Safe System Approach. Weld County contributed funds, along with Safe Sheers and Roads ler All (S 4A) for Ail Grant funds, to create the Safety Action Plan. Once completed, the Safety Action Plan could help the county become more competitive when applying for federal and state grant dollars for implementation actions that support safety for all transportation system users. weldsafestreets.com Creating Safer Streets for Weld County WHAT IS THE TIMELINE FOR THE SAFETY ACTION PLAN? The Safety Action Plan is currently in development and will be completed by Fall 2025. Weld County will continue its ongoing commitment to reducing total and serious injury crashes in years to come by implementing strategies in the Action Plan to make Weld County streets safer for all. )t'}24 I tEnn -h 2025 JOH rill. I}:tl7n Ar+nlysi rl '` i )`afet�• tna< Lorca Wean 1C! Action. vldn I)>.velriprrent r'uE Enyas ement aft., Ucc'a c= county ubMit t; Bcord cif Corinnissic•ne a county Co-nrnissiorers weldsafestreetsecom O top3 ?rebsi 1'ubli•.�sn •`` launch 'd _vents lJ I I.^use G eetinaa STAY INFORMED Do you have questions or ideas you want to share? We want to hear from you. Phone: Email: Website: In writing: a O • • '4t ie,'it • O4 '•Wt'. •i i1" tt .. . 3,12 t•.e',...ti.. .....' E«_:t0,.. f. ...`t. .' '�.;.1 .• ti w. r �" ",,., ,35 '' :▪ =• q v w los, vetoer y•:::.:; : ....._ • a (970) 400-3727 SafeStreets@Weld.gov weldsafestreets.com Weld County Colorado PO Box 758 Greeley, OO 80632 Scan QR Code to submit comments online. weldsafestreets.com Figure 27 Open Houses Boards 5-7, 12 STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 0 SUPPORT OPPOSE I Q te O Vehicle Fleet Safety Training Develop comprehensive safety policies for county vehicle operators to improve safety and efficiency. CC La to Communications and Outreach Supporting Safe Travel Behaviors Develop ct communication campaign focused an curtailing speeding, impaired driving, and distracted driving. J W rte' 1.1 Ic Cg OO u- Promote Motorcycle Rider Education den° Promote and spread ov areness of motorcycle rider W tr&niiig courses. I CI CO O 2oi weidsafest reefs com Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 28 Open Houses Boards 8-9 (Strategy Recommendations) -A 4 er O 3 4 I Lu Dynamic Speed Display I Feedback Signs IFta oat° Co depot movie ono paimonen! =pad feecR>avxtgns. Lu ix U - 4. to wci tx tit V' a Speed Managumant Plan De,,etop n .ate mio agement plen kir oo►tlnitit r00tlii STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS OSUPPORT OOPPOSE I. 0 W w > t:3 O p Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Develop a plan for Improving safety and comfort of bicyclists and pedestrians along the county's trails and roadway network. la IY D f- M tx - It) < Et Li- Z CIP Project identification and Prioritization Integrate S9riotrs injury and fatality reduction into project selection and prioritisation. quick -Build Funding Program Establish a program tar temporary safety improvements with performance rrtonilOring. Intersection Control Evaluation Policy Require safety -focused intersection assessments. promoting roundabouts. Street Design Standards Updates Align rood design $ with Safe System principles. weldsafest reets.com Am _ Creating Safer Streets for Weld County • r !1�:;IX `Pill4yF rat Ni. R RoADs 1 i 14*;SA SAFETY ACTION PLAN STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS O SUPPORT O OPPOSE tW Systemic Lana Departure Mitigation Strategy knduce nst.scrt horse dup ari, re, crrirritir. by ir_Ircllirtq Mantua Illst aurtrt h stlhtt4 whit. odgn I..+[.!, rt+ cl i,+,1lravrrd flail, lertiort with all runway s gimprcdvernent II. Road Safety Audits Conduct requiem .ratoty tudrtt mono toy condorsand Mt port at Mu planning ana design cxl trnnwol-tctian prv$ects - Z Udall* Appropriate Safety Teehnetagy Irriplernont tiocIvvitrocai al:Amy irrkprowmorfli, oval us InlWanctlon, Conflict Warning Spawn' to Irtrpeavcl misty pucformcrrca. ' a'.r Z • ryy td Safety Lighting Action PiOT In -actor roadway Ilglatirtg lid weldsafestreets«+ o m Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 29 Open Houses Boards 10-11 (Strategy Recommendations) HIGH INJURY NETWORK & HIGH INJURY INTERSECTIONS /f�� SAFETY ACTION PI AN High Injury Network Map weldsafestreetsecom Q 4 Legend - rli(Jnlnjurn• Fr':I •ln)Ik .urisdlc-ar it Action ion — Hyl' Inj.lry Nene:ark unhayparotoo -ur•sdic:ors H seder Nun I _ur sail (II I VA i'. Arllor P6ar H 4 5 10 ©Miles The High Injury Network and the High Injury Intersections Identity muds and intersections brat hove a higher likelihood of fatal and serious injuries occurring based an historical trends. The High Injury Networkam urits for total roadway miles, but accounts for so':cus crashes. 9.5"d, On I heSe are. nearly 1126 miles 7 limes of The county's of all fatal and 65.0% of roridv:oy, loll ❑nd ser.ous crushes more likely to occur. out of 11,:8a Intersections,, the igh injury wetvcork Identifies 101 lnterrsectlans injury crashes. IPrd arreounI fur 39% ill loin' rind ser nus Too 3 High Injury Intersections in Jurisdictions in Action Plan (2UI.1-2423) Intersection Fatal/Seam AN InjuryCrashcs Cr ashes' H'wy35 & Cella RC a (Felt Lupien) Hwy 25 & Pith a (Foci Lupton) I Ityy 85 a Aron Ave (rk rteville) 16 I I S Tau 3 High Injury Intersections In Unincoroora:ed Weld County (2014 2023) Intersection I Iwy 1L ti, Cnunry kr; 21 H'dYU5&C0lll57y'3G£q flGth Ave & Ccuriy Rd 1@ FGt41/T9IlQNe AM lajury Crn b s crashes 6 f 24 43 Gil e High Injury Intersections Map 'a 7,1. ®8. L" • `l!, s s s I !rt yi to p, r tr1,I r aril- -*I J .N' ' * 7 =t [rI•Y ' rII 87`r 8a rin IJ Legend a rdon lnjcrylrtersec.ar Just•:: (CALMS :• I Anion- Phu a I lryn rimy Interse:ion Ikirr.crlxarrlori I JUrl9d ctic'I≤ la soon, Pion Juriad cticn Hat in ric:or Hun N Q 5 10 �, Miles '`IJ4t_ Creating Safer Streets for Weld County FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES & HIGH RISK NETWORK SAFETY ACTION PI AN Fatal & Serious Injury crashes (2014-2023} s 4 a I A 4 e A s a4 �tl a 4 a m •. d c e L a A aA /. A 444 A$a 6 ..4 A ems a a r -O 4 4 NADAd o a a A L 2 s s e a4 Y G *� �a ea a a A 46 a SO es 6 a, 6 Y A A weldsafestreetsecom A O Legend e Re (II • Serlcus Muni .urcdictions it •'wticn rlar .. nr'aertctlr ins Nr::In At.11tr. Pion 0 5 10 Miles 4_ During the past 10 years. A total of being 1,828crashes have resulted in people killed or seriously injured In Weld County. Pedestrians and bicyclists account for 8.2% of all total and serious injury crashes while only making up This means: 2.1% e as likely to be The of the commuting population. Pedestrians are nearly 3.0x involved in a fatal or serious injury crash. Bicyclists are nearly11.2x as likely to be involved in a fatal or serious injury crash. Hi • h Risk Network identifies roads where may occur based on existing attributes, such as number of lanes, traflic volumes, roadway type, and speed limits_ atal and serious injury crashes High Risk Network Map Legend light/OA twlvnlrk ,u 'Udicor, it Action r i 1 High Risk Aetr.bar< unrinoroararee .ur;dic:ors:1Acdvr clan 1_ . ur'utiu:ors Vox i i Ae[ejr PLn N 0l 5 10 Miles Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 30 Open Houses Roll -Plot Maps (High -Injury, High Risk, Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes) SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES ALL WELD COUNTY .r E SAFETY AC.,TION PI AN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS a Ict IX o Mass Media Campaigns mass media Campaigns are intensive communication and outreach activities focusing on key topics regarding safety, health, and smell -being (such as driving under the influence) that use radio, television, print. social, and other mass media platforms. I 5 4 I Co Road Safety Audit A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a safety performance review of a roadway segment or interaction by a multidisciplinary team as a part of n project development process; RSAs investigate existing infrastructure, mode use, and other factors. zSpeed ta 2 Limit Reduction f Slow Zones I. speed limit reductions; basKi on context -and activity level, reduce crashes by lowering speeds and increasing sign frequency 2. Slow zones designate Iowei speeds (1s- 20 mph) in areas with vulnerable populations, like parks, school zones, and neighborhoods. - - z O ix W Lateral Shift A lateral shift Is a shift ot an otherwise straight street to redice motor vehicle speeds. typically though the use of a median Island. Gateway Signing / Landscaping Gateway Signing i Lanscaping is a way to give warning to motorists entering a denser region of the county from a mare rural area: Lanscaping can also be used to calm traffic by visually naorriwng the roadway. weldsafestreets.com clom Creating Safer Streets for Weld County - 1?s ,, SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Hy or • ALL WELD COUNTY _ SAFETY ACTION PI 4,14 SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS All -Way Stop Control Conversion All -way stop control converts either two-way stops or unwarranted signals to four-way stops, reducingwait times and making intersections more predictable_ this countermeasure cart also serve us 11 temporary solution forcrllier, mare expensive traffic control solutions, such as roundabouts. Lane Narrowing Lano narrowing shrinks roadway width while kooping tho same number ot lanes; slowing traffic, shortening podostrian crossings. and allowing for tho reclaimed space to bo used for on Street parking or for adding bike/pedestrian facilities. W CC I- ( Lane Reconfiguration Lane reconfigurations reduce the number of lanes, cutting conflict points, crossing distances, and vehicle speeds. In rural areas without sidewalks. Increasing the paved shoulder width by removing a travel lane can dre..nm:mndare non-rnororized users_ F 41) ftStreet Lighting lighting Improves visibility, especially at intersections, crosswalks, and other high -traffic areas, reducing crashes and enhancing pedestrian safety. Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections Reduced left-Lurn conflict. intersections redesign lell turns Lo reduce crushes and improve safely. Common types include RGUTs (which modifies the cross -street approach) and MUTs(which modifies the major approaches). Systemic Crossing Modifications systrsniiic crossing modifications improve pedestrian Safery cjnci qc esSibility across busy streerS with m{rrked crosswalks, lighting, refuge iclOrnds,+tncj clear signctge- weldsafestreets.clom Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 31 Open Houses Safety Countermeasures - ALL WELD COUNTY - Scrolls 1-2 SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES ALL WELD COUNTY SAFETY AC firm PI AN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS Flashing Yellow Arrows Flashing yellow arrow (FYA) traffic signals lecture a flashing yellow arrow in addition to the standard red, yellow and green arrows When illuminated, the FYA allows waiting motorists to make a left-hand turn alter yielding to oncoming traffic 1YAs reduces driver confusion when turning. Protected Left -turn Only Phasing Protected left -turn only phasing provides a green arrow for left -turning vehicles while stopping on -coming traffic and parallel pedestrians. This phasing improves safety by limiting confusion and limiting traffic conflicts. W CC I— DModern ce I - C LL Z Retroreflective Back;plates Peiroreflective bookplates increase the visibility at traffic signals: they also alert driversto intersections during power outages: Roundabout 1. Single -lane roundabouts reduce traffic speed, eliminate dangerous angle crashes; and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. 2. Multi -lane roundabouts handle more traffic but have more conflicts than single -lane roundabouts. Turbo roundabouts add dividers to improve safely Intersection Conflict Warning System An intersection conflict warning system (Icws) provides warnings to drivers through warning signs and beacons of potential conflicting vehicles approaching an un:igncilited intersection. ICWSs can be installed on the majorond(or minor approach. Corridor Access Management Corridor access managomanl reduces driveway density (I.e., tho number of entry and writ points along the roadway; Including intorsoctions) to reduce trip delay and congestion, facilitate walking and biking, and enhance safety for all modes of transportation. Dedicated Turn Lanes (Intersection) I Offset Turn Lanes Dedicated turn lanes separate and protect turning vehicles from travel lanes, providing deceleration before a turn and storage of vehicles waiting to turn. Offsetting turn lanes increases visibility these vehicles, especially at locations with higher speeds or where free -flow or permissive movements are possible. weldsafestreets.com Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 32 Open Houses Safety Countermeasures - ALL WELD COUNTY - Scroll 3 SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES UNINCORPORATED WELD COUNTY 4�. K & ./ iX l SAFETY Ae,,TI^d'JPIAll SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS Center Line Buffer Area A center line buffer area provides extra space between the two solid center line markings, further separating opposing directions of traffic_ The width of the buffer area can range between two to ten feet. Enhanced Curve Delineation Enhanced Carve Delineation uses a combination of signs and pavement markings to significantly reduce curve crashes. such ds chevrons, In -lane curve vitiating pavement markings, retroreflective strips on signposts. delineators, and dynamic warning signs / chevrons. I— z W Roadside Design improvements at Curves Roadside Design Improvements, including the establishment of Clear Zones, flattening slopes, adding or widening shoulders, or installing roadside barriers, allow fora safe recovery for a motorist who hus lef I the roadway or W slop solely. Local Road Safety Plan A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Is a plan that identities, analyzes, and prioritizes roadway safety improvements on local county roads utilizing public and stakeholder engagement RSA, data analyses, arid e. mote F.1/4k fY Rumble Strips & Stripes Rumble strips and stripes (strips that hove pavement markings painted over them) alert drivers to lane departure, reducing head-on and run -off -the -road crashes. Rumble strips/stripes can he placid ar the center line, edge line, or en the shoulder. z La Shoulder Installation /Widening Installing or ~•,ideating shoulders provides space lor disabled vehicles. maintenance, and other Safety activities. Safely edges can be installed on newI or widened existing shoulders. Wider Edge Lines Wider edge lines improve visibility,.roducing roadway departure crashes, ()spatially on rural two lone highways. Adding center and edge lines whorathey are missing further improves safety_ Clear Zone Clear zones are areas along the roadside that have been cleated of natural materials and debris, compacted, and leveled: the width ota Clear zone depends on a variety of factors, including traffic volumes. speeds, slopes, fixed objects. terrain, and other factors that affect risk. weldsafestreets.com Cr-eatin€g Safer Streets for Weld County SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES UNINCORPORATED WELD COUNTY SAFETY A:7TI PI wht SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS o in o III r CCHigh Safety Edge Safety Edges provide a smooth transition between paved roadway and shoulders, preventing tire damage and vehicle loss of control while Increasing pavement durability_ Friction Surface Treatment High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) is a layer of specialized aggregate locicod onto tho roadway surtoco that Improves the friction capability forvehicles and should be used at interchange romps, horizontal curves, intersections. and locations with high -friction demand. W ed I— C.) CEApproach Lb C Systemic Step -control Modifications Systemic slop -control modifications improve intersection visibility with advanced warning signs, retroreflective panels, enlarged signs rumble strips, and cross -trial lie warning signs. Striping Center Lines/Edge Lines Roadway striping, in the form of center lines and edge lines, separates the opposing flows of traffic and indicates the edge of the paved roadway fromthe shoulderithe adjacent graded materials. Approach Rumble Strips rumble strips are transverse rumble strips installed into the pavement ahead of stop controlled approaches: when crossed by tires, these create a physical vibration and an audible wprning that pleats the motorisr of the upcoming approach so nco they con safely stop in time. CC D' - Dynamic Curve Warning System (DCWS} Street lighting improves visibility. especially at Intersections, crosswalks, and other high -traffic areas, reducing crashes and enhancing pedestrian solely. Coble Median Barrier Gable Median Barriers protect against fixed roadside hazards, reducing fatal arid serious crashes. weldsafestreets.com Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 33 Open Houses Safety Countermeasures - UNINCORPORATED WELD COUNTY - Scrolls 4-5 SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES JURISDICTIONS IN ACTION PLAN a SAFETY L\ ..TIcch1 PI All SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS 4 High -Visibility Saturation Patrols A saturation patrol consists of low enforcemenr officers patrolling n specific area looking for impaired drivers; these patrols usually occur or limes and locations where impaired -driving crashes commonly occur and should be publicized extensively and conducted regularly. Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints Sobriety Checkpoints ore highly visible, regularly conducted stops of motorists al predetermined locutions to investigate whellier motorists are impaired. Slops are conducted per vehicle or at a regular interval (e.g., every third vehicle). 4 ix o = WI Automated Enforcement Automated enforcement uses cameras to detect and document traffic violations like red light running and speeding, notifying vehicle owners by mail. m integrated Enforcement Integrated Enforcement is a type of high visibility enforcement focused primarily on behavioral activities; such us driving under the inl luence. speeding, and seal -bell usage, and is seen in both regular traffic enforcement / crash investigations and specialized Checkpoints / saturation patrols. MI Ci 3 CC in CC f` f. Intersection Daylighting Intersection daylightincy improves the sight distance for road users as they enter and navigate an intersection by restricting curbside vehicle parking spaces or clearing of sight distances leading up to an Intersection. Restrictions can be accomplished through the use of pavement markings and flexible guideposts Leading Pedestrian Intervals Leading pedestrian intervals (LP') give pedestrians 3-7 seconds of crossing time betore vehicles ore given a green light; LPls Increase pedestrian visibility, increase the yielding behavior of motorists, end can provide additional time to cross - Raised Medians Medians separote n-c:irric, reducing head-on collisions and providing sofa hgvehs for pedestrians_ Roiled Medions con be used in conjunction with corridor access management strategies (e_g., reducing driveway access:points). 2 d— Mini -Roundabout Mini -roundabouts are smaller, single -lane versions of traditional roundabouts with traversable centers for larger vehicles without requiring additional ROW. weldsafestreets.com Creating Safer Streets for Weld County SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES JURISDICTIONS IN ACTION PLAN SAFETY Aciic> J PI Af'$ SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES COMMENTS Raised Crosswalk /Raised Intersection Rai§ad crossings improve pedestrian safety and accessibility by slowing traffic and providing ei loyal crossing surface Mush with the sidewalk while simultaneously encouragin motorists to yield. Raised crossings can be extended to cover an entire intersection. 4 HPIHf3s lt,. 0 tfi Lil o 5 2 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) rtRF6s use flashinc7 lights to improve safety €tt unsignalized crosswalks,- especially= multilane crossings under 40 mph, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) use flashing lights to improve driver yielding to pedestrians at unsignalized Crossings, especially on higher -speed roadways. - High Visibility Crosswalk High Visibility Crosswalks create u visible place fur pedestrians and bicyclists Lo cross using a combinalivn of high visibility crosswalk markings, perking restricLings, advance pavement mcarlcingsf signs; curb extensions,and lighting. Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes make cycling safer and mare comfortable by separating cyclists from traffic and pedestrian iddlities using paint or physical barriers. Curb Extensions Curb extensions and bulb -outs shorten crossing distances, improve visibility, and reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway. Curbs can be extended at midblookcrossings or at intersections.. weldsafestreets.com Creating Safer Streets for Weld County Figure 33 Open Houses Safety Countermeasures -JURISDICTIONS IN ACTION PLAN - Scrolls 6-7 Raw Comments Received through the Engagement Map The following are public comments related to where Engagement Map participants are feeling unsafe driving, walking, cycling, crossing at a railroad crossing, or other in Weld County. A more in-depth Excel spreadsheet and geojson file show these comments with georeferencing: 3 Way Stop. This intersection includes a lighted crosswalk. a 3 way stop here would slow through traffic in this area, and reduce risk to those utilizing the crosswalk. Congestion. 2 Lanes is inadequate with the amount of truck traffic in this area. Speeding. Speed Camera, Enforcement would be a goldmine. 45MPH is regularly exceeded for traffic Westbound. Makes turning at CR15 incredibly dangerous The side dump trucks with dirt travel very fast and are constantly hauling loads on this road. It's unsafe around the school because cars are dropping off kids. Some parents walk with kids and pets too. Even with the recent culvert extension. The area is unsafe. It needs deceleration and acceleration lanes. Always a bit scary here with the family in the car. Need to burn the rubber so you don't get hit. excessive speeding from Fraser to Tipple N o sidewalk and no crosswalk to safely exit No Name Creek neighborhood and access the path right across the street through a high traffic area When southbound on WCR 19 approaching Hwy 52 the pavement is warped and it makes it very difficult to maneuver a right turn. It is also very difficult to safely cross Hwy 52 when traffic is heavy. It has been awhile since I have traveled this road; if it has already been repaired, I apologize. N eeds traffic light N eeds traffic light Increased development and new high school Multiple accidents in the intersection and some fatal! Even though bigger flashing stop signs have been add on 43, please don't stop and crash into the fence and props on that corner N o sidewalk/connectivity here lots of trucks on 85 run the red light dangerous LH turns here and too many accidents, often fatal A Lucerne resident recently was hit trying to drive across Hwy 392 to go to the post office to get their mail. Semi Traffic will get worse when new oil and gas wells are drilled in the next couple years. I've been hit at this intersection and have seen collisions happen here on a weekly basis. The way this road is poorly lit and drivers speeding over the hill and it breaking into two lanes makes this intersection very scary. Turning out of this intersection from the south to the west (left turn) is difficult because traffic is speeding up as you watch them approach so it is hard to turn safely. I also have a teen driver now, and it seems like a dangerous turn. My children and myself have been nearly hit multiple times. People run the stop sign going 30+ turning into the apartments without slowing The stop sign is ran hourly at high speeds Crossing over to the park is dangerous with the limited visibility due the number of cars parked along both sides of the road. With the number of cars parked along the street, visibility is compromised turning from 67th Ave onto Fourth St. Rd. I've seen some people run this stop sign. I've seen many vehicles ignore the stop, or barely stop. Excess speed down 4th Street After school, students from Northridge high School cross over into the Northridge trails neighborhood to turn around in driveways and make a right turn down 4th Street because they're unable to make a left turn onto 4th Street out of Northridge efficiently. The streets in this neighborhood are very narrow and this causes a lot of traffic and buildup. This road is to narrow to have traffic moving in both ways and cats parked. It creates a blind corner. There are kids that play at the apartments and run between the cars. Very dangerous. No sidewalks Running red lights Cars turning without making sure incoming traffic is clear Traffic regularly runs the stop signs putting walking/ biking at risk People exiting the trail system into the neighborhood without looking. I have seen several near misses. Possibly a sign for the trail warning of traffic? I don't feel safe driving or walking in this area. Speeding is a constant issue, and many drivers completely ignore stop signs. The street parking situation is out of control —cars are packed so tightly on both sides that two vehicles can't safely pass each other, and it makes it very hard to see pedestrians. On top of that, large work trucks frequently park too close to intersections, making it nearly impossible to see oncoming traffic when turning. Near -miss accidents happen almost daily, and it feels like just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt. Morning and evening traffic at this intersection is way too heavy and a lack of turning lanes going north and south exacerbates the issue. We pull a horse trailer frequently and turn onto 392 coming from the south. It is dangerously narrow when making the turn. People speed an incredible amount down this toad People have been hit on this street and due to high density housing related to speeding Too many cars parked here at all times. Reduced visibility in the intersection and cant see oncoming traffic or pedestrians Cars parked on the street make this intersection cramped and dangerous and decrease visibility No crosswalk here Drivers do not stop here Drivers do not stop here Drivers dont stop at this stop sign Cars parked on all sides of the street at this intersection make it very unsafe to cross while walking and while driving The design of this section of the road narrowing the street along with allowing parking along the street makes it very dangerous. People speed down 66th Ave and with cars on both sides it is a very very tight fit for two cars to both pass, it is not safely possible for a Full size truck or anything of that size or larger and another vehicle to drive at the same time in this area. The stop signs in this intersection are rarely adhered to. It is scary to cross here to access the path as drivers speed down 66th Ave in addition to lack of stopping at the stop signs. The stop signs in this intersection are adhered to. Dozens of cars exit the freeway illegally here making this extremely dangerous. You already put up a fence just north of here about 100 yards. Please finish the job and fix this issue once and for all. This entire frontage road should be fenced just like you did to prevent these cars from exiting. It's not worth lives leaving this as is. When traffic on 1-25 north is stop -and -go, vehicles cross the grass onto CR 9.5. This could be resolved by a barrier to stop the vehicles or an obstruction to slow them down before they merge with Firestone traffic. When traffic slows or stops on I-25, dozens of cars cross the median from the interstate to County Road 9 1/2, making travel on this road dangerous A barrier needs to be put in place to stop people exiting illegally from the highway onto the furniture Road cutting across the ditch Drivers use two illegal dirt strips to get off of I-25 and onto the frontage road. Dangerous intersection. Approaching from the south on CR31, CO14 is not visible as it is on the leeside of a slight hill. There is a stop sign with LED's, but is clearly not sufficient. A lot of people have died here. The entire intersection needs redone. The easiest move would be to put a bend in WCR31 south of the current intersection to break up the current straight line. That re-engages the driver's attention. Move the southern road's intersection a hundred yards east with only a small section of the approach to CO14 forming a 90 degree angle. Secondly, this could be expanded into a roundabout which would further break up the current high speed intersection approaches. Heavy commercial vehicles are using this route to avoid Brighton. Intersection is being destroid by trucks cutting corner short. Intersection requires update due to heavy use not planned for in past. Traffic trying to turn left onto Hwy 85. Heavy trucks that are unable to accelerate to match traffic. Should be no left turn at this intersection similar to the East side. Constant loose gravel in intersection from gravel trucks leaving the pit. Crossing the intersection is difficult and dangerous especially when trying to get to the middle school and high school during the morning drop off and afternoon pickup. Crossing North/South is difficult during rush hour traffic. There is limited visibility to the west due to vegetation and a slight slope. I wish there was a roundabout here! This is a horrible 4 way stop. No one seems to know how to do it. Maybe a roundabout would be better, I don't know, but it is an awful intersection. Traffic speeds through here and regularly runs the red light on 119, putting traffic turning left on the green arrow in danger. This is a constant issue, especially in early mornings. There need to be barricades here to stop cars coming off the interstate from holding up traffic while they wait to cross over to turn left. The new exit ramp merge lane isn't working because most cars come to a stop and sit here instead of turning as was intended by adding the merge lane. This light is so short turning left out of St Vrain with a camper. Traffic flies through here, so you have no real chance to turn right onto 119 on a red. Turn arrows and a longer light would be great. In the morning and after school. People crossing both of 52 can't see people coming from west 52 because of the cars turning south of 52 when they are coming from the west side of 52. There are accidents from this every school year The road is not wide enough. Side streets have a lot of traffic coming off them and no time to turn especially during rush hour. Too much semi truck traffic causing frustration for drivers and aggression. A right -turn lane is needed for cars traveling south on CR 5 who need to go west on HWY 66. If a vehicle in the front of the line is trying to go straight or go east at the intersection, traffic backs up. It can take you more than five minutes just to turn right here if just one or two cars need to go south or east. A turn lane is needed for cars traveling west on HWY 66 needing to turn right onto CR 7. Vehicles do not slow down for turning vehicles and sometimes drivers are passing each other on the right shoulder making it dangerous for those trying to turn right legally. I avoid this dangerous intersection from all directions due to impatient drivers and lack of turn lanes. a four way stop is needed at this intersection. vehicles are driving in excess of 55 mph through this intersection. it's just a matter of time before someone rolls their vehicle going from paved to gravel road... or t -bones someone from not being able to stop. I use this intersection daily and see dangerously high speeds every day. Dangerous left turns. Google maps sends you here to make left turns I -76's Eastbound off ramp encounters a nearby Rd 49 intersection with I -76's Frontage Rd. Turning left onto Northbound Rd 49 is hazardous due to the difficulty of seeing any frontage road traffic competing for space traveling onto Rd 49. The whole interchange is obsolete for the vastly expanded WCR 49 compared to the original conditions when 1-76 was built. Multiple accidents, need turn lanes Ever since CR 49 was expanded this intersection at CR 54 has had multiple accidents and it is extremely dangerous especially during the "rush hours" in the morning and afternoon/evening. With high speeds on both sides of the intersection it is very hard to calculate the oncoming traffic to have time to cross the wide road. Many, many vehicles are going WELL OVER the 65 mph! The STOP sign also NEEDS A SOLAR FLASHING STOP to alert drivers!!!! There is so much traffic on both 52 and 19 now. If stopped at 19 going in either direction it can be dangerous enough with the high speed of cross traffic on 52, but if someone is making a left turn sometimes it's taking chances to go. The converse is true when turning onto 19 from 52 left or right. If you don't use the shoulder people ride your bumper or about run you off the road. There's a fear of getting rear ended when making a left while waiting for oncoming traffic to pass. Westbound on Firestone Blvd gets severely backed up due to issues with the traffic lights leading people to be stuck in intersections or trying to run red lights. I've witnessed countless crashes and near misses at all of the intersections in this area. Multiple fatalities and accidents Multiple fatalities and accidents Way to busy and crowded and hard to determine exact entrances with all the driveways to other locations. Paint the 2 round abouts in this area. Hard to see the separation between them and road. Hard to trust this area, especially at night and the fast speeds. high speeds on 34 and incoming traffic from south 85. Also lots of pot holes that are just patched. My husband was tbined at this intersection with the guy running the light speeding before and actually acceleration many more have been after also this should have never happened This intersection is very difficult to cross or turn left onto HWY 14 from either direction due to the volume of traffic and high speed on HWY 14. Additionally, the slight elevation on 14 just west of 33 makes it difficult to see eastbound traffic coming before they're already approaching. This intersection is very difficult to cross while on CR 35 due to the volume of traffic and high speed on 392. The lights going from east to west are not timed well. It creates a huge backup and cars frequently block intersections creating safety hazards to all. Turning here just over a small hill without a turn lane. Multiple accidents seem to occur. Add working crosswalks. Add sidewalks. Lights going east and west should have red or green arrows, take out the yellow flashing. It is way too congested and fast for people to safely turn across these lanes. People have died trying Lots of accidents, people trying to change lanes too quickly There are accidents at this location weekly, and because of speeds and conditions they are often fatal This stretch of 9 1/2 is frequently used as a freeway bypass for impatient northbound commuters when the freeway backs up, and folks drive like they are making up for lost time. Both the volume and the speed can be challenging to negotiate. Turning West onto 66 at this location isn't easy or safe. Turning east at this intersection can be very challenging during busy traffic periods. Visibility is decent. Because American furniture warehouse is the only southbound path (and they ask you not to use it), the only way from Home Depot to the restaurants on the west is a full loop around the entire block, thanks to the median islands on both firestone blvd and jake jabs blvd Really not sure why this needs to be a no left turn. There aren't great alternatives, nor any warning that you can't turn in here until you are already there. With Target, surely this will need it's own light or something. Turning left northbound here is VERY difficult with traffic going 65 mph on Platte Hwy. Is a light a good idea here? This is a truck route, and I've seen trucks go back in to Platteville to go north on Platte Hwy via the light at Grand. Road is rough and narrow and people drive way too fast. South bound Colorad backs up almost to Sable in the evenings. The light timing could be fixed to let more vehicles through. A right turn lane or something because then people hit u -turns to go back to sable and find a different route which is dangerous as well. Fix the light to be longer for cars on Colorado not as long for those on Bella Rosa/Pine Cone. Frontier needs to go all the way through to pine cone to relieve traffic on Colorado. Frontier needs to go all the way through to 18 relieve some traffic from Colorado. Increased traffic due to i25 construction I believe but adding turn lanes would be helpful for how many semis are driving through here. This intersection is a disaster! First, the lights along 119 going east and west under i25 are not timed well so everyone is stopping at every light and watching a green light in front of them where no cars are going because they are all stuck at a red light. When you go through you either speed to catch it before it turns red, run a red, or are stopped again. Those getting off the north bound i25 and wanting to turn north onto the frontage road have a quick 4 lane change. The bus lane on the i25 off ramp should also be a right turn lane so they can safely get into the left lane with a green light instead of blocking traffic waiting for a break to cross 119 from the acceleration lane. There are constantly accidents here and CDOT just fixed this area but did almost nothing but install a bus lane. Accidents are here weekly if not daily. So many people are trying to turn left onto 52 and there is hardly ever a break in traffic. Turning right onto north bound 19 from west bound 52 is difficult as well. The road is so damaged you have to slow down so much and people are flying up behind you. Right turn lanes and acceleration lanes would help as well as a light. I have witnessed a bad accident here from someone trying to turn left. You cannot see the stop sign going south on county road 19 and the speed limit is fast. It would be very easy to blow through this stop sign if you are not aware it is there. Adding a flashing light. Cutting back the tree or something would be helpful. The light on 52 (and 1-25 frontage road) changes very fast. Speeding vehicles on 52 often run the red light, and I have seen several accidents here. Perhaps if both lights stayed red for a few seconds longer, some collisions could be avoided. The lights are a mess and there's always traffic on. Who's next to go takes over 15 minutes just to get out of Wendy's This needs a stoplight. It's a heavily travelled intersection from all sides and it's a common route for schools. Many young drivers are at this intersection due to the proximity to Severance Schools. There are so many accidents here. With King Soopers building in this area it's only going to get worse. We need a stoplight. Dangerous intersection with flashing turn arrows and little visibility of oncoming traffic. Lights are also not timed correctly to let traffic through without backing up. The current left -turn signal timing at this intersection poses a significant safety risk. The flashing yellow arrows are especially hazardous due to limited visibility and high-speed traffic exiting the highway. Replacing the flashing yellow arrows with solid green arrows and enforcing a solid red when turns are prohibited would greatly reduce the risk of T-bone collisions and improve overall safety. Original pin was in error at CR6 and York. This intersection can hide on coming traffic while turning left from north or south bound traffic. Sometimes you may think you have a gap but end up flooring it after turning onto Colorado from summit. Some on coming traffic can be hidden by turning traffic on north and south bound Colorado. The streets are not aligned. There are too many things going on, for example three busy restaurants and their traffic, cars coming off of 85 or trying to get on 85, and traffic on 52 plus the traffic during rush hour and from the schools nearby. The intersection is dangerous and no one follows the light by only turning on green arrow coming off. There should be a roundabout in this location. This road is absolutely horrible. Needs to be paved. Town of Mead says it's too expensive. Wondering if the county can help at all. Way too much traffic and construction. Needs a wider road and lights need to longer going north and south. This intersection is dangerous for all that drive this route. Especially with new drivers that attend the Re3j high school. Everyone tries to beat the person going east &west directions. Hiway 66 in general is over crowded Too many cars to cross 13 ..extremely dangerous Been almost rear ended on highway 52 turning left on to cr 19 MULTIPLE times. It's such scary intersection. Visibility can be rough for the North and South bound traffic, especially during peak hours. Trying to quickly cross Erie Pkwy can be harrowing, especially when highway traffic bails onto the frontage roads. Very short area here (even after the last "improvement") I'm which to maneuver off the highway, merge into traffic and attempt to head North on the Frontage road. If you yield too long, while trying to be safe, East bound traffic coming off of 1-25 gets rather impatient and angry. All of the traffic coming off the highway creates havoc here, whether they're crossing all of the eastbound lanes to turn North on the frontage road, blocking all of the westbound lanes, or blowing through the yield here to turn South on the frontage road, in front of traffic with the right of way, almost killing people. With all of the new businesses coming into this area, things will get exponentially worse. These lights need work. The timing is off, especially during high volume hours. Constant red light running, blocking of the intersection, and the turning on yellows needs to stop. We should only have red or green arrow turns because of the high volume/low visibility intersections. All of the traffic coming off the highway creates havoc here. This intersection is dangerous. The lights are poorly timed and cause so many backups and accidents! This intersection is dangerous. The lights on either side are poorly timed and result in traffic backups at all times of day. People constantly ignore the signs for turning into and out of this area. They don't care that turning certain directions isn't allowed. They feel entitled enough to turn whichever direction they want, even if it's in front of incoming traffic. 3 shirt traffic lights all in a row, drivers blow thru red lights, or cars gridlock the intersections because lights are not timed correctly and/or are too close in proximity. It's just going to contour to get worse between the n ew Target and the new homes. This area is a death trap, which we avoid at all costs (especially in the late afternoon or evenings). No one knows how to use a 4 way stop anymore! We've seen quite a few accidents here, and had a lot of near misses by folks who don't know what they're doing. This area gets also gets backed up badly due to the inability to u se the intersection properly. Please put a light in! Living in this neighborhood over a decade, we've seen the area boom. The traffic coming in and out of these n eighborhoods and businesses has skyrocketed, not to mention the school traffic. This area badly needs a light. No one respects the 45 mph speed limit (tailgated, honked at, flipped off, etc.) and trying to go North or South on the frontage road feels like Russian Roulette some days (especially with Semi traffic). The intersection is constantly backed up, people speed through here, no one yields, and the red lights are constantly run. Extremely busy and lights are not timed well for vehicles turning off of the Frontage Rd to go West on 119. Vehicles end up stopped in the middle of the intersection and/or running the light Accidents here WEEKLY, mostly during mornings and at sundown. Traffic is ridiculously backed up and could be much improved by adding two dedicated turning lanes from eastbound Firestone Blvd(Hwy119), one for southbound to 1-25 and one for northbound to 1-25. With the addition of a Target, Chick-fil-a and a shopping center at that intersection, Firestone residents won't have a chance at getting through during high traffic hours. The light takes ages of turning left to go to Popeyes or Qdoba. Only lets two cars go at a time Terrible backups Multiple accidents caused by traffic crossing or entering 52 from 19 occur. A a driver, I have had many close e ncounters with that traffic ,included full semi trucks, crossing unsafely. Traffic trying to cross 3 lanes of traffic coming off 1-25 north. Cars are always runnuing the lights. Very high volume. People get impatient and pass when shouldn't, pull in front of oncoming traffic, tail gate, etc. we need more turning lanes or roundabouts or ??? N eed a stoplight here for cross traffic and widening the turns for semi/gravel trucks or at a minimum turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes to enhance safe turns. Lighting would be helpful and the bridge has been an awful pothole bent rim mess for over 30 years. N o turn lanes, impatient drivers, excessive speeds, gravel trucks A walk and bike path would be nice to get to the HS by bike. So many close students required to take the bus or car for such a short distance. Fatal car accidents, dangerous merging from the interstate across three eastbound lanes to turn left, excessive speeds, horrendous backups/wait times and too much traffic. Sidewalk missing to walk or bike safely. Would be nice to get to the state park or business along 119. left going west on 66 is nearly impossible at most times of the day. A light is needed. Also turning east on 66 from NB 19 needs a turn lane in front of Miller Farm. It's nice there is an acceleration lane on 66 eastbound, but getting to the front of the queue to go east takes time. Sign in the way if stopped on the stop line looking north. Due to speeding it can get really dangerous to get out of the park and ride during rush hours. I have seen accidents at this intersection. At the very least it needs to be a No Turn unless Green signed intersection. N o crosswalks going north intersection has become worse with the increased traffic. Entire intersection needs to be widened to accommodate semis with trailers that have to turn onto the dirt corners into pot holes, etc. This intersection is a nightmare for everyone. This needs to be expanded and redesigned to allow for more efficient and safe traffic flow. Also adding an exit off of i25 at Bella Rosa would also help with this intersection Multiple accidents. Too much congestion causes major back-ups which then cause people to not obey road laws (running lights, illegal lane changes, etc). This is a very unsafe intersection because of the amount of traffic. It is very hard to see both north and south when turning off of 20.5. Almost impossible to drive through, extremely unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists This area is highly congested morning and evening or even all day with traffic on hwy 52 makes it hard for traffic traveling north or southbound to turn here to continue forward or go east or west. Location could probably use a light as well as a added turn lane on red 15 it's self Poor intersection design. Heavy congestion Poor intersection design, high traffic congestion I don't think the lights are set correct as there's always grid lock during high traffic times. the flashing yellow turn arrows, visibility is not good to see oncoming traffic. left turns should only have green and red arrows More people running red lights because only 2 cars can get through therefore blocking intersections for others to get through, multiple lanes coming off the highway at the same time same intersection causing accidents Always accidents, people running the lights, traffic sitting in intersection, people cutting 3 lanes to turn Extremely dangerous intersection. Both roads are heavily used by semi trucks. The speed limit on Hwy 52 in this area is 65 and cars turning off the highway have to nearly stop to turn causing a hazard. Traffic pulling out from the CR onto the highway have to wait for long amounts of time during busy times to get pulled out safely. N eeds right and left turn lanes at minimum. Possibly a signal. People do not understand how to use the new lane. They sit and wait to merge all the way over for the left turn. Need to install barricades to prevent them from merging over Decrease speed limit Need turn lanes at intersections between Ft. Collins and Ault Passing lane Blind Hill, passing on blind hill at intersection, speeding drivers, multiple accidents. This intersection is extremely dangerous and could use, at minimum, a traffic light. I personally have witnessed Mandy traffic incidents here and been a victim to a traffic incident there. Please help protect our kids and community at this intersection that runs to our middle and high schools! The road grading on CR 94 and CR 33 is terrible at all times; it feels like riding a rollercoaster. Due to the new homes in the area (and more construction going on further down 94) as well as the traffic to Great Guns, it would be beneficial to possibly pave CR 94 from Hwy 85 at least to CR 33 and CR 33 from CR 94 to CR 96. It could potentially help with the maintenance required on a dirt road. Going from the bike trail to cross A st and meet the next bike trail is challenging sometimes because vehicles don't look before turning left. There's also a lot of maneuvering needed because the bike trail ends abruptly and you have to get on the sidewalk quickly or you'll ride off the curb. The bike trails don't align well starting from the bridge to before the train tracks. The bike path just ends and this is a very busy intersection. It's scary to cross multiple lanes to get on the left turn lane to turn on to the 5th St bike lanes. If you go straight south on 11th ave, there is no bike lane until 11th St. This intersection, the 9th St and 11th Ave and the 10th st and 11th ave intersections are all very busy and people aren't used to having to check for bikes. Very sharp right turn from high speed. This is a sharp turn going uphill towards train tracks. It's incredibly difficult to see oncoming vehicles without having to inch into the intersection. There's vehicles without stop signs coming in from several directions. The entire length of Hwy 14 has seen increased traffic, especially trucks, in the last 15 years. The lack of passing lanes leads to many incidents of unsafe passing - I've seen it all - passing on the shoulder, passing in no -passing zones, passing with barely enough room to avoid a head-on collision. How could CDOT have done that massive paving job and NOT put in passing lanes (NOT passing ZONES)? This would also allow for the needed short left turn lanes at many intersections for the trucks. This eastbound merge point and subsequent turn lanes are a disaster. Drivers turning right often pretend the right lane continues to the light causing the through traffic to swerve slightly when they fail to merge. Semis often take the left through lane to avoid the short merge (and the ones who don't cause problems).The road is plenty wide enough for 2 continuing lanes through the light and the right one becomes a right turn only at LCR 5. The truck yard that went in on the south side here is just terrible for traffic. The skid marks tell the tale of hard braking for trucks to turn into the yard. How about turn lanes like the landfill has? Ever since CR29 was paved, the traffic turning and crossing this intersection has increased. Long wait times to turn have led to unsafe behavior and the skid marks tell the tale of hard stops to make the turns. The corners become terrible potholes. Needs left turn lanes on Hwy 14 and right turn lanes on CR 29. High speeds people don't pay attention. A lot of accidents High speeds and to many fatal or bad accidents To many accidents and fatal accidents To many fatal accidents All turn lanes at this light 392 and 59th Ave are not safe because of large semis turning in all directions. There is not enough room for them to turn. Accidents here all the time turning north onto Hwy 85. There is no designated entry lane onto the highway. When one turns north from the gas station you go right into the lane. Because so many people die or get in horrible wrecks here every single year. A little boy was just killed here last night. The stop signs make the intersection more dangerous and it has made the backups on 176 worse and longer Because there have been alot of accidents there. And we need to do better to keep kids safe Very difficult to see oncoming traffic when turning across traffic on Highway 52. Too many inexperienced drivers trying to navigate a difficult intersection. Highway 52 gets very fast with high speeds, because County Road 59 is very active in the morning and afternoon with school buses and kids leaving school. There are many accidents, several with injuries. Speeds are way too high and it is a thoroughfare for large trucks that use this as a transportation route. With multiple cars turning in and out for school from neighboring small towns as well as buses it makes it extremely dangerous. Several car accidents and death. Very heavy teenage driving area needs to be safer. It's getting very busy with semi truck usage. Vehicles turning west bound often turning close to cross traffic. Vehicles turning South bound also often turning close to cross traffic. Semi trucks driving North and South bound often run red light. Makes me feel nervous to be near this intersection. Have seen a few accidents over the years. Traffic congestion at times due to amount of traffic flow and no passing due to double yellow line zone. Mailbox on North side of hwy causes west bound traffic during moment of mail delivery. Mailbox on north side of hwy causes west bound traffic during moment of mail delivery. Mailbox on hwy causes west bound traffic during moment of mail delivery. Mailbox on hwy causes west bound traffic during moment of mail delivery. Mailbox on hwy causes west bound traffic during moment of mail delivery. Mailbox on hwy causes traffic during moment of mail delivery. Slower Eastbound traffic at times when heavy semi trucks struggle to climb small hill causing congestion. Heavy traffic congestion at times due to semi trucks merging at slow speed, or exit hwy for extended distance available in turn lane. West bound traffic often passing in double yellow line zone. It's a terrible intersection with school traffic and no lights. Truckers and other cars blow through there and there have been too many accidents. Pedestrians crossing over hwy East bound Drivers unsure of exit while getting off hwy cut across two lanes to exit left. Merging two hwy into a single lane over bridge to multiple exits. High speed head-on collisions and remote location for EMS responds time. Multiple accidents & deaths. Need a stop light for school hours. Blind left hand turns into incoming traffic because of school buses Heading east you top a hill and don't see if there people stoped till it's to late. The posted speed is to fast considering how many county roads and driveways are off 392. Theres multiple accidents in this area every week. Need better intersection control like a light or roundabout Poor visibility at this intersection. Common for east/west traffic to run the stop sign. Huge accident risk. Folks going north/south on CR29 run the stop sign frequently. Need light/roundabout at this intersection Huge accident risk. Folks going north/south on CR31 run the stop sign frequently. Need light/roundabout at this intersection Multiple accidents weekly/monthly. Need left turn lanes and stop light. Drivers on 71st Ave. do not allow pedestrians to cross safely at the crosswalk A unsafe and busy intersection daily. Could use a light for the safety of all families Terrible intersection really could use a light Crossing intersection isn't safe at the speed on HWY 52 With the building of the new Pk -8 this intersection will be getting a huge increase in traffic each day and is already a current "bottleneck" for traffic before/after school and after high school games. Could there be another solution at this intersection to address these traffic issues? There is also planning for a sidewalk to connect the neighborhoods to the existing and new schools. This would increase pedestrian traffic as well and n eeds to be considered moving forward as part of the planning efforts. This section of Hwy 66 through Platteville gets extremely backed up during "rush hour" and traffic heading Westbound rarely slows for the school zone. This is dangerous for both pedestrians and drivers. What might be done to address the ever growing amount of traffic flowing through here to make it safer for both commuters and the local community? light is needed or intersection closed permanently I drive the route daily and have witnessed 2 fatal accidents since the beginning of the year. Too hard to make left hand turns both directions. Heavy truck traffic on 85. Hard to see here. Speeding on 85 is a huge problem. Maybe reduce speed on 85 between Brighton and Greeley to 55 mph. Turning left off of CoRd 19 is very dangerous here. Either a traffic signal or other form of modification would help make this a safer area for motorists. Both Co Rd 7 and CoRd 32 have become "short cuts" to get around all of the construction and highway backups. These areas are also now areas of increased traffic and excessive speed. There are not any sidewalks on 32 East of 7 and many neighborhoods use this section of road for recreation or for kids to get from one n eighborhood to another. It has become unsafe for pedestrians and local traffic. It would be nice to see a roundabout installed at the intersection to help slow traffic as the current left turn lanes have become passing lanes for speeders and sidewalks added to those areas within Mead on these roads that currently do not have sidewalks to create safer passage for pedestrians and bicyclists. Speed reduction and enforcement needs to be increased in Platteville on Highway 85. There are many accidents due to red light running at this intersection. Large trucks are going too fast thru Platteville to stop at this light light is needed hard to turn left onto highway 66 heavy fast moving traffic This intersection has become increasingly more dangerous especially during "rush hour" times in the morning and evening. This is partially due to excessive speeds. It would be nice to see a roundabout here. This intersection is unsafe! Many speeders, red light runners, people passing in the median, difficulty seeing oncoming traffic due to topography, narrow lanes... Dangerous intersection to cross hwy 392 from country road 35 due to high traffic on hwy 392 There is so much traffic on 392 and the come down the hill from the east so fast and with lower visibility. Have seen way too many accidents there including being rear ended at that intersection years ago! Tons or wrecks. People run the stop sign on 31 AND people pass in the middle of the intersection on 14 From lam -gam and 3pm-5pm 168th intersection light does not last long enough for highway traffic. This causes a quarter mile of backed up traffic every morning and afternoon. This delay changes the public focus o n driving to their phones, and red light runners due to the delay. Always wrecks Very dangerous to get on Hwy14 from this road. and also to turn off the hwy. traffic is too fast and people take too many chances. Need turn lanes at very least! CR17 and CR38 Intersection - this is the most common place for accidents on CR17 and is honestly scary. You have folks coming from Platteville on 38 and folks coming over the top of a hill on 17 on both sides. There is only a stop sign on each side of 17 for folks on 38. The speed limits are high, and being a county road people are more likely to roll through stop signs. New housing and trucking. People don't watch for slowing vehicles that are turning. Poor signage, high speeds with many vehicles slowing to turn. So many accidents. Lack of turn lanes Lack of acceleration lanes Impatient drivers when turning left onto County Road 29 from Highway 14 in either of the westbound or eastbound direction traffic coming up behind you often pass you on the shoulder and sometimes collide with oncoming traffic. Also turning left. N eed turn lanes and speed up lanes Too many accidents here People passing on right eastbound 14. People running stop signs north/southbound Eve 31 There needs to be a crossing here. There are no gates on this crossing and I have seen people get hit by a train here. There are no gates on this crossing and I have seen people get hit by a train here. People don't stop at the stop sign on CR33 and there is no stop sign for CR100 Truckers frequently make illegal u turns here. I was hit head on by one such untrained operator. My life is not the same Constantly floods here with any rain or hail Too much traffic here many accidents. Need light or stop sign Accidents here daily This intersection has multiple accidents a month, often multiple per week. With no turn lanes to get off of Hwy 14, drivers are left waiting in the middle of the driving lane to turn left while drivers approach behind going 65mph ph (the posted speed limit). This is the suggested route via Apple Maps with a very high number of people turning south onto CR 31 from Hwy 14. U nfortunately, this intersection has become dangerously unpredictable, with a long history of accidents and lives lost that make it feel unsafe every time I drive through. 4 way stop or stoplight. Everyone tries to turn right heading east on Firestone blvd. And then tries to cut over and make the immediate left at i25 frontage road turning north. It backs up traffic on the exit ramp and crashes. Far too many accidents here. It is difficult to turn left. People are in a rush and turn left onto 392 illegally. Lights or a roundabout would help with this intersection. N umerous accidents with fatalities during detour for 6/13 round about. Very hard to see past the detour sign located at the north west corner. It blocks your view to the west, you have to pull into the intersection to see around it. This should be a four way stop. Even after the completion on 6/13. Heavy north/ south traffic dodging fast east / west traffic. People speed, don't stop, run red lights, scary With hills on both sides & traffic exceeding 70 mph, it is challenging to get out of Mad Russian. People making unsafe crossings at the dispensary Dangerous intersection, lots of accidents. Needs turn lanes at a minimum. The east side of this intersection is on the downhill side and is difficult to see oncoming traffic when pulling off of WCR 29 onto WCR 32. It is also difficult to see the westbound traffic when you are eastbound on WCR 32 and turning onto northbound WCR 29. There was a severe wreck in 2019 at this intersection that I know of. A reduced speed limit and a four way stop sign would make this intersection a lot more safe. Semis blow thru this light all of the time way past red which means the other people get hit for going thru on green or lose half their turn waiting for semis to go. Lots of accidents and very dangerous! I am scared for my 16 year old to go this way. A lot of people from Eaton use this route to get into Greeley. Highway 392 is a speedway. People fly up and down this road. Also a ton of trucks. Trucks = long lines of cars. Drivers come down the hill at a very high speed. I have been a volunteer FF, paid Weld County Paramedic and lived in the area 30 years. The traffic volume and speeds are lethal" Have been for too many years Lots of accidents in this intersection with semi trucks. Traffic is constantly blowing the lights at speeds higher than the speed limit. Accidents there are constant. Highway 392/CR 43 Many drivers speed on Hwy 392 and fail to slow down for others to turn when they signal (or when they don't). So many people are also not paying attention while driving. This is a terrible intersection for frequent accidents. The owner of the home at that intersection has stopped replacing sections of their fence- cars drive through it when they leave the roadway. It would be a good idea to change this intersection and consider a 4 - way stop or another alternative to the 2 -way that exists there now. Intersection is extremely unsafe many accidents involving semis there is a huge bump on 34 they probably should have made this an overpass There are so many accidents revolving semis when they added this road it should have been an overpass of some kind instead it is incredibly dangerous there is a huge bump in the middle of the highway Busy intersection, drivers go up a hill when approaching intersection from the west causing visibility issues for those trying to cross intersection from north/south. N eeds a light to control traffic during school. Young drivers, school busses & blind left hand turns into oncoming traffic. Multiple accidents and deaths have occurred at this intersection. Dangerous intersection. High speed vehicles, lots of traffic trying to cross 392. Unsafe visibility when adjacent field crops are high. Nearly impossible to cross 392 when school is in session. This is an important connection from Eaton to Greeley. High speeds, unlit, nearby high school (inexperienced drivers) N eeds a dedicated left turn light both north and southbound here. Gets pretty backed up in the morning with the high school nearby A pedestrian crosswalk here for residents of lakeside canyon would be great here to cross over to the lake. Often have to run across the street quickly while cars speed through often over the speed limit Super wide road with cars often going above the 45mph limit. Residents of the lakeside canyon community have to cross here in order to make it to the lake. This usually means running across or waiting in the middle of the road sometimes. A pedestrian push button crosswalk thing would be greatly appreciated. This intersection is terrible - and don't understand why. There is a clear view of it in all directions for at least a half mile. I have seen so many people run the stop signs on 43. I have been witness to multiple crashes here Accidents all the time, traffic almost always backed up, people running red lights. So many intersections in such a short area at a major interstate.... There needs to be a light here. There needs to be a light here and reduced speeds. There is no stop sign but there's a line across the road going towards the assisted living facility. Nobody ever knows if they should stop or not. It's very dangerous. N orthbound turns green first with solid green and arrow for about 5 seconds. Has left turn and straight lane. Southbound: Light only last 3 seconds and has one lane for left, right and straight. From southbound, you cannot see oncoming traffic if you need to turn left. Sometimes only one car will go each cycle causing backup and frustrated drivers that run the red light. The cycle changed about a month or so ago it wasn't like this before. It would be great to work with CDOT to put a turn lane at this intersection. In times of heavy traffic, it's dangerous to slow down on U.S.85 to turn right onto WCR 80. I live in this new construction neighborhood and take my dog for daily walks. I frequently encounter speeding vehicles through the neighborhood. I am very concerned about the safety of pets and kids who live here. Please install speed bumps in this neighborhood. I believe this would greatly reduce vehicle speeds and prevent accidents. A combination of weeds and a hill (or a bridge?) on the road makes it difficult to see traffic coming from the south when turning left. This is especially difficult in smaller cars but extends to SUVs as well. I know Weld County's Weed Division does the best it can, just wondering if something can be done improvement wise to better the sight distance issue. At the W Bound Stop Sign on CR 86 and CR 33. The weeds along CR 33 on the irrigation ditch bridge just north of 86 are so high you can't see oncoming traffic. Every summer it's dangerous. Thanks Intersection of highway 85 and CR 32 is very dangerous. No accurate turn lanes or off CR 32, extremely rough road from cemetery into intersection, and numerous truckers running stoplights on highway 85 northbound and southbound The pot holes and rough road conditions often cause drivers to dart around them and come too close to side swipping eachother. I have also witnessed many flat tires in this area The frontage road is never cleaned and is always rocky and unclean The configuration and road were updated a couple of years ago. This has created an unsafe situation. If you are stopped facing west on 378, you cannot always see if there is a vehicle continuing north on 2 Rivers. The vehicle making a turn from n. Bound 2 Rivers to 378, will often hide the north bound vehicle. I have seen 2 n ear misses when the driver at the stop sign pulls out to make a left and almost gets t -boned. Speed limit is too high for how windy and narrow the roads are on Mountain View and Vista Parkway. Traffic counts on this road have exploded. April 2022 74,515 vehicles May 2025 124,879 vehicles People drive WAY too fast down this street and have no consideration for the kids playing outside. There is a dip and people do not comply with it as well as run the stop sign right up the street multiple times daily. There used to be a four way stop sign here and it needs to be put back. People fly down Tipple, don't stop for people (especially) school kids in the crosswalk. Put the four way stop back PLEASE!! Very limited sight distance when the corn is tall on the northwest corner. Even though there is no stop sign n orth and southbound, I stop anyway in case someone runs the east and westbound stop signs. Lane markings (Southeast bound) are invisible during morning glare, and it's easy to go outside of your own lane. Previous ripped out striping is easier to see, and I've gone outside the lane multiple times. Significant amount of speeding and accidents at Hwy 34 & Weld County Parkway this needs to be made a 4 way stop at Higgins and Henry. With no stop signs on Higgins cars and illegal off road vehicles fly down it. And many people are running the stop sign on Henry Hwy 52 needs left turn lanes in both directions at road 23. When waiting for traffic to turn many vehicles illegally pass on the shoulder on the right creating a very dangerous situation. Hwy 52 from Hudson to Prospect Valley is very dangerous pulling a horse trailer. No shoulder and lanes at n ot all that wide, so no margin for error I agree with Smith - - CR 19 and Hwy 52 id DANGEROUS. Needs a light so you can get off 19 on to 52 or cross 52. Should also be turn lanes for both right and left turns at this intersection due to the truck traffic that is tearing u p the road The entire stretch of Yor that is unmaintained payment. It's been bad, but now getting horrendous as drivers detour around the closure on Colorado Blvd for the installation of the traffic circle at CR6.(PS confused why you didn't put is a light.) From the kink in the road N of 168th all the way to Summit is pretty bad, but the worst from the kink north to CR 6. Turn lane for South bound 125 is too short during heavy traffic. would be better if extended left turn lave back to the light at the frontage Road, During rush hours people are trying to get off the frontage road and end up blocking traffic in this short stretch of road. This is a low density interchange for what is becoming a high density area. CR 32 is SO rough, full of pot holes and is a narrow road from the Platteville cemetery to Highway 85. The railroad track are full of pot holes and popping up. Cars and trucks often run red lights at the intersection in both directions, particularly on 85. There are no clear turn lanes on CR 32, and even if there were there is not e nough room for trucks to turn. It's not very clear that the receiving lane ends for drivers coming off of the frontage road onto WB 52. Warning signs or yield signs may be helpful to improve safety at this location. Drivers on 85 constantly run the light (including semi trucks) making crossing the roadway at the traffic signal very unsafe. If automated enforcement were along this corridor, that may force people to change their habits. N umerous tankers traveling on this curve in the road. There has been a large increase in last few months. Latest is transporting huge tanks that require pilot cars. The tankers take the curve as higher than recommended speeds and I would suspect over the weight limit. Gap in area with trails or sidewalk where biking is dangerous. No shoulder and steep sideslopes. Connects residents on east side with schools and parks. N arrow two lane road with steep side slope. On a hill so bikes aren't visible to cars. A dangerous intersection, the new round -about will help this. Fritzler farm causes hazards during their fall events 2 lanes and very congested and only getting busier. Only one area to pass and often very slow with trucks. A lot of blind spots on curve/hills. This entrance to the city of Dacono on Cherry St. is unsafe because there is no turn lanes for either direction of traffic, and HWY 52 is a busy road with high speed traffic. Some sort of intersection improvements or control needs to implemented here. busy truck traffic, vehicles not slowing down, seen crossing into turn lanes to pass, poor visibility with large trucks turning, thru traffic gets t -boned from vehicles poor vision. Have seen lots of vehicles blowing thru stop signs. There have been accidents about every 3 months. Recommend reducing speed on HWY 14 and possibly camera trap. There isn't enough notice that this lane ends and you must merge into one lane. It's very difficult during peak hours. Good luck trying to cross Highway 52 on County Road 15 with the new King Soopers going in at Colorado Boulevard and Highway 52 traffic is gonna be crazy. We need a light. Way too much traffic going east and west on Highway 52 you can't head north across Highway 52 or turn west we need a light there. You've got a brand new King Soopers and all other kinds of businesses going in on Colorado Boulevard and Highway 52 it's gonna be Insane So many semi trucks hauling dirt oil trucks, washboard roads that practically takes your car right off the road and if you're pulling a trailer, forget it High speed traffic accidents Lots of traffic accidents Timing of lights is not optimized and road design forces the crossing of multiple lanes when exiting 25 north to make a left onto the northbound service road Cars pulling out and turning over double lines. Blocks traffic from 85. Semis blocking. We need sidewalks on both sides of 1st street going down to the high school. Kids are walking to school and the park essentially in the street or on the edge of drainage ditches. With the attraction of the skate park and dog park, there needs to be safe access. At night you cannot see very well, and there's been several accidents and even fatalities on this road. Need more lighting and better signage Driving fatalities have occurred here on these curves. At night you cannot see well enough to navigate safely. N eeds more lighting and signs in advance in both directions 66@cr13 intersection has become worse with the increased traffic. Entire intersection needs to be widened to accommodate semis with trailers that have to turn onto the dirt corners into pot holes, etc. CO rd 19 has become a busy road and often times has big backups for those trying to cross or get onto hwy 52. Hwy 52 traffic is heavy and far so it can feel unsafe navigating this intersection with no light. Turning onto frontage from Sable with the hill and turn lane on the south side of frontage. It's becoming a very busy intersection. And turning onto sable to head East off of frontage can be scary because many times you have to come to a complete stop and wait but the cars behind you heading south on frontage are going very fast. I'm always afraid I'm going to get rear ended trying to turn onto Sable. On ramps, off ramps, multiple lights all jammed together. This is a known spot for many accidents including fatalities Extremely high number of deer strikes due to vehicles going 10-30mph over posted speed limit. Farmers have hard time moving equipment safely due to narrow road and high traffic volume Inadequate shoulder Many impatient drivers on county road approaches - lots of risks taken and near missed not evidence by crash records. Hi travel speeds. Impatient drivers coming from n and s to cross or enter 392. Many close calls every day. High speeds and poor sight distance to cross or enter. Huge volume aggresive semis. Many many crashes - distracted drivers. And high speeds - almost all over speed limit. High percentage aggresive truck drivers. Very dangerous intersection The intersection is extremely busy and without a light, traffic does not flow well. Hills block view from east and west. You have to pull up way past the stop sign to see when traveling north on CR33. Fast traffic. Such a dangerous intersection! Constant accidents over decades. Too much traffic. Large trucks. I don't use this intersection if I can help it. fast traffic, large trucks, roadway hill blocks view 23 not wide enough for consistent semi traffic turning from 14. Drivers turning left, north on Colorado cannot see the turn lights in the morning sun. A left turn light, lower on the left pole would remove this issue. n eed a signal light for safe driving Water pools bad here. Everyone rushing and hydroplaning can easily result in bad accidents especially with n ew learning drivers. Road is very rough with pot holes and ruts easily pulls vehicle. If not careful can easily result in crashes. This part of wcr7 needs to be paved. Since the frontage roads have been permanently closed, this is the only road north for Mead residents. N eed to improve visibility for north and south bound traffic. N eed to improve visibility and have turn lanes and speed up lanes. There need to be turn lanes and speed up lanes hete Very hard to safely cross traffic and make turns at this intersection due to the amount of truck traffic and the fact that there is a slight curve at the intersection. People speeding, passing unsafe. And traffic has significantly increased. Too many people speeding and passing unsafely. The CR19 traffic will dart across hwy 52 causing numerus accidents. The bridge just east of CR19 on hwy 52 is always full of potholes and cracking. Widen out this intersection to include turn lanes on all 4 ways of traffic flow, or at least a traffic light. The intersection of Highway 52 and County Road 59 is the main intersection leading to Weld Central Middle and High School from all four directions. There have always been accidents at this intersection but it is getting to be more frequent as the population around the school grows. crossing this street... is heck, too many accidents. west bound traffic blares down the hill CR 43 in general between 392 and 74... cars are always racing through (literally racing). westbound traffic is always coming down the hill super fast... a 4 way stop would be nice the traffic is always backed up here, crossing this intersection always scares me because cars come up CR 39 so fast Most all of hwy 74 is so narrow its very dangerous to ride or walk unless you encroach on private property. Many children (and adults) walk along this road on their way to the convenience store. There is not an adequate sidewalk and/or crosswalks to safely cross from the nearby middle school, dance studio and future park. So many accidents, people pass all the time when it's unsafe. I hate driving on this road. Speeding is rampant. Sidewalk needs to be completed across small property not incorporated into Severance. Pedestrian have to walk through weeds or on actual dangerous roadway that has no breakdown lane or shoulder. Sludge trucks dumping feces on road, covering windshields with feces, drivers speaking no English There is no good place to cross to get to the library or to the trail that goes to 65th ave. This is a highly traveled road. not sure why there are no RR arms at this intersection. Not sure what the plan is, but the developer is putting three more homes that would need access on this section of the road. Unsure if the county will be widening this easement for a through access road. Homes that are being built between CR 33 and CR 35 may be accessing this CR 92 Easement from CR 35, so the section that connects to CR 33, may stay unmaintained. This road is unmaintained, but has significant traffic with new homes. now that there are more homes in this area, arms would be a good addition. This intersection is very difficult to cross CO 119 as a person on a bicycle or as a pedestrian, making it very dangerous for these roadway users and vehicular traffic as well. Figure 34 Raw Comments Received on the Engagement Map on the SAP Website T SAFETY ACTION PLAN Appendix C: Data Memo Communities and agencies across the nation are developing Safety Action Plans that meet the requirements of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and implement safety initiatives like Toward Zero Deaths (TZD), Vision Zero (VZ), and Road to Zero (RTZ) with the goal of eliminating all traffic -related fatalities and severe injuries. Weld County is participating in this effort by developing a Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan (SAP). Based on Safe System strategies, the SAP will: 17-7 Assess current roadway safety issues through the development of high -risk networks (HRNs) and key crash trends Incorporate community and stakeholder input gathered from outreach and engagement Recommend new or revised policies, guidelines, and standards Identify strategies, countermeasures, and implementation actions to mitigate safety issues Include the next steps for measuring performance and sharing responsibility for safety As a part of the Weld County planning efforts, the project team undertook a comprehensive data analysis of a ten-year period (2014-2023). This data underwent a cleaning process prior to developing crash trends, a systemic analysis, and crash maps; crashes were filtered by those which involved someone killed or seriously injured (KSI) within Weld County and excludes crashes on interstates. The data analysis looked at findings through three different categories: All Weld County Jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County These categories allow for emphasis areas and countermeasures to be identified and tailored to the different contexts that exist across Weld County. This memorandum provides a summary of understanding and overview of the data analysis that guides the further development of Weld County's SS4A Safety Action Plan. Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Trends From 2014-2023, Weld County experienced (Figure 1): • 434 fatal crashes 0 1,394 serious injury crashes Fatal crashes have had a slightly increasing trend; serious injury crashes have shown a similar trend over the same period, with a jump in crashes starting in 2021. KSI Crashes by Year 200 180 160 140 120 cn u 100 Un 80 60 40 20 0 180 133 132 116 111 139 146 101 164 172 44 • _ 41 46 sosyminmmmmacasimse 53 50 • 36 44 30 37 slaiasseamowsiommaiiiiiii. 53 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Figure 1: KSI Crashes by Year (All Weld County) -e-Fatal Serious Injury 2 Appendix C I Data Memo When these KSI crashes are subdivided (Table 1), KSI crashes within jurisdictions included in the action plan and within unincorporated Weld County account for 68% of all crashes within Weld County. Table 1: KSI Crashes by Category Category # of KSI Crashes % of KSI Crashes Jurisdictions in Action Plan 428 23% Unincorporated Weld County 819 45% Jurisdictions not in Action Plan 581 32% All Weld County 1,828 100% Roadway Characteristics Roadway characteristics data, such as roadway condition, type, lighting, and location, can be used to identify patterns which can then be used to help prioritize improvements, safety measures, and guide future planning. 3 Appendix C I Data Memo Roadway Type State highways account for the largest portion of KSI crashes by roadway type for all of Weld County and for jurisdictions included in the plan (Figure 2). Similarly, state highways account for the largest portion of KSI crashes by roadway type for unincorporated Weld County; however, this is closely followed by county roads. ■ State Highway Frontage Road (State Highway) ■ County Road ■ City Street All Weld County 22.2% 25.0% 2.4% Figure 2: KSI Crashes by Roadway Type Jurisdictions in Action Plan 33.2% 4.7% Unincorporated Weld County 50.4% 0.4% 49.8% 1.6% 54.4% 48.2% 4 Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Location More than half of KSI crashes occur at segments (i.e., between intersections) across all three categories -51.6% for all of Weld County, 52.6% for jurisdictions included in the plan, and 57.8% for unincorporated Weld County (Figure 3). • Intersection Segment All Weld County 51.6% Figure 3: KSI Crashes by Location 48.4% 52.6% 57.8% Jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County 42.2% 5 Appendix C I Data Memo Roadway Condition The majority of KSI crashes occur on dry roadways 89.2% for all of Weld County, 90.7% for jurisdictions included in the plan, and 87.5% for unincorporated Weld County (Figure 4). All Weld County a 3.0% 1.3°/0 0.3% 6.2 /a ■ Dry Wet ■ Icy • Snowy Muddy 89.2% Figure 4: KSI Crashes by Roadway Condition Jurisdictions in Action Plan 38% 1.4% 4.1% 90.7% Unincorporated Weld County 4.2%1.5% .0.5% 6.3% �■ 87.5% Appendix C I Data Memo Lighting Condition More than half of KSI crashes occur in daylight 56.5% for all of Weld County, 57.5% for jurisdictions included in the plan, and 57.5% for unincorporated Weld County (Figure 5). More than a quarter of all KSI crashes occur in dark, unlit portions of the county. All Weld County 0.5% • Daylight Dawn or Dusk • Dark Lighted • Dark Un-Lighted Unknown Figure 5: KSI Crashes by Roadway Lighting Condition 56.5% Jurisdictions in Action Plan 0.2% 25.2% 10.7% 6.3% Unincorporated Weld County 32.7% 3.1% 6.5% 0.2% 57.5% 57.5% 7 Appendix C I Data Memo Construction Zones The vast majority of crashes (98.6% or higher) occur outside of construction zones (Figure 6). All Weld County • In a Construction Zone 1.0% Jurisdictions in Action Plan 1.4% i 98.6% Not in a Construction Unincorporated Weld County Zone 0.6% 99.0% Figure 6: KSI Crashes in Construction Zones 99.4% Appendix C I Data Memo User Factors User factors show how individual characteristics, such as age and impairment, can influence road safety; they can be used to inform targeted interventions and safety measures. For user factors, statistics have been broken down by the road user type: drivers i.e., motorists and motorcyclists and vulnerable road users (VRU) i.e., pedestrians and bicyclists. Age Age plays a role in transportation safety, as experience influences how drivers behave on the roadway. Younger drivers are often more inexperienced than other age groups, which influences risk -taking behavior. Drivers over 80 are the least likely to be involved in a fatal or injury crash; this could be due to there generally being a lower number of drivers in the age group on the road (Figure 7). Regarding VRUs, the most impacted age group based on age are those aged 20-39 (Figure 8). Drivers Likelihood of Being Killed or Seriously Injured Based on Age U) S U) 1 C 2 A V >• cu S t VI fil 1.1x 1.1x 1x 1.2x 1.2x 1.2x 1.1x 1,2x 1.2x Under 20 20-39 ■ Jurisdictions in Action Plan 40-59 60-79 3x 3.1x 3.6x Over 80 ■ Unincorporated Weld County All Weld County Figure 7: Drivers Likelihood of Being Killed or Seriously Injured Based on Age 9 Appendix C I Data Memo 25 20 15 10 5 0 VRUs Killed or Seriously Injured by Age Group 3 4 4 Under 20 3 22 3 20-39 40-59 ■Jurisdictions in Action Plan 15 3 11 60-79 Over 80 • Unincorporated Weld County All Weld County Figure 8: Number of VRUs Killed or Seriously Injured by Age Group Appendix C I Data Memo Impairment The majority of drivers killed or seriously injured in a crash (75.2% or more) were not impaired (Figure 9). Similarly, vulnerable road users (VRUs) pedestrians and bicyclists killed or serious injured in a crash (73.3% or more) were not impaired (Figure 10). ■ Alcohol Alcohol and Drugs ■ Illegal Drugs 7 RX Drugs or Medication Unknown • No Impairment Suspected All Weld County 76.9% 14.2% 3.5% 1.3% 2.0% A400000y,00. 0 2.2% Figure 9: Drivers Killed or Seriously Injured by Impairment Jurisdictions in Action Plan 13.1% Unincorporated Weld County 77.1% 15.6% 11 Appendix C I Data Memo Jurisdictions in Action Plan 73.3% Figure 10: VRUs Killed or Seriously Injured by Impairment All Weld County 14.8% 3.0% 4.4% ____asissa 2.2% 2.2% Unincorporated Weld County 6.3% 87.5% ■ Alcohol Alcohol and Drugs • Illegal Drugs n RX Drugs or Medication Unknown • No Impairment Suspected 12 Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Types Crash Types investigate the relationship between the mode of transportation, vehicle type, and the crash type involved in crashes; analyzing these factors helps identify common crash patterns and contributing factors, enabling the development of more effective safety strategies. Mode Type Mode type refers to the mode of transportation residents in Weld County use to get around; 96.6% of the county travels as motorists (Figure 11). Looking at KSI crashes by mode (Figure 12): • Most crashes (78.8% or more) involve crashes between motorists, regardless of category. • Motorcyclists are the second largest mode group involved in KSI crashes (9.4% of crashes or more). Commute Mode Choice 1.3% 1.9% 0.2% 96.6% • Motorists Motorcylists rcyl i sts • Pedestrians • Bicyclists Figure 11: Commute Mode Choice (All Weld County). Source: American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates (2023) 13 Appendix C I Data Memo Jurisdictions in Action Plan 6.3% 2.3% 11.4% 13.2% Figure 12: KSI Crashes by Mode 5.7% 2.2% All Weld County Unincorporated Weld County 9.4% ir- 1.3% 0.6% 88.6% • Motorists Motorcyclists • Pedestrians • Cyclists 14 Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Types Broadside and overturning crashes are the largest crash type contributing to KSI crashes in Weld County, regardless of category (Figure 13); approach turn, rear end, head on, embankment or ditch, and sideswipe (opposite direction) also are top crash types across all categories. However, pedestrian crashes are one of the top crash types for all of Weld County and jurisdictions included in the plan, but not for unincorporated Weld County; bicycle or pedal cycle crashes are a top crash type for all of Weld County. Top Ten KSI Crash Type Categories 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 418 214 75 o�' 248 146 56 .4S9 178 5449 'cks cgasc 168 66 41 152 7g 41 Nei 105 Q`/ Orr ccN 23 O 86 53 • O 'Q.621 C 60 1632 ce/ 3142 5 41 105 lec?) ■jurisdictions in Action Plan • Unincorporated Weld County All Weld County Figure 13: Top Ten KSI Crash Types Categories 36 123 4taY 2035 8 15 Appendix C I Data Memo Vehicle Types SUVs and Pickup Trucks/Utility Vans account for nearly the same amount or more of persons killed or seriously injured as passenger vehicles (Figure 14): • All Weld County: 39.5% of persons killed or seriously injured involved passenger cars while 41.3% involved SUV/pickup truck/utility van. • Jurisdictions in Action Plan: 34.6% of persons killed or seriously injured involved passenger cars while 42.1 % involved a SUV/pickup truck/utility van. • Unincorporated Weld County: 37.4% of persons killed or seriously injured involved passenger cars while 45.7% involved a SUV/pickup truck/utility van. ■ Passenger Car/Van • Pickup Truck/Utility Van SUV All Weld County 0.1%4.1%0.3% 14.8% 19.7% 39.5% ■ Motorcycle Farm Equipment Trucks over 10k/Busses ■ Unknown/Other 21.6% Figure 14: Persons Killed or Seriously Injured by Vehicle Type Jurisdictions in Action Plan 5.9% 6.4% 0.2% 10.7% 27.0% 34.6% Unincorporated Weld County 5.9% 1.8% 9.2% 22.5% 23.2% 37.4% 16 Appendix C I Data Memo Safety Equipment Usage Nearly half (55.1% or more) of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured in all Weld County wore no kind of safety equipment and in jurisdictions included in the plan (Figure 15). This trend may be similar in unincorporated Weld County, but nearly half of the crashes have a "not available" or "unknown" classification of safety equipment usage. All Weld County • Helmet and Eye Protection Helmet Only • Eye Protection Only 54.9% • None NA/Unknown 2.6% 26.6% 3.0% 12.9% 49.0% 51.4% Figure 15: Motorcyclists Killed or Seriously Injured by Safety Equipment Used Jurisdictions in Action Plan 6.1% 22.4% 6.1% 16.3% Unincorporated Weld County 1.4% 30.6% 13.9% 2.8% 17 Appendix C I Data Memo Time of Year Month of the Year Analyzing time trends show seasonal differences in KSI crashes. Across all of Weld County, KSI crashes tend to peak in the summer and early fall: • KSI crashes in all of Weld County peak in June, July, August, and September (Table 2). • KSI crashes in jurisdictions included in the action plan peak in May, June, July, and October (Table 3) • KSI crashes in unincorporated Weld County peak in June, July, and September (Table 4) Table 2: KSI Crashes by Month of the Year (All Weld) January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 2014 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 9.7% 2015 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 2016 2017 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 1.1% 1.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.9% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.9% 0.4% 8.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 8.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 10.1% 2018 0.5% 0.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 10.3% 2019 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 10.0% 2020 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 7.9% 2021 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1 % 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 1.5 % 2022 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 1.3% 1.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 11.5% 11.0% 2023 0.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% 1.6% Total 6.7% 6.5% 7.3% 6.6% 8.5% 9.8% 10.8% 9.2% 9.7% 8.6% 8.2% 8.0% 100% 18 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 3: KSI Crashes by Month of the Year (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total January February 0.7% March 1.4% 1.4% April May June July August September October November December 0.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 1.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 12% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 12% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 12% 0.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0,2% 12% 0.7% 0.0% 1.2% 1.4% 2,1% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 1.6% 0.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% 1.9% 1.2% 12% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 1.9 % 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 1.9% 2.6% 1.2% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 1.2% 0.9% 12% 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 1.6% 0.7% 1.4% 0.2% 8.2% 8.4% 5.4% 4.9% 9.3% 9.6% 10.5% 8.6% 8.9% 10.0% 8.9% 7.2% Total 7.2% 9.6% 9.6% 9.3% 9.8% 11.2% 8.2% 12.6% 11.9% 10.5% 100% Table 4: KSI Crashes by Month of the Year (Unincorporated Weld) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total January February March April May June July August September 1.1 October 1.1 November December 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 1.0% 0,0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.4% 1.3% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.6% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.7% 0.9% 0.6% 1.3% 1.3 % 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 1.3% 1.6% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 1.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 1.2% 1.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.7% 0.6% 1.8% 0.7% 0.6% 1.2% 6.6% 6.1% 7.7% 7.2% 8.4% 9.9% 11.4% 7.9% 10.9% 7.4% 8.1% 8.4% Total 11.1% 7.8% 8.9% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 7.6% 10.7% 11.5% 11.4% 100% 19 Appendix C I Data Memo Day of the Month KSI crashes tend to occur more on weekend versus weekdays (Friday through Sunday) throughout all of Weld County (Table 5); however: • KSI crashes in jurisdictions included in the action plan see a higher percentage of crashes on Tuesdays than Sundays (Table 6). • KSI crashes in unincorporated Weld County see a higher percentage of crashes on Wednesdays and Thursdays than Fridays and Sundays (Table 7). Table 5: KSI Crashes by Day of the Month (All Weld) Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat _ Total Jan Feb 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8% Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1 % 0.8% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 6.7% 6.5% 7.3% 6.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3% 0.9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.6% 1.3% 1.8% 1.8% 0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 8.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8% 9.8% Table 6: KSI Crashes by Day of the Month (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total 8.2% Jan Feb Mar 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 1.6% 1.9% 0.2% 2.3% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 0.7% 0.9% 8.4% Apr May Jun 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% „ 2.1 % 0.9% 2.1% 1.9% 5.4% 4.9% 9.3% 9.6% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% 1.9% 10.8% 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% Jul 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 1.4% 0.9% 1.5% 1.6% 9.2% 1.6% 2.3% 12% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 10.5% Aug 1.4% 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.2% 1.9% 0.2% 1.9% 1.9% 8.6% 1.6% 9.7% Oct 1.0% 0.9% 12% 0.9% 1.5% 1.7% 1.5% 8.6% Sep Oct 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 1.6% 2.3% 1.4% Nov 1.1% 1.0% 1.6% Dec Total 1.0% 13.3% 1.1 % 12.5% 13.0% 14.8% 14.2% 15.2% 17.0% 8.0% 100% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3% 8.2% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.9% 8.9% 12% 0.9% 2.3% 2.1% 10.0% Nov 0.9% 1.2% 12% 1.4% 0.7% 1.9% 1.6% 8.9% 1.7% 1.5% 0.9% Dec Total 11.7% 1.2%0 13.1% 16.4% 13.6% 12.1% 15.7% 1.2% 17.5% 7.2% 100% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 1.6% 20 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 7: KSI Crashes by Day of the Month (Unincorporated Weld) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 1.3% 0.7% 1.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.9% 1.3% 1.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 1.2% 1.6% 1.6% 0.9% 0.7% 1.3% 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% 2.1% 1.7% 2.0% 17% 0.9% 1.0% 1.5% 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.6% 1.5% 2.1 % 2.4% 0.7% 0.7% 1.7% 2.1 % 1.3% 2.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 1.0% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 1.8 % 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% 0.5% 2.4% 1.5% 0.9% 12.5% 13.2% 11.4% 15.5% 16.0% 14.4% 17.1% Total 6.6% 6.1% 7.7% 7.2% 8.4% 9.9% #### 7.9% 10.9% 7.4% 8.1% 8.4% 100% 21 Appendix C I Data Memo Time of Day KSI crashes tend to peak in the late afternoon/early evening (3 pm to 6 pm) across all of Weld County (Table 8); however: • KSI crashes in jurisdictions included in the action plan also see a spike in crashes at 6 am and 1 pm (Table 9) • KSI crashes in unincorporated Weld County also see a spike in crashes at 6 am (Table 10). Table 8: KSI Crashes by Time of Day (All Weld) Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Grand Total 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1 % 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 13.3% 0.3% 0.2% 12.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 13.0% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.4% 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 14.8% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 14.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 15.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 1.3% 1.6% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.8% 17.0% 2.9% 2.6% 2.1% 1.8% 1.7% 2.9% 5.7% 4.9% 3.6% 3.2% 3.6% 3.9% 3.8% 4.6% 4.8% 6.3% 6.9% 8.3% 6.6% 4.6% 3.9% 4.7% 3.8% 3.0% 100% 22 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 9: KSI Crashes by Time of Day (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total Sunday 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% 0.5% Monday 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% Tuesday 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 1.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% Wednesday Thursday 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 1.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 113% 0.2% 13.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.6% 0.7% 0.7% 1.2% Friday 0.0%al 0.5% 0.5% I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.9% 0.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 16.4% 0.7% 13.6% 0.0% 12.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% Saturday 0.9% 1.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.9% 2.1 % 0.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 15.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 12% 17.5% Total 3.0% 3.7% 3.3% 1.4% 0.9% 2.6% 5.8% 4.7% 4.0% 3.0% 2.1% 3.0% 4.0% 6.1% 4.4% 6.1% 6.5% 9.6% 7.5% 5.4% 2.3% 5.1% 2.6% 2.8% 100% Appendix C I Data Memo Table 10: KSI Crashes by Time of Day (Unincorporated Weld) 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total Sunday Monday Tuesday 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.9% 12.4% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 1.5% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0% 0.4% Wednesday Thursday Friday 0.5% 0.761a. 0.0% a 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 1.3% 1.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 13.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.5% 1.0% 0.4% 1.3% 1.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1 % 0.5% 11.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% 0.6% 15.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1 % 0.1% 1.5% 1.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 1.3% 2.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 16.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.1% 14.4% Saturday 0.1% Total 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% i 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 0.6% 17.1% 2.1% 2.3% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 3.7% 7.1% 5.0% 4.8% 3.1% 4.3% 4.3% 3.3% 4.3% 4.7% 5.8% 6.5% 8.0% 7.7% 3.3% 3.9% 3.5% 4.0% 3.2% 100.0% Appendix C I Data Memo Systemic Analysis A systemic risk analysis assesses how factors that are not typically recorded in crash data impact the relative risk of crashes. For this analysis, databases of crash data, roadway data, and demographic data were joined and analyzed together. This involved summing all crashes categorized under KABCO. KABCO, the categorization system used by officers when reporting the severity of a crash, includes the following severity classifications: K=fatal, A=serious injury, B=non-incapacitating injury, C=possible injury, and O=property damage only. The systemic analysis included assigning weighted values to each category based on severity (excluding property damage only crashes): K-15, A-5, B-2, and C-1. By summing these weighted values, an injury score was generated for each factor under examination. The following trends were identified: • Proximity to K-12 Schools: For all of Weld County and for unincorporated Weld County, fatal or injury crashes are more likely to happen near a K-12 school (i.e., within a half mile); however, jurisdictions included in the action plan are more likely to happen outside of these school areas (Figure 16). • Posted Speeds: Fatal or injury crashes are most likely to occur in areas with a posted speed limit between 60-75 (Figure 17). • Roadway Functional Classifications: Fatal and injury crashes are most likely to occur on principal arterials when looking at roadways based on their Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) functional classification (Figure 18); when looking at roadways based on Weld County functional classifications, fatal and injury crashes are the most likely to occur on county highways. • Number of Through Lanes: For all of Weld County, roadways with five or more through lanes have the highest likelihood of a fatal or serious injury crash occurring (Figure 19); for jurisdictions included in the action plan and unincorporated Weld County, roadways with three or four through lanes have the highest likelihood of a fatal or injury crash occurring (Figure 20). • Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT): As roadway volumes increase, so does the likelihood of a fatal or injury crash (Figure 21). 25 Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Likelihood based on Proximity to a K-12 School 3.1x a) mg CU se O 2 A I I I 2.0x 1.2x 1.0x 1.0x All Weld County jurisdictions in Action Plan Near K-12 School ■ Not Near K-12 School Figure 16: Crash Likelihood based on Proximity to a K-12 School Unincorporated Weld County Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Likelihood Based on Posted Speed 5.0x S J CU L O 2 A I I I >44 J in IA 4J J 1.5x 4.1x 1.6x 4.2x 3.1x 2.5x 1.3x 3.3x 1.7x 4.8x All Weld County ■ 15-25mph Figure 17: Crash Likelihood Based on Posted Speed jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County 30-45mph ■ 50-55mph ■ 60-75mph Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Likelihood Based on CDOT Roadway Functional Classification 7.9x 6.5x 5.6x 3x 4.3x 4.9x 2.3x 1.6x 2.8x 4 7x • 1.8x 1.2x 2.7x 3.3x 5.2x 2.7x a 1.3x 2.7x All Weld County jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County • Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways • Principal Arterial - Other • Minor Arterial Figure 18: Crash Likelihood Based on CD0T Roadway Functional Classification Major Collector • Minor Collector • Local Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Likelihood Based on Weld County Roadway Functional Classification C) S C) O 2 A 1 V A S tn LA Ci J 3,8x 2.2x 4.4x 3.1x* 4.6x* 1.2x 5.2x* 2.1x* 1.0x* 2.2x 4.9x 4.8x 1.4x 3x 4x 1.0x* 4•10- 1.0x 3.8x 3.8x 1.0x All Weld County Jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County ■ Arterial ■ County Highway ■ Arterial Not Constructed ■ Collector Local Road State Highway Municipal Road *Crash ratios developed using Weld County functional classification looks at 13% of all of Weld County's total roadway miles, as the remainder of the roadways do not have an attributed functional roadway classification. The remainder were classified using the CDOT roadway functional classification. Figure 19: Crash Likelihood Based on Weld County Roadway Functional Classification Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Likelihood Based on # of Through Lane Count 10.3x* w S J C) O A I I I W S J vi U/1 4) J 19.6x 1.2x 8,0x 2.1x 3.8x* 6.0x 3.8x* a U 3.1x 10.3x 1.0x 9.1x 2.6x* 1.7x All Weld County jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County ■ 1 Lane 2 Lanes ■ 3 or 4 Lanes ■ 5 or More Lanes ■ No Data *There is limited data for roadways with five or more through lanes. Figure 20: Crash Likelihood Based on Number of Through Lanes Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Likelihood Based on AADT 19.1x* a a A V 0) In v 12.7x 7.5x 5.4x 2.4x 1.4x 4.5x 1.3x 5.9x 1.6x 2.0x 7.2x* 5.9x 4.3x 1Sx 4.2x 2.7x 1.6x 1.2x 5.4x 9.8x All Weld County jurisdictions in Action Plan Unincorporated Weld County ■ Under 500 ■ 500-1k 1k -2k 2k -5k ■ 5k -10k ■ 10k -20k ■ >20k *There is limited data for roadways within unincorporated Weld County with an AADT of 20,000+. Figure 21: Crash Likelihood Based on AADT Appendix C I Data Memo Driving Events Two years (2023-2024) of driving safety event data from the proprietary data vendor AirSage were used to complement crash data in this analysis. This dataset, obtained from connected vehicles (CV) and location -based services (LBS), provided information on driving events such as: Harsh Braking: A sharp deceleration of a vehicle via the brakes. (Referred to as simply "braking" henceforth.) Harsh Cornering: A sharp turn (left or right) of a vehicle. (Referred to as simply "cornering" henceforth.) Harsh Acceleration: A sharp acceleration of a vehicle via the gas pedal. (Referred to as simply"acceleration" henceforth.) These events help identify locations where near -misses are likely to occur across Weld County and complement crash data to identify safety improvement needs in areas with lower density. Weld County experienced 58,932 driving events; Table 11 shows the different types of driving events per category of Weld County. In 2023, Weld County experienced 34,269 driving events; this dropped to 24,663 driving events in 2024 (Figure 22). Looking at these driving events broken down by event type (Figure 22 and Figure 23) or by speed group (Figure 24): Most driving events (83%) are cornering; of these events, more than half (56%) are turning right. Only four driving events were considered harsh acceleration. Speed by events show similar speeds clustering with braking events occurring at a higher average speed than Cornering or Speedup. Events at speeds between 10-20 mph occur at nearly three times the rate of next closest speed group (20-30 mph). 79.2% of driving events occurred at an intersection while the remaining 20.8% occurred on roadway segments. 32 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 11: Driving Events by Category Category # of Braking Events # of Cornering Events # of Acceleration Events Total Events All Weld County 10,319 48,609 4 58,932 Jurisdictions in Action Plan 3,297 13,552 1 16,850 Unincorporated Weld County 1,330 6,036 0 7,366 # of Events by Event Type by Year 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 11 10,000 w 0 8,000 it 6,000 4,000 2,000 15,702 6,341 3,978 12,223 9,381 Braking Cornering (Left) Figure 22: Number of Events by Event Type by Year ■ 2023 ■ 2024 11,303 3 1 Cornering (Right) Acceleration 33 Appendix C I Data Memo Speed Distribution by Event Type 70 60 50 0_ 40 E C) a 30 20 10 0 Braking Cornering (Left) Figure 23: Speed Distribution by Event Type Cornering (Right) Acceleration Figure 23 shows that the median speed for braking events occurs at -27 mph and 50% of all braking events occur between 21 mph and 36 mph. Cornering events typically occur at 15 mph with 50% of cornering events occurring between 10-20 mph. Acceleration events happened at the lowest speed with a median speed of 5 mph. Appendix C I Data Memo Count of Events (by Speed Group for 2023-2024) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 8,657 32,308 0-10mph 10-20mph 11,686 20-30mph Figure 24: Count of Events by Speed Group for 2023-2024 3,672 1,464 30-40mph 40-50mph 703 50-60mph 275 167 60-70mph Over 70mph Appendix C I Data Memo High Event Network The High Event Network (HEN) is a mapping tool aimed at identifying the roadway segments where a disproportionately high number of driving events occur. The HEN analyzes all intersection -related driving events between 2023 and 2024 in Weld County. Segments are identified by taking non -intersection events and calculating events per mile for each roadway segment. The top 10% of roadway segments by event per roadway mile is shown for "All Weld County", "jurisdictions in Action Plan", and "Unincorporated Weld County" as the HEN in Figure 25, Figure 26, and Figure 27, respectively. An event is associated with a roadway segment if the event occurs within 50 feet of the roadway. Municipality boundaries were provided by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Areas excluded from the project scope, hatched pink the following maps; are: • Ault • Berthoud Brighton 0 Erie • Garden City 0 Greeley • Grover Johnstown • Kersey 0 Lochbuie i Longmont • New Raymer r ® North Glenn Nunn • Timnath • Windsor 36 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 25: High Event Network (All Weld County) Legend High Event Network- All Weld Jurisdictions in Action Plan Mil Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 5 10 Miles 37 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 26: High Event Network (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) liaring Iiirk nnannI__ asr pn� nut msa rwunnr a Inwnl ��f nos■ ■n �� rs ■i yilkiilium.. 1�1I Fr N, a _Snwn r.litan■r l n %,-. ' ,� nn.. ,tall■ ■nn Per ., iNni�, l._ •• ...4.k.:;1.40ive■ 7.1 widorcsvi.:.% 4 ., il. ,' t rmuntral ' t Jr art* ar.mi Sri I itlia ii6ii.nn1di 4teltilili:nrim 41 ■Mtn■ ■ ;NNI P:k Legend High Event Network- Jurisdiction in Action Plan Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 38 Appendix C I Data Memo in' LIIII IMM0 aci. nnn .7 Iliil II Male. ties Olinanin • milmaiii inirmaimn main: Tame warkilmitami slh !sInrn :nll.. 1, Hike Ili u PRaiseallal N4t;C:i it. names ••••II.W1 D. •%. -'"Ka aasnaMIu.i EMI WIIIIIIIII r= bealiaill HIAIDONti. ' IINNS,m-ww-wm ?e \ ti C; .C,` `*•%' 4 itiriwillIMIN SJ It N. - or ;fl JdP1 ilia ,a v.i.�:-t'- :. ■■■1101 nsit ev r:.,,_.► �I r�;� _ �i ■■ems ■ Niqpi Ow twat 77..7. -. is Mari IMMIIIIMMIlli• • .� 1.� ►.�1. f rN■P2 ■ •k ■■ ■■■ -i■■� )'PI tiitif, OF4NI Sfl��ll u i NI r �/_ , ■r:.n ■ ■ •s.. Is ao_,in�. rug: g• ■ lell Ste,.:! •� EMS1112111111111lir 4'kesima edam's's." �a� inn rr �r7 ■ ar�•s. , .� 141%. 0NN�II N erg wa�� 411 1� 1111111 'Maw L y 1� t [ ;i '.;#4 .1t. ..r, - r rte *. — MIN ah' ;11.1111 Ea ,1 § a.szr,- sinElia .J' - %'�.I 4.41,1111i� ? v`s_ ate j'y. an'; ar F '.rim imumning !1% 'g' e ■■ atim US S ■I Ilmor"""" ■ •�� Legend Vzd High Event Network- Unincorporated Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles Figure 27: High Event Network (Unincorporated Weld County) High Event Intersections The High Event Intersections (HEI) is a mapping tool aimed at identifying the intersections where a disproportionately high number of driving events occur. The H E I analyzes all intersection - related driving events between 2023 and 2024 in Weld County. Each event type is weighted equally, and the top 100 intersections by event type is shown for "All Weld County", "jurisdictions in Action Plan", and "Unincorporated Weld County" in Figure 28, Figure 29, and Figure 30, respectively. An event is associated with an intersection if the event occurred within 150 feet of the intersection point. 39 Appendix C I Data Memo ■NLII ssitimme galleagleAlMOMM [c 'I *MwU ��_«• �n Z1/4 _'rya« MFIN AN.' .li I l 1 iWIEN 3"; Mike . 4S'i{*'Si:\`1iR111 ' s t"• Figure 28: High Event Intersections (All Weld County) Legend • High Event Intersection- All Weld County Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 1O Miles 40 Appendix C I Data Memo lit, I■� ■■■■■■ sae to ��■`S��f� tain ■■roan cat iw gin rang • al rill! :l ■■aa.a�immsgs-I I ! . Z‘ .lifi:it■■ailelli■l■iliMM■sa" \,,h • � ■■.. br■inIn ■■gall 11/4:;,:,1/4;iimirekiictrlirlitirs.:7\.;,i4111..licalkoMMITIal �� .� . O�ra x r. ►11' isj r e Ia n ism a; „Art,;ten■■■- . ., t 1 _rat s ii,ik ■i MUM MI MM ...r=te• =� : �,Ail i� Ali,■■a ■■�■■ 'I ill mil '' IR ■rsTEMI ,A 4, �, ■.■.r ii■■it■■■i■■ .-,-wt s)�1 t1ifr ■pwnMarrs■■■■■■ • � Jlr '�� 1■_suu ■■■■an■a■ pp ��" - ■M +►r�r': i■ M■ ■ ' tenni ii urn- I:�. ■■n ,.■�� t■ a� ..1 R I�� *i■■ ■1PrI-A,,setirsommidim rat vip-, ..br lay .►`N kWS �� IMIL ii L ;, 0 _it Frt;j ;.11, ; ,re,lVi ■iti.J'■■ ill.4.4 a. SI: it ?lei i a ribrals , ios ma r• raw trn *as:* 1141draillinialrfAIMMLIMPPASI `-- \N._ !Maas * `.an ■ .' N. • M rf1 .�,1M a fi ■■aurr� ■ ■■ I Tr" YIN ■ alloMMAIKOMM NEMO Legend • High Event Intersection- Junsdiction in Action Plan Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles Figure 29: High Event Intersections (Jurisdiction in Action Plan) 41 Appendix C I Data Memo • MILL sin_ bli 1L74iL1 } I■■■ �oal ::PIN... 1 Utaiiiii ,rJMI Ell Orli. it tot- Inn m pa irsc,ho Pals i idling 'silt 7 semlICIIIIIIII .,,� i_.;,,m_Thrni ,.crfts ;per fi.iiibe. 40,0 ii!raii ■11 III- 1lc s.i."--76:::::::: ‘ :14114 it lilt 11.14IIMM "al 1 a . r' 4_ • ; r„ 11 !�UMW_ 1.' _ ,..01 IJr- ;anll �i— tairank ouAz E ■■ ■m■■_■i �L IyAaarsr ■■■■ ri1;re;r (1.131itilblda gitgevr,latifirCipintnie••• p'6 wimp ire .-Jr. ■■.. Inaneorre4rniert. 414{�■■ +r r ti7 *r ., f-• r rei /T' J • ter � • !SC., ta7�f ....i .JI.I/ , r J':I, rT '41 ifiLlits 41_ 'A; 400 • /iii ck " lai■l�t:� ■ t `= 1 '1 41-.1 t1 • J r•e refige '5 ..i iniatind • AUet. 2:�a 1■; 111b2 two NW rot ■IN 11111 Legend • High Event Intersection- Unincorporated get Jurisdictions in Action Plan izoNI Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan Figure 30: High Event Intersections (Unincorporated Weld County) 42 Appendix C I Data Memo Crash Mapping Figure 31 displays where KSI crashes occurred within Weld County. By mapping all fatal and serious injury crashes in Weld County from 2014 through 2023, Weld County can better identify how to make the most impactful changes in a more efficient manner. ■ a f r ii �' tjr 11 :f'fb dws Mi Er;' +-*fl. .+ -��Mir elh.latl- -AL ImILNP1%-.ks " 7.; 710 1 r f T V' . ?tti at q' i.'�►r-'_/,�i t a Figure 31: KSI Crashes (All Weld County) 43 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 32 depicts KSI crashes that occurred in incorporated areas included in the Action Plan (hatched green). 'Ai'SW Arse 11411 : - f amMIRW v *ISM .Mr . {:"� fh.i�■.S.'.. ..mm.* \i§-1_.sif • z - innsa 40 L1.174 � J trr< ' - I1srIA o :Cre tag am • I ■r%)sL�.I'At: ..ir,iliniss uia.■ 1 .:--ritN±vpi 1405, rli X694 , I •� i Tai Mi ,, 411au. as�►Jri.� Oral- • G ■ ti, - a in �J me.,,irsia:r ?kill ae. =Ian 21 :fr"r•f :, jam j`4 " r; RAF J A 4 i■ S ��ii�. �i 1111",`" �� I.9 7 r ♦♦ d :, ENS: 51 :CI? la, 1 k . aZ AIM MS iiNIIIMI -, .it IV-0411illt it:_. 'St. r: ..anallillink dearaiS. ni . 1111. J4 Legend tia Fatal (K) Evident, Incapacitating (A) Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan Figure 32: KSI Crashes (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) 44 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 33 shows KSI crashes within unincorporated Weld County. li -I •* -• P■ aka r. zw2.'etiiipilpi. pis f , ..' ' � 1 i r; d# • re Figure 33: KSI Crashes (Unincorporated Weld County) A Evident, Incapacitating (A) l•1. Jurisdictions in Action Plan iNNN Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 45 Appendix C I Data Memo High Injury Network The High Injury Network (HIN) is a mapping tool aimed at identifying the street segments where a disproportionately high number of fatal and injury traffic crashes occur. For the methodology, WSP adopted a data -driven approach, analyzing all injury crashes between 2014 and 2023 in Weld County. Crashes are weighted based on severity: fatal crashes (K) are assigned 15 points, suspected serious injury crashes (A) 15 points, suspected minor injury crashes (B) 2 points, and possible injury crashes (C) 1 point. Table 12 summarizes the HIN for "All Weld County," "Jurisdictions in Action Plan," and "Unincorporated Weld County" identified and shown in Figure 34, Figure 35, and Figure 36, respectively. For each category: All Weld County: This HIN accounts for 63.2% of all crashes within all of Weld County while only representing 7.9% of all roadway miles; fatal and serious injury crashes are more than 8 times as likely to occur on an HIN segment compared to an average roadway segment in Weld County. • Jurisdictions in Action Plan: This HIN accounts for 68.4% of all crashes within jurisdictions included in the action plan while only representing 7.9% of jurisdiction roadway miles; fatal and serious injury crashes are more than 7 times as likely to occur on an HIN segment compared to an average roadway segment within these jurisdictions. • Unincorporated Weld County: This HIN accounts for 63.5% of all crashes within unincorporated Weld County while only representing 9.4% of jurisdiction roadway miles; fatal and serious injury crashes are more than 6 times as likely to occur on an HIN segment compared to an average roadway segment in the unincorporated area. Table 12: Comparison of High -Injury Network Statistics HIN (All Weld County) HIN (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HIN (Unincorporated Weld County) # of KS I Crashes 602 143 304 % of KSI Crashes 63.2% 68.4% 63.5% # of Roadway Miles 445 102 324 % of Roadway Mlles 7.9% 9.8% 9.4% Rep. Ratio 8.01 7.00 6.77 46 Appendix C I Data Memo atineroca aCZ'_ It.■rIIP arr-i7ir lye iikAl ors a roisz&miirig./ • ill2 MI ■ earla■E4119:10 MI "r`L' \X'"11.0h. Jr;- II ,■■ VIP f sr .d6 pFrigi �1 miraiiiinir opers4:5P,a . la ljs Inn 144 Da ■ II! or 40f! .tea+ fi nirder l'ifet=6:, Nor ir ■■■W f .1. k` ■ QC ■■ Oa■ r imminn.n■ ...rgarmairmajwiritimiesum isiiI !Igen.% tie' ir fiallellillrrIIHINIII2 a ill _ ri!'1,E;iiiiiiiiiiiii 1 �,.), ' c,,pl.v�7a�r■■ ■r ■11bov%,.,,,r,,:,:ksiiivrt. iviorrem.kvinsai Eggitskieloarteris: kletalitell. 41 /!ate 1 b fl NE NI, i INII l �n Legend High Injury Network- All Weld County yi zr4 Jurisdictions in Action Plan ks Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles Figure 34: High Injury Network (All Weld County) 47 Appendix C I Data Memo Ili° milliii .......,&..„. anenina el. .'viisto-� I aul n.; Winn Figure 35: High Injury Network (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) Legend High Injury Network- Jurisdiction in Action Plan I77; Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 48 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 36: High Injury Network (Unincorporated Weld County) High Injury Network- Unincorporated Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 49 Appendix C I Data Memo High Injury Intersections The High Injury Intersections (HII) is a mapping tool aimed at identifying intersections where a disproportionately high number of fatal and injury traffic crashes occur. Like the HIN, the HII analyzes all intersection -related injury crashes between 2014 and 2023 in Weld County with weights based on severity: fatal crashes (K) are assigned 15 points, suspected serious injury crashes (A) 15 points, suspected minor injury crashes (B) 2 points, and possible injury crashes (C) 1 point. Intersection -related crashes are crashes that were classified in the crash dataset as "at Intersection" or "intersection related." Table 13 summarizes the HII for "All Weld County," "Jurisdictions in Action Plan," and "Unincorporated Weld County" identified and shown in Figure 37, Figure 38, and Figure 39, respectively. For each category: 0 All Weld County: This HII accounts for 43.7% of all intersection -related crashes within all of Weld County while representing only 0.7% of all intersections; fatal and serious injury crashes are more than 60 times as likely to occur at an HII compared to an average intersection in Weld County. • Jurisdictions in Action Plan: This HII accounts for 62.6% of all intersection -related crashes within jurisdictions included in the action plan while representing only 1.0% of jurisdiction intersections; fatal or serious injury crashes are more than 63 times as likely to occur at an HII compared to an average intersection in those jurisdictions. 0 Unincorporated Weld County: This HII accounts for 56.6% of all crashes within unincorporated Weld County while representing only 1.9% of all unincorporated intersections; fatal or serious injury crashes are more than 29 times as likely to occur at an HII compared to an average intersection in the unincorporated area. Table 13: Comparison of High Injury Intersections Statistics Category #ofKSI %ofKSl #of %of Rep. Crashes Crashes Intersections Intersections Ratio HII (All Weld County) HII (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HII (Unincorporated Weld County) 385 149 196 43.7% 62.6% 100 50 0.7% 1.0% 60.2 63.3 56.6% 50 1.9% 29.7 50 Appendix C I Data Memo tiL;. "" 1ffr tar I. ■■ lilir v.rn;k+ kris(' r 7rips i _ , 41+0 I -,' els"l l�. ,J=■■ ■■U■7��. ..,. .,,,,;_:,,,,,,.t.„..„...„:_....,, �viiiiror �� Ire/ ,I %�' a.4... Figure 37: High Injury Intersections (All Weld County) Legend % High Injury Intersection- All Weld County 71,1 Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 10 ■ Mlles 51 Appendix C I Data Memo Sammie 1 Id myna .. .••" it i aU.■■►�■■ :. ■■�Unl�■ PHI �� • deg �r ■■ im gym mous it 1fl ..� .2■ ■■ii _'r;;,,1t■■■flt • ■11 ■�: ■'11■ 1 \ ,,.s, i ,4.11Wh4P1nn h■■ ■111(14.in 'lb et; --=-44111 Ili! 1111111141tratil jur2Lieil‘iSe?....i.L-Ill. oriiy - ter. rill 1=�4 =� 1■r ■ igrALW JOM■7Mi■■■■■ IR ■j;4�`� }.1.1 ■■■/ 1�■■M■■■■ i!jI!iIIIflhIIUiI mom i/■ 4]r orrit-ords■1'� ampa■� IF a Mall • AZ '.r4I 7 WJI is fitrL!ir • 04tat alatialk 7.."1/4'llItioifigogriallME =II f • 7r nlls. s 4► 'Ma Prints r T - ��■■ .r -- ' r .i1 G r4r..rimi f� • �� t :J��1 ■ r7 �. _ rj f e.mi "Si � blIAINArAP - . 3 _bt Munn NA= a '1 ■ it_ 1.-e,...reis 4". am imorsroarg 1 ay J J�II� ThreSe NM fr .. ■■■■r ■II ■ • MMMOMME Legend High Injury Intersection- Jurisdiction in Action Plan r Jurisdictions in Action Plan ' Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles Figure 38: High Injury Intersections (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) 52 Appendix C I Data Memo VP� NM r.: 1111111 kit"; IISM -= NIURNIIIMM i Al Jaw a ■■■■■ r nallIl _ u■��, II■�■t1■■■■•mII larrnisianJrtsmnsimmismmammmum ;■2U. ■ice Jre d■■■IrWM MIME rtilrmAIM _train MI 'Moll ilk w imil ••;•,'.s '■■■si,rAA- saliqual4A40 ■■ ■a `-wA ' , at �bii-old S Mfr' ,mskin _r: _ .� j-;.;t,54w4, . -roar,urz%.99Hass amyl --a■■ siiii_I ini % Ivr - ' ■ ■ a. rarlikic;fittz,Arrims-wir,2,'-errttliierautnin• ■r aj•*B1 f 4� i■s■■■■■■ i!•� ",,1 lee "' nl nt■■/■9■■■■Mn m■ t.a miTil o'n"rrst //1.i■■arty irdinarm muses li N, elr.eia 'Sh. ,..�r wr� s mar/+rn. :4. iireito soma HIIITL:ir pg1-4,%00Plisai 5",024ALIMWIlt ■■ 1114; 411 rtmr.:•„ linefra:vit !Aim= „reed. :?,,Yulti A re Mpg. Pir ■ Legend • High Injury Intersection- Unincorporated 1, Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles Figure 39: High Injury Intersections (Unincorporated Weld County) 53 Appendix C I Data Memo High Risk Network The High Risk Network (HRN) is a mapping tool aimed at identifying the street segments with a higher potential for fatal and injury traffic crashes. Unlike the High Injury Network (HIN), which is based on crash history, the HRN is developed using the risk factors identified in the systemic analysis that indicate an elevated crash risk. Table 14 summarizes roadways classified as high risk in the HRN for "All Weld County," "Jurisdictions in Action Plan," and "Unincorporated Weld County" identified and shown in Figure 40, Figure 41, and Figure 42, respectively. Table 14: Comparison of High Risk Network Statistics Category HRN (All Weld County) HRN (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) HRN (Unincorporated Weld County) # of Roadway Miles 634.0 138.8 350.2 of Roadway Miles 11.2% 14.6% 9.7% As outlined in the scoring criteria in Table 15, Table 16, and Table 17, risk factors, along with driving events data, are assigned points based on their relative representation ratios as indicated by the systemic analysis. Each road segment is then given a total risk score by summing the associated with its attributes. The approximately top 10% of road segments with the highest risk scores are classified as "High Risk", forming the HRN. 54 Appendix C I Data Memo ■ �'■■ 4111Mmi, IYa� 4 ■ ll 111111 AMR 1 ■■■■■■ 1 a_■■►�■■.■■ u inn n' ■■S■■■� ''- • ilk �a�ii■ 1 I��.i■ :Nrmairmium mm Iea iimmmil•ii• am ■■A■■Iltle■ ■ ■� in El 1111 as mesa--. v11rilP$t PM i alear- .;�ii� �� mss:, . �■ ■� with IL+ :lyre■�r tii■■iu MEE :ail St2,1111 111.6 moriammummai an ive,sie; s.nniAmmm II jr=_ Ira r■� ra ua 1■ 1ki2' d'■ VII iltIMIls :Silas =a 7�� U ar ■■ad'M r'1 r rte'/' a �..� Il II T t Ji11 r 1111M7 _ 1 111 Palle , %• IMF Legend Kag N High Risk Network Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 0 5 10 Miles CA9 Figure 40: High Risk Network (All Weld County) 55 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 41: High Risk Network (Jurisdiction in Action Plan) High Risk Network- Jurisdiction in Action Plan Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 56 Appendix C I Data Memo Figure 42: High Risk Network (Unincorporated Weld County) AI MI .. gla'l■I■w■■I■tr*� ■■ ■n wrA iimes •- liTimpaistarimallinalle an S')I 41/4 Ve- ;IN-„, irounvabe m morriumitigis v ..... tuliclors.- tir, ..• Entink. --4,--gb.n--re.:,,,,,,Arilami a mut wiiii p ■I:* LsN iii •f , ■■ nnim ■i■ ■■■ essa iri--KgAndarar,,,, cit,ipilipf I./■■■N■MI r■■ ■ 411 liar r - '■err'"" r.■ ■ ■ 0 1 r ,eaamp' ' .l •#'w1IIIII t. irt rAirrezelEin. =SEM Ordir=.::;-€4 '1■■ Wit;► ■ iii*�...� 411. _■■�■; a 1 41'` �� II i,. an ■ 4.0):411��■��■�■■■r■ High Risk Network- Unincorporated Jurisdictions in Action Plan Jurisdictions Not in Action Plan 10 ■ Miles 57 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 15: Risk Scores Used in HRN (All Weld County) Risk Factors Category Rep. Ratio Proposed Points Risk Max. Possible Points Operation Traffic Two-way 0.85 1 5 One -Way 6.30 5 No Data 0.00 0 Functional Class Principal Freeways Y Arterial and Expressways6.51 - Other 5 5 Principal Arterial - Other 4.27 3 Minor Arterial 4.90 4 Major Collector 2.27 2 Minor Collector 0.63 0 Local 0.35 0 Through Number of Lanes 1 Lane 0.05 0 5 2 Lanes 0.85 0 3 or 4 Lanes 8.04 4 5 or More Lanes 10.27 5 No Data 0.47 0 Surface Asphalt 1.84 2 5 Asphalt over Concrete 1.30 1 Concrete 5.42 5 Concrete over Asphalt 0.00 0 Other 0.23 0 Primitive 0.04 0 Unimproved 0.06 0 Graded & Drained 0.12 0 Soil, Gravel or Stone 0.15 0 No Data 0.32 0 AADT Class Under 500 0.19 0 5 500-1k 0.77 0 1k -2k 1.43 1 2k -5k 2.40 1 5k -10k 4.55 2 10k -20k 7.49 3 >20k 12.67 5 Speed Limit 15-25mph 0.65 1 5 30-45 mph p h 4.11 5 50-55mph 0.61 1 60-75mph 4.20 5 K-12 Proximity School Yes 2.00 5 5 No 0.93 2 AirSage Event Occurrence High 5 5 Moderate 3 Low 1 Total Possible Points 40 58 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 16: Risk Scores Used in HRN (Jurisdictions in Action Plan) Risk Factors Category Rep. Ratio Proposed Points Risk Max. Possible Points Operation Traffic Two-way 0.80 1 5 One -Way 4.72 5 No Data 0.00 0 Functional Class Principal and Expressways Arterial - Other Freeways 5.27 5 5 Principal Arterial - Other 5.64 5 Minor Arterial 4.22 4 Major Collector 1.85 2 Minor Collector 1.21 1 Local 0.36 0 Through Number of Lanes 1 Lane 0.26 0 5 2 Lanes 0.93 1 3 or 4 Lanes 6.00 5 5 or More Lanes 3.78 3 No Data 0.32 0 Surface Asphalt 1.15 1 5 Asphalt over Concrete 0.00 0 Concrete 8.58 5 Concrete over Asphalt 1.00 1 Other 0.00 0 Primitive 0.00 0 Unimproved 0.03 0 Graded & Drained 0.13 0 Soil, Gravel or Stone 0.35 0 No Data 0.22 0 AADT Class Under 500 0.17 0 5 500-1k 0.65 0 1k -2k 1.60 1 2k -5k 2.00 1 5k -10k 4.34 3 10k -20k 5.94 4 >20k 7.24 5 Speed Limit 15-25mph 0.32 0 5 30-45mph 2.53 2 50-55mph 1.34 1 60-75mph 5.10 5 K-12 Proximity School Yes 0.86 4 5 No 1.03 5 AirSage Event Occurrence High 5 5 Moderate 3 Low 1 Total Possible Points 40 59 Appendix C I Data Memo Table 17: Risk Scores Used in HRN (Unincorporated Weld County) Risk Factors Category o Rep. p Ratio Proposed Points Risk Max. Possible Points Traffic Operation O p Two-way 0.88 1 5 One -Way 8.59 5 No Data 1.46 1 Functional Class Principal and Expressways Arterial - Other Freeways 7.93 5 5 Principal Arterial - Other 3.25 2 Minor Arterial 5.22 3 Major Collector 2.66 2 Minor Collector 0.74 0 Local 0.37 0 Through Number of Lanes 1 Lane 0.10 0 5 2 Lanes 1.00 1 3 or 4 Lanes 9.06 5 5 or More Lanes 2.57 1 No Data 0.58 0 Surface Asphalt 2.75 5 3 Asphalt over Concrete 0.00 0 Concrete 4.63 5 Concrete over Asphalt 0.00 0 Other 0.00 0 Primitive 0.05 0 Unimproved 0.13 0 Graded & Drained 0.07 0 Soil, Gravel or Stone 0.18 0 No Data 0.48 1 AADT Class Under 500 0.24 0 5 500-1k 0.80 0 1k -2k 1.64 0 2k -5k 2.74 1 5k -10k 5.44 1 10k -20k 9.77 3 >20k 19.12 5 Speed Limit 15-25mph 0.90 1 5 30-45mph 3.30 3 50-55mph 0.60 1 60-75mph 4.75 5 No Data 1.46 2 K-12 Proximity School Yes 3.15 5 5 No 0.98 2 AirSage Event Occurrence High 5 5 Moderate 3 Low 1 Total Possible Points 40 60 Appendix C I Data Memo 61 • i Rif Ne, ePb SAFETY ACTION PLAN Appendix D: Prioritized Projects Appendix D lists the prioritized projects identified as a part of the Weld County Safety Action Plan (SAP). Chapter 06: Prioritized Projects in the SAP discusses priority projects by tier (Table 1) and by jurisdiction, specifically on: Roadways maintained by Weld County (Table 2) � Roadways maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) (Table 3) Roadways maintained by the jurisdictions included in the action plan (Table 4) Projects are organized by several key attributes: • Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction(s) who maintain the project location. • Intersection or Segment: Indicates if the project is located at an intersection or a segment of the roadway. • Location: The specific location of the project. • Project Type: The specific project recommended for implementation. • Cost: The planning -level cost of the project. • Crash Severity Score: A score based on the 10 -year crash totals (2014-20) at the project location. Fatal and serious injury crashes have the highest weight, followed by non - incapacitating and possible injury crashes; property damage only crashes • Benefit -to -Cost Score: A score based on the cost and 20 -year project crash reduction benefits (based on the latest USDOT guidance) for each project. • Total Priority Score: The total priority score is the sum of the crash severity score and benefit -to -cost score. This score ranges from 0 to 200 points and is used to determine the priority tier of the project, with higher priority score having a higher priority tier. • Priority Tier: The priority of the project based on the total priority score, with Priority Tier 1 projects have the highest priority. Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Table 1: All Priority Safety Projects by Priority Tier Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Priority Score Priority Tier CDOT Segment Hwy 66 Lane Departure Mitigation 3.56 533,466 93.4 181.2 1 87.8 Segment Hwy 14 Lane Departure Mitigation 4.35 652,424 84.5 91.8 1 CDOT 176.3 CDOT Segment US Hwy 34 Bypass Lane Departure Mitigation 0.19 29,000 66.6 99.1 165.7 1 Segment US Hwy 34 Lane Departure Mitigation 8.83 82.1 1 CDOT 1,324,077 75.6 157.7 CDOT Segment 1st St Speed Management Treatments 535,015 95.1 60.1 155.2 1 1.07 CDOT Segment US Hwy 34 Lane Departure Mitigation 2.99 63.4 90.2 153.6 1 449,070 CDOT Segment Hwy 52 Lane Departure Mitigation 2.51 82.1 153.6 1 376,657 71.5 CDOT Segment US Hwy 34 Lane Reconfiguration 6.40 88.6 62.6 151.2 1 4,479,592 CDOT Segment Hwy 66 Lane Departure Mitigation 4.35 652,084 80.4 65.8 146.2 1 Segment g US Hwy 85 Road Safety Improvements Audit and 3.33 146.2 1 CDOT 9,977,212 99.1 47.1 Evans Intersection 32nd St at 3rd Ave Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 94 82.2 1 176.2 Evans Segment 11th Ave Lane Reconfiguration 0.99 692,462 1 97.5 73.1 170.6 Firestone Intersection Sable Ave at E I-25 Rd Frontage Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 80 98.5 1 178.5 Firestone Intersection Firestone Blvd at E 1-25 Road Improvements Safety Audit and -- 1,500,000 96.2 57 153.2 1 Frontage Rd Intersection -- 250,000 91.1 82.9 1 174 Firestone & CDOT Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications Hwy 119 at WCR 7 Firestone & CDOT Intersection Firestone Blvd at WI -25 Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 155.4 1 Frontage Rd 97.7 57.7 Intersection WCR 8 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 92.5 100 192.5 1 Fort Lupton & CDOT Fort Luton Lupton & CDOT Intersection Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 98.5 85.9 184.4 1 14th St at US Hwy 85 Platteville & CDOT Intersection Road Safety Improvements Audit and 1,500,000 1 99.2 77 176.2 Justin Ave at US Hwy 85 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.66 99,604 169 1 71.5 97.5 WCR 27 Weld County Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 9.88 1,481,985 164.1 1 91.8 72.3 Weld County Segment WCR 54 Lane Departure Mitigation 4.02 603,544 158.4 1 73.1 85.3 Weld County Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 5.01 1 750,884 76.4 81.3 157.7 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 430,244 63.4 88.6 152 1 WCR 74 2.87 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 3.39 151.1 1 67.4 83.7 507,848 WCR 60.5 / Hwy 37 2 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score Weld County County & Adams Intersection WCR 2 / E 168th Ave at WCR Systemic Stop y Control Modifications -- 150,000 86.6 165.1 1 19 78.5 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 43 Systemic Stop Control Modifications 150,000 99.2 -- 1 172.5 Weld County & CDOT 73.3 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 100 163.7 1 WCR 17 at US Hwy 34 63.7 Intersection -- 1,500,000 81.4 160.6 1 79.2 Weld County & CDOT Dedicated Turn Lanes Hwy 14 at WCR 31 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 88.1 158.4 1 70.3 Intersection WCR 4 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 58.5 93.3 151.8 1 Weld County & CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 4.58 686,516 156 1 Weld County Evans & CDOT & Hwy 60 / Two Rivers Pkwy / 79.6 76.4 WCR 27.5 Weld County Firestone & Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 45,851 95.9 192.6 1 0.31 WCR 26 / WCR 7 96.7 Weld Firestone County & Intersection Hwy 119 at WCR 5.5 -- 250,000 84.4 96.2 180.6 1 Systemic y Traffic Signal g Modifications Weld County & Intersection -- 250,000 82.2 162.9 1 Hwy 119 at WCR 3.5 Systemic y Traffic Signal g Modifications 80.7 Firestone & CDOT Weld Firestone County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 119 at Turner Blvd Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 92.5 64.4 156.9 1 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 88.8 84.4 1 Intersection 173.2 WCR 6 at US Hwy 85 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection WCR 18 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 95.5 1 76.2 171.7 Weld Keenesburg County & Intersection WCR 22 at WCR 49 Systemic Stop y Control Modifications -- 150,000 66.6 161.4 1 94.8 Weld County & Milliken Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 2.38 82.1 95.1 1 Hwy 257 177.2 356,781 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 2.29 58.5 84.5 143 2 Hwy 52 343,474 CDOT Segment Hwy 52 Median and Access Management 0.96 94.3 43.9 138.2 2 3,375,452 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 1.65 54.4 82.9 2 Hwy 257 247,665 137.3 Segment g US Hwy 85 Road Safety Improvements Audit and 89.4 2 CDOT 2.47 47.9 7,401,938 137.3 Road Improvements Safety Audit and Segment g US Hwy 85 3.62 100 33.3 133.3 2 CDOT 10,853,667 CDOT Segment g US Hwy 34 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 5,911,159 36.5 133.2 2 1.97 96.7 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Speed Management Treatments 1.01 505,495 56.9 130.8 2 73.9 3 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score CDOT Segment g US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 2.55 41.4 125.1 2 7,645,867 83.7 Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 5.59 91 34.1 125.1 2 Hwy 392 CDOT 11,176,112 Segment Hwy 66 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.58 32.5 91 123.5 2 CDOT 87,699 Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.65 28.4 92.6 121 2 CDOT 97,738 Intersection Hwy 52 at Colorado Blvd Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 89.6 48.1 2 Dacono & CDOT 137.7 Evans Segment 32nd St 1.01 503,304 52 130.8 2 Speed Management Treatments 78.8 Evans Segment Prairie View Dr / 42nd St Lane Reconfiguration 2.12 86.9 39 125.9 2 1,487,220 Evans Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 90.3 33.3 123.6 2 37th St at 35th Ave Evans Segment Lane Reconfiguration 1.16 123.4 2 814,377 74.7 48.7 37th St 31st St at US Hwy 85 Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout 6,000,000 94.8 30.3 125.1 2 Intersection -- Evans & CDOT Intersection US Hwy 34 Bypass at 8th Ave Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 38.1 85 123.1 2 Evans & CDOT Evans & CDOT Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 91.8 116.9 2 42nd St at US Hwy 85 25.1 Evans & Milliken Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.14 20,950 93.4 140.5 2 65th Ave / WCR 378 Turnoff 47.1 Firestone Segment Pine Cone Ave Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.93 2 90.2 30 120.2 3,869,177 Intersection Firestone Blvd at 1-25 NB Road Improvements Safety Audit and -- 1,500,000 85.1 52.5 2 Ramp Firestone & CDOT 137.6 Frederick Intersection Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 35.5 133.2 2 Tripple Pkwy at E 1-25 Frontage Rd 97.7 Frederick & CDOT Intersection Hwy 52 at E 1-25 Frontage Rd Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 95.5 25.9 121.4 2 Mead & CDOT Intersection 6,000,000 Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 42.9 126.6 2 83.7 Hwy 66 at WCR 7 Platteville & CDOT Intersection WCR 32 / Grand Ave at US Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 48.8 129.5 2 Hwy 85 80.7 Severance Segment 1.35 60.1 2 WCR 74 Speed Management Treatments 67.4 127.5 676,863 Weld County Segment WCR 20 / WCR 5 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.15 21,841 95.9 140.6 2 44.7 Weld County Segment WCR 23 Lane Departure Mitigation 1.15 69.1 2 48.7 117.8 172,496 Weld County & Adams County Segment WCR 2 / 168th Ave Shoulder Installation / Widening 12,144,355 19.5 2 6.07 97.5 117 Weld County & CDOT -- 150,000 2 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications 143.7 US Hwy Balsam 34 / 18th Ave St at 60 83.7 Intersection WCR 13 at US Hwy 34 __ 3,000,000 56.2 143.6 2 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict 87.4 Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 54.8 139.9 2 WCR 42 at Hwy 60 85.1 4 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score Weld County & CDOT Intersection AA St at US Hwy 85 -- 3,000,000 64.4 65.9 130.3 2 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 55 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout 8,000,000 66.6 53.3 119.9 2 -- Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 33 at US Hwy 85 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 65.1 54 119.1 2 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 38 at US Hwy 85 __ 3,000,000 55.5 61.4 116.9 2 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 25.9 92.5 118.4 2 WCR 22.5 at US Hwy 85 Intersection Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 45.1 142.1 2 WCR 378 at WCR Ave 27.5 / 77th Weld Count County & Milliken 97 Weld County & Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 19 Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 50.3 129.5 2 79.2 Platteville & CDOT Weld Severance County & & CDOT -- 8,000,000 2 Intersection Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout 40 77 117 H 392 at WCR 23 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 26,998 18.6 98.3 116.9 3 Segment Hwy 14 Lane Departure Mitigation CDOT 3.90 51.2 65 116.2 3 584,470 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 2.50 92.6 115.3 3 22.7 7,508,940 Segment Hwy 52 Lane Departure Mitigation 14.00 2,100,065 56 113.7 3 CDOT 57.7 Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.39 94.3 111.3 3 17 CDOT 57,909 Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.64 33.3 3 95,696 CDOT 73.9 107.2 Segment Hwy 66 Shoulder Installation / Widening 5,451,898 81.3 25.2 106.5 3 CDOT 2.73 Segment Hwy 71 Lane Departure Mitigation 2,808,842 54.4 51.2 105.6 3 CDOT 18.73 Segment Denver Ave 0.99 496,104 68.2 105.5 3 CDOT Speed Management Treatments 37.3 Segment Lane Departure Mitigation Dacono 3.04 455,405 53.6 55.2 108.8 3 Colorado Blvd Evans Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 2.00 3,991,198 86.1 26.8 112.9 3 37th St Segment Lane Reconfiguration Evans 34th St 1.00 69.1 43 112.1 3 699,749 Evans Segment Lane Reconfiguration 1.01 42.2 103.9 3 17th St 710,162 61.7 Evans & CDOT Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 86.6 22.2 108.8 3 37th St at US Hwy 85 Firestone & Frederick Segment Colorado Blvd Median and Access Management 2.01 20.3 108.1 3 7,039,616 87.8 Fort Lupton Segment Speed Management Treatments 0.68 339,986 43 114.5 3 9th St 71.5 Mead & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 28.1 80 108.1 3 Hwy 66 at WCR 5 5 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score Road Improvements Safety Audit and WCR 34 at US Hwy 85 __ 1,500,000 55.5 3 Platteville & CDOT Intersection 116.2 60.7 Severance Segment WCR 23 Lane Departure Mitigation 26 89.4 115.4 3 0.78 117,433 Severance Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 1.59 239,241 28.4 108 3 WCR 74 79.6 Weld County Intersection WCR 34 at WCR 13 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 69.6 45.9 115.5 3 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.12 12.1 100 112.1 3 WCR 39 17,953 Weld County Intersection 168th Ave at WCR 45 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 39.2 110.3 3 71.1 Weld County Segment WCR 20.5 Shoulder Installation / Widening 2.99 5,986,658 85.3 23.5 108.8 3 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 3 WCR 74 at WCR 31 40.7 107.3 Intersection -- 22.2 94 116.2 3 WCR 394 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications 150,000 Weld County & CDOT Intersection -- 1,500,000 50.3 62.2 112.5 3 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 392 at WCR 27 Dedicated Turn Lanes Hwy 392 at WCR 47 12,000,000 Intersection Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 38.5 110.3 3 Weld County & CDOT 71.8 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 85.1 24.4 109.5 3 Hwy 60 at WCR 7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 39 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 28.8 3 78.5 107.3 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 52 at WCR 41 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout Intersection -- 8,000,000 49.6 54.8 104.4 3 Weld County & Dacano Intersection Hwy 52 at WCR 19 -- 1,500,000 62.9 46.6 109.5 3 Dedicated Turn Lanes & CDOT Weld County & Intersection -- 1,500,000 45.1 116.9 3 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 71.8 Hwy 119 at WCR 5 Firestone & CDOT Weld County & Fort Intersection WCR 22 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 34 81.4 115.4 3 Lupton & CDOT Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort -- 16.2 91.1 3 Intersection WCR 20 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications 150,000 107.3 Weld County & CDOT & Gilcrest Intersection WCR 42 at US Hwy 85 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 53.3 51.1 104.4 3 Weld Keenesburg County & Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 66.6 105.6 3 2.98 39 447,444 Weld County & Intersection WCR 38 at Hwy 60 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 18.5 115.5 3 97 Platteville & CDOT Weld County & Intersection WCR 24.5 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 91.8 109.5 3 17.7 Platteville & CDOT Weld County & Intersection WCR 28 at US H 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 31.8 3 75.5 107.3 Platteville & CDOT CDOT Segment US 34 / 18th St Speed Management Treatments 1.22 608,445 4 61.7 97.4 35.7 CDOT Segment Speed Management Treatments 0.58 36.5 59.3 95.8 4 287,817 US Hwy 85 / Oak Ave 6 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 8.62 43.9 4 50.4 94.3 CDOT 1,292,378 Hwy 71 Segment Hwy 60 / Broad St 0.63 313,802 49.5 94.2 4 CDOT Speed Management Treatments 44.7 Segment Hwy 392 Shoulder Installation / Widening 8.24 14.6 90.2 4 CDOT 16,474,890 75.6 Segment Hwy 392 Shoulder Installation / Widening 19,469,533 12.1 89.3 4 CDOT 77.2 9.73 Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 112,622 16.2 4 86.9 70.7 CDOT 0.75 Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.69 103,210 21.1 64.2 85.3 4 CDOT Hwy 257 Segment Hwy 392 Shoulder Installation / Widening 8.14 16,282,112 6.5 84.5 4 CDOT 78 Segment Main St / Hwy 52 0.69 345,992 39 45.5 84.5 4 CDOT Speed Management Treatments Frederick Segment WCR 5 Lane Departure Mitigation 1.29 24.3 101.5 4 193,397 77.2 Frederick Segment Aggregate Blvd Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.39 28.4 99.1 4 2,770,366 70.7 6,000,000 82.9 20 102.9 -- 4 Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout Frederick & CDOT Hwy 52 at WI -25 Frontage Rd Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 11.1 88.1 4 Mead & CDOT 77 Hwy 66 at WCR 13 Intersection Grand Ave at Main St Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 4 23.7 73.3 Platteville & CDOT 97 Weld County Segment WCR 39 Lane Departure Mitigation 12.1 86.1 98.2 4 24,879 0.17 Weld County Intersection WCR 54 at WCR 13 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout 8,000,000 60 -- 4 97.7 37.7 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.1 94.8 4 AA St at WCR 37 43.7 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 19.2 4 WCR 34 at WCR 17 75.5 94.7 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.22 32,686 13.8 92.6 4 78.8 WCR 27 Weld County Intersection WCR 90 at WCR 39 Systemic Stop Control Modifications 150,000 90.3 -- 1.4 4 91.7 Weld County Segment WCR 26 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 26,882 0.8 86.9 4 87.7 Weld County Segment F St Speed Management Treatments 403,840 51.2 34.9 4 0.81 86.1 Weld County Segment AA St Lane Departure Mitigation 0.48 21.1 63.4 84.5 4 72,569 Weld County Segment WCR 34 / WCR 21 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 26,610 6.5 84.5 4 78 Weld County Segment WCR 43 Lane Departure Mitigation 2.64 395,653 56 83.6 4 27.6 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 26.6 104.3 4 Weld County & CDOT 77.7 Hwy 14 at WCR 39 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 31 (east) Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 69.6 31.1 4 Weld County & CDOT 100.7 Intersection 1,500,000 96.2 -- 4 Weld County & CDOT WCR 70 at US Hwy 85 Dedicated Turn Lanes 23.7 72.5 Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 94 4 Weld County & CDOT Two Rivers Pkwy at Hwy 60 27.4 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 5.1 88.8 93.9 4 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 14 at WCR 37 Intersection WCR 46 at Hwy 60 (north) Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 21.4 69.6 91 4 Weld County & CDOT 7 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score Weld Firestone County & WCR 20 at WCR 19 -- 8,000,000 62.9 4 Intersection Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout 35.5 98.4 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.8 42.2 94 4 Hwy 52 at WCR 37 Weld Frederick County & Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 22.2 4 WCR 20.5 at WCR 7 74.8 97 Weld County & Hudson Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.96 30 69.9 99.9 4 144,740 Weld County & Kersey Intersection WCR 60.5 at WCR 53 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout 8,000,000 32.5 90.2 -- 4 57.7 Weld County & Intersection WCR 26 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 19.2 90.3 4 71.1 Platteville & CDOT Weld Platteville County & & CDOT Intersection Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 16.2 90.2 4 74 Hwy 66 at WCR 21 CDOT Segment Lane Reconfiguration 0.48 338,982 52.8 30.8 83.6 5 US Hwy 85 / Oak Ave CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 5 2.4 77.1 27,069 74.7 Hwy 79 CDOT Segment Hwy 392 Shoulder Installation / Widening 65 8.9 5 3.87 7,738,517 73.9 Segment Hwy 52 Shoulder Installation / Widening CDOT 4.18 10.5 5 8,358,303 61.7 72.2 CDOT Segment Hwy 60 Shoulder Installation / Widening 4.02 56 15.4 5 8,037,227 71.4 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.98 146,851 15.4 5 Hwy 52 54.4 69.8 CDOT Segment Hwy 52 Shoulder Installation / Widening 2.01 4,029,805 21.9 66.6 5 44.7 Segment Hwy 52 Shoulder Installation / Widening 4.98 8.1 64.1 5 56 9,968,734 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.31 45,994 10.5 53.6 64.1 5 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.39 58,064 60.9 62.5 5 1.6 CDOT Eaton Intersection E 5th St at UPRR Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 19.2 86.6 5 67.4 Evans Intersection 34th St at 35th Ave -- 6,000,000 62.2 13.3 5 Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout 75.5 Firestone Intersection Bella Ave Rosa at Colorado Pkwy / Pine Blvd Cone Urban Single -Lane Roundabout -- 4,000,000 60 5 17.7 77.7 Firestone Segment WCR 19 Shoulder Installation / Widening 6.03 12,068,125 69.9 4.8 5 74.7 Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 42.2 31.8 5 Milliken & CDOT 74 Hwy 60 at Hwy 257 Milliken & CDOT Intersection Urban Single -Lane Roundabout -- 4,000,000 51.8 65.1 5 Hwy 60 at WCR 23.75 / 13.3 Centennial Dr Severance & CDOT Intersection Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 2.9 5 74 76.9 WCR 74 at Hwy 257 Weld County Intersection WCR 6 at Colorado Blvd Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 65.9 18.5 84.4 5 Weld County Segment WCR 61 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.10 15,511 2.4 80.4 82.8 5 8 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Score Priority Priority Tier Score Weld County Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.88 41.4 40.6 5 82 WCR 54 3,760,233 Weld County Intersection Intersection Realignment -- 3,000,000 31.1 49.6 5 WCR 50 at WCR 17 80.7 Weld County Segment WCR 4 Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.63 32.5 5 44.7 77.2 3,250,607 Weld County Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 6.00 12,004,693 65.8 5 9.7 75.5 WCR 74 Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening Weld County 0.50 23.5 49.5 5 WCR 31 1,001,137 73 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 38.5 29.6 68.1 5 WCR 38 at WCR 17 Weld County Segment WCR 41 Shoulder Installation / Widening 14,985,880 60.1 5 7.49 7.3 67.4 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.62 93,308 8.1 58.5 66.6 5 WCR 127 Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.8 34 5 85.8 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 392 at WCR 37 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 33 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 55.5 26.6 82.1 5 Weld County & CDOT 1,500,000 81.4 5 40 Intersection -- 41.4 Weld County & CDOT Dedicated Turn Lanes Hwy 14 at WCR 29 Intersection Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 5 Weld County & CDOT 71.8 7.4 79.2 Hwy 66 at WCR 1 Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 42.2 5 Weld County & CDOT 79.2 37 Hwy 392 at WCR 35 Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 46 at Hwy 60 (south) Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 13.3 59.2 5 72.5 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 51 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout 8,000,000 41.4 28.1 69.5 5 -- Weld County & Eaton & Intersection -- 3,000,000 32.5 5 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict 47.4 79.9 WCR 76 at US Hwy 85 CDOT Intersection WCR 90 at US Hwy 85 Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 34.8 5 Weld County & Pierce & 37.7 72.5 CDOT Weld County Severance & Segment g WCR 19 Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.86 49.5 81.2 5 3,712,563 31.7 9 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Table 2: Weld County -Maintained Priority Safety Projects Jurisdiction Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit Cost Score -to- Total Score Priority Priority Tier Intersection or Segment Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.66 99,604 169 1 71.5 97.5 WCR 27 Weld County Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 9.88 1,481,985 91.8 164.1 1 72.3 Weld County Segment WCR 54 Lane Departure Mitigation 4.02 603,544 85.3 158.4 1 73.1 Weld County Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 5.01 81.3 1 750,884 76.4 157.7 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 430,244 63.4 88.6 152 1 2.87 WCR 74 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 3.39 151.1 1 507,848 67.4 83.7 WCR 60.5 / Hwy 37 Weld County Segment WCR 20 / WCR 5 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.15 21,841 95.9 140.6 2 44.7 Weld County Segment WCR 23 Lane Departure Mitigation 1.15 69.1 2 172,496 48.7 117.8 Weld County Intersection WCR 34 at WCR 13 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 69.6 45.9 115.5 3 Weld County Segment WCR 39 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.12 12.1 100 112.1 3 17,953 Weld County Intersection 168th Ave at WCR 45 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 39.2 110.3 3 71.1 Weld County Segment WCR 20.5 Shoulder Installation / Widening 2.99 5,986,658 85.3 23.5 108.8 3 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 3 40.7 107.3 WCR 74 at WCR 31 Weld County Segment WCR 39 Lane Departure Mitigation 12.1 86.1 98.2 4 0.17 24,879 Weld County Intersection WCR 54 at WCR 13 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 60 4 37.7 97.7 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.1 94.8 4 AA St at WCR 37 43.7 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 19.2 4 WCR 34 at WCR 17 75.5 94.7 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.22 32,686 13.8 92.6 4 WCR 27 78.8 Weld County Intersection WCR 90 at WCR 39 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 1.4 90.3 4 91.7 Weld County Segment WCR 26 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 26,882 0.8 86.9 4 87.7 Weld County Segment F St 0.81 403,840 51.2 34.9 86.1 4 Speed Management Treatments Weld County Segment AA St Lane Departure Mitigation 0.48 21.1 63.4 84.5 4 72,569 Weld County Segment WCR 34 / WCR 21 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 26,610 6.5 84.5 4 78 Weld County Segment WCR 43 Lane Departure Mitigation 2.64 395,653 56 83.6 4 27.6 Weld County Intersection WCR 6 at Colorado Blvd Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 65.9 18.5 84.4 5 Weld County Segment WCR 61 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.10 15,511 2.4 80.4 82.8 5 Weld County Segment WCR 54 Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.88 41.4 40.6 82 5 3,760,233 Weld County Intersection Intersection Realignment -- 3,000,000 31.1 49.6 5 80.7 WCR 50 at WCR 17 Weld County Segment WCR 4 Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.63 32.5 5 77.2 3,250,607 44.7 10 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit -to- Total Priority Score Priority Tier Cost Score Weld County Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 6.00 12,004,693 65.8 9.7 5 WCR 74 75.5 Weld County Segment WCR 31 Shoulder Installation / Widening 0.50 23.5 49.5 73 5 1,001,137 Weld County Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 38.5 29.6 68.1 5 WCR 38 at WCR 17 Weld County Segment WCR 41 Shoulder Installation / Widening 14,985,880 60.1 5 7.3 67.4 7.49 Weld County Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.62 93,308 8.1 58.5 66.6 5 WCR 127 Weld County County & Adams Intersection WCR 2 / E 168th Ave at WCR Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 86.6 165.1 1 19 78.5 Weld County County & Adams Segment WCR 2 / 168th Ave Shoulder Installation / Widening 12,144,355 19.5 2 6.07 97.5 117 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 99.2 1 172.5 Weld County & CDOT 73.3 Hwy 392 at WCR 43 Intersection __ 3,000,000 100 1 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict Weld County & CDOT 63.7 WCR 17 at US Hwy 34 163.7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 81.4 160.6 1 79.2 Hwy 14 at WCR 31 Intersection Hwy 392 at US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 88.1 158.4 1 Weld County & CDOT 70.3 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 58.5 93.3 151.8 1 WCR 4 at US Hwy 85 Intersection US Hwy 34 Balsam / 18th Ave St at Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 60 2 Weld County & CDOT 83.7 143.7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 13 at US Hwy 34 __ 3,000,000 56.2 143.6 2 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict 87.4 Intersection WCR 42 at Hwy 60 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 54.8 85.1 139.9 2 Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection AA St at US Hwy 85 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 64.4 65.9 130.3 2 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 55 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 53.3 119.9 2 Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 33 at US Hwy 85 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 65.1 54 119.1 2 Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 38 at US Hwy 85 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 55.5 61.4 116.9 2 Intersection WCR 394 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 22.2 94 116.2 3 Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 50.3 62.2 112.5 3 Hwy 392 at WCR 27 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 47 Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 38.5 110.3 3 71.8 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 85.1 24.4 109.5 3 Hwy 60 at WCR 7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 39 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 28.8 3 78.5 107.3 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 49.6 54.8 104.4 3 Hwy 52 at WCR 41 11 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost Crash ($) Severity Score Benefit -to- Total Priority Score Priority Tier Cost Score Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 26.6 104.3 4 Weld County & CDOT 77.7 Hwy 14 at WCR 39 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 31 (east) Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 69.6 31.1 4 Weld County & CDOT 100.7 Intersection -- 1,500,000 96.2 4 23.7 72.5 Weld County & CDOT WCR 70 at US Hwy 85 Dedicated Turn Lanes Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 94 4 Weld County & CDOT 27.4 Two Rivers Pkwy at Hwy 60 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 5.1 88.8 93.9 4 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 14 at WCR 37 Intersection WCR 46 at Hwy 60 (north) Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 21.4 69.6 91 4 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.8 34 85.8 5 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 392 at WCR 37 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 33 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 55.5 26.6 82.1 5 Weld County & CDOT Intersection -- 1,500,000 40 41.4 81.4 5 Weld County & CDOT Dedicated Turn Lanes Hwy 14 at WCR 29 Intersection Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 5 Weld County & CDOT 71.8 7.4 79.2 Hwy 66 at WCR 1 Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 42.2 5 Weld County & CDOT 79.2 37 Hwy 392 at WCR 35 Intersection WCR 46 at Hwy 60 (south) -- 1,500,000 13.3 59.2 5 Weld County & CDOT Dedicated Turn Lanes 72.5 Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 41.4 28.1 69.5 5 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 392 at WCR 51 Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 4.58 686,516 156 1 Weld County Evans & CDOT & Hwy 60 / Two Rivers Pkwy / 79.6 76.4 WCR 27.5 Weld County & Dacono Intersection Hwy 52 at WCR 19 -- 1,500,000 62.9 46.6 109.5 3 Dedicated Turn Lanes & CDOT Weld County & Eaton & Intersection -- 3,000,000 32.5 5 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict WCR 76 at US Hwy 85 47.4 79.9 CDOT Weld County Firestone & Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.31 45,851 95.9 192.6 1 96.7 WCR 26 /WCR 7 Weld Firestone County & Intersection Hwy 119 at WCR 5.5 Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 84.4 96.2 180.6 1 Weld Firestone County & Intersection WCR 20 at WCR 19 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 62.9 35.5 98.4 4 Weld Firestone County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 119 at WCR 3.5 Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 82.2 162.9 1 80.7 Weld County & Intersection Hwy 119 at Turner Blvd Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 92.5 64.4 156.9 1 Firestone & CDOT Weld County & Intersection Hwy 119 at WCR 5 Road Improvements Safety Audit and -- 1,500,000 45.1 116.9 3 71.8 Firestone & CDOT Weld County & Fort Intersection -- 250,000 88.8 84.4 1 173.2 Systemic y Traffic Signal g Modifications WCR 6 at US H 85 Lupton & CDOT Weld County & Fort Intersection WCR 18 at US Hwy 85 -- 250,000 95.5 1 171.7 Systemic y Traffic Signal Modifications g 76.2 Lupton & CDOT 12 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit -to- Total Priority Score Priority Tier Cost Score Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection Systemic Stop y Control Modifications -- 150,000 25.9 92.5 118.4 2 WCR 22.5 at US Hwy 85 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection WCR 22 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 34 81.4 115.4 3 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection WCR 20 at US Hwy 85 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 16.2 91.1 3 107.3 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.8 42.2 94 4 Hwy 52 at WCR 37 Weld Frederick County & Intersection Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 22.2 4 74.8 WCR 20.5 at WCR 7 97 Weld County & Gilcrest Intersection WCR 42 at US Hwy 85 -- 3,000,000 53.3 51.1 104.4 3 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict & CDOT Weld County & Hudson Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.96 30 69.9 99.9 4 144,740 Weld Keenesburg County & Intersection WCR 22 at WCR 49 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 66.6 94.8 161.4 1 Weld Keenesburg County & Segment WCR 49 Lane Departure Mitigation 2.98 39 66.6 105.6 3 447,444 Weld County & Kersey Intersection WCR 60.5 at WCR 53 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 32.5 90.2 4 57.7 Weld County & Milliken Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 2.38 82.1 95.1 1 356,781 177.2 Hwy 257 Weld County & Milliken Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 45.1 142.1 2 WCR 378 at WCR 27.5 / 77th Ave 97 Weld County CDOT & Pierce & Intersection WCR 90 at US Hwy 85 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 34.8 5 37.7 72.5 Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection Rural Single g -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 50.3 129.5 2 79.2 Hwy 66 at WCR 19 Weld County & Intersection WCR 38 at Hwy 60 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 18.5 97 115.5 3 Platteville & CDOT Weld County & Intersection WCR 24.5 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 91.8 109.5 3 17.7 Platteville & CDOT Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection WCR 28 at US H 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 31.8 3 75.5 107.3 Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection WCR 26 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 19.2 90.3 4 71.1 Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 21 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 16.2 90.2 4 74 Weld Severance County & Segment WCR 19 Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.86 49.5 81.2 5 3,712,563 31.7 Weld Severance County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 23 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 40 2 77 117 13 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Table 3: State -Maintained Highway Priority Safety Projects Intersection or Segment Location Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity core Benefit Cost -to- S..*. - Total Priority Score Priority Jurisdiction Tier CDOT Segment Hwy 66 Lane Departure Mitigation 3.56 533,466 93.4 181.2 1 87.8 Segment Hwy 14 Lane Departure Mitigation 4.35 652,424 84.5 91.8 1 CDOT 176.3 CDOT Segment US Hwy 34 Bypass Lane Departure Mitigation 0.19 29,000 66.6 99.1 1 165.7 Segment US Hwy 34 Lane Departure Mitigation 8.83 82.1 1 157.7 CDOT 1,324,077 75.6 CDOT Segment 1st St Speed Management Treatments 535,015 95.1 60.1 155.2 1 1.07 CDOT Segment US Hwy 34 Lane Departure Mitigation 2.99 63.4 90.2 153.6 1 449,070 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 2.51 82.1 153.6 1 376,657 71.5 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment US Hwy 34 Lane Reconfiguration 6.40 88.6 62.6 151.2 1 4,479,592 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 4.35 652,084 80.4 65.8 146.2 1 Hwy 66 Segment g US H 85 Road Safety Improvements Audit and 3.33 99.1 146.2 1 9,977,212 CDOT 47.1 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 2.29 58.5 84.5 143 2 343,474 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment Median and Access Management 0.96 94.3 43.9 138.2 2 3,375,452 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 1.65 54.4 82.9 2 247,665 137.3 Hwy 257 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Road Safety Improvements Audit and 89.4 2 2.47 7,401,938 47.9 137.3 CDOT Segment g US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 3.62 100 33.3 133.3 2 10,853,667 CDOT Segment g US Hwy 34 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 5,911,159 36.5 133.2 2 1.97 96.7 Segment US Hwy 85 Speed Management Treatments 1.01 505,495 56.9 130.8 2 CDOT 73.9 CDOT Segment g US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 2.55 41.4 125.1 2 7,645,867 83.7 CDOT Segment Shoulder Installation /Widening 5.59 91 34.1 125.1 2 11,176,112 Hwy 392 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.58 32.5 91 123.5 2 87,699 Hwy 66 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.65 28.4 92.6 121 2 97,738 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 26,998 18.6 98.3 116.9 3 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 3.90 51.2 65 116.2 3 584,470 Hwy 14 Segment g US H 85 Road Safety Improvements Audit and 2.50 92.6 115.3 3 CDOT 7,508,940 22.7 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 14.00 2,100,065 56 3 57.7 113.7 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.39 94.3 111.3 3 57,909 17 14 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Intersection or Segment Location Proje t Type Length Crash Severity Benefit -to- Priority Tier Jurisdiction Total Priority Score (mi) Est. Cost ($) Score Cost Score Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.64 95,696 33.3 3 73.9 CDOT 107.2 Segment Hwy 66 Shoulder Installation / Widening 5,451,898 81.3 25.2 106.5 3 CDOT 2.73 Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 2,808,842 54.4 51.2 105.6 3 CDOT 18.73 Hwy 71 Segment Denver Ave 0.99 496,104 68.2 105.5 3 CDOT Speed Management Treatments 37.3 Segment US 34 / 18th St Speed Management Treatments 1.22 608,445 4 CDOT 35.7 61.7 97.4 Segment US Hwy 85 / Oak Ave 0.58 36.5 59.3 95.8 4 CDOT Speed Management Treatments 287,817 Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 8.62 43.9 50.4 94.3 4 CDOT 1,292,378 Hwy 71 Segment 0.63 313,802 49.5 94.2 4 CDOT Speed Management Treatments 44.7 Hwy 60 / Broad St Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 8.24 14.6 90.2 4 CDOT 16,474,890 75.6 Hwy 392 Segment Hwy 392 Shoulder Installation / Widening 19,469,533 12.1 89.3 4 CDOT 9.73 77.2 Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 112,622 16.2 86.9 4 70.7 CDOT 0.75 Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.69 103,210 21.1 64.2 85.3 4 CDOT Hwy 257 Segment Shoulder Installation /Widening 8.14 16,282,112 6.5 84.5 4 CDOT 78 Hwy 392 CDOT Segment Main St / Hwy 52 Speed Management Treatments 0.69 345,992 39 45.5 84.5 4 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 / Oak Ave Lane Reconfiguration 0.48 338,982 52.8 30.8 83.6 5 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.18 2.4 5 27,069 74.7 77.1 Hwy 79 CDOT Segment Shoulder Installation /Widening 65 8.9 5 73.9 3.87 7,738,517 Hwy 392 CDOT Segment Shoulder Installation /Widening 4.18 8,358,303 10.5 5 72.2 61.7 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 4.02 56 15.4 5 8,037,227 71.4 Hwy 60 CDOT Segment Lane Departure Mitigation 0.98 146,851 15.4 54.4 69.8 5 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 2.01 4,029,805 21.9 66.6 5 44.7 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment Shoulder Installation / Widening 4.98 56 8.1 64.1 5 9,968,734 Hwy 52 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.31 45,994 10.5 53.6 64.1 5 CDOT Segment US Hwy 85 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.39 58,064 1.6 60.9 62.5 5 Dacano & CDOT Intersection Hwy 52 at Colorado Blvd Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 89.6 48.1 2 137.7 Intersection 31st St at US Hwy 85 Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 94.8 30.3 125.1 2 Evans & CDOT Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 38.1 85 123.1 2 Evans & CDOT US Hwy 34 Bypass at 8th Ave Intersection 42nd St at US Hwy 85 Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 91.8 25.1 116.9 2 Evans & CDOT Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 86.6 22.2 108.8 3 Evans & CDOT 37th St at US Hwy 85 Intersection -- 250,000 91.1 82.9 1 Firestone & CDOT Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications Hwy 119 at WCR 7 174 15 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Intersection or Segment Location Proje II t Type Length Crash Severity Benefit -to- Priority Tier Jurisdiction Total Priority Score (mi) Est. Cost ($) Score Cost Score Firestone & CDOT Intersection Firestone Blvd at WI -25 Road Safety Improvements Audit and -- 1,500,000 155.4 1 Frontage Rd 97.7 57.7 Firestone & CDOT Intersection Firestone Blvd at 1-25 NB Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 85.1 52.5 2 Ramp 137.6 Fort Lupton & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 92.5 100 192.5 1 WCR 8 at US Hwy 85 Fort Lupton Luton & CDOT Intersection Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 98.5 85.9 184.4 1 14th St at US Hwy 85 Intersection Hwy 52 at E 1-25 Frontage Rd Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 95.5 25.9 121.4 2 Frederick & CDOT Frederick & CDOT Intersection Hwy 52 at WI -25 Frontage Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 82.9 20 102.9 4 Rd Mead & CDOT Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 42.9 126.6 2 Hwy 66 at WCR 7 83.7 Mead & CDOT Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 5 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 28.1 80 108.1 3 Mead & CDOT Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 13 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 11.1 88.1 4 77 Milliken & CDOT Intersection Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 42.2 31.8 5 Hwy 60 at Hwy 257 74 Intersection Urban Single -Lane Roundabout -- 4,000,000 13.3 51.8 65.1 5 Hwy 60 Centennial at WCR 23.75 / Dr Milliken & CDOT Intersection Justin Ave at US Hwy 85 Road Improvements Safety Audit and 1,500,000 99.2 1 Platteville & CDOT 77 176.2 Platteville & CDOT Intersection WCR 32 / Grand Ave at US Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 48.8 129.5 2 Hwy 85 80.7 Platteville & CDOT Intersection Road Improvements Safety Audit and 1,500,000 55.5 116.2 3 60.7 WCR 34 at US Hwy 85 Platteville & CDOT Intersection Grand Ave at Main St Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 4 23.7 73.3 97 Intersection Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 2.9 5 Severance & CDOT WCR 74 at Hwy 257 74 76.9 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 43 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 99.2 1 73.3 Weld County & CDOT 172.5 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 100 1 163.7 WCR 17 at US Hwy 34 63.7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 14 at WCR 31 Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 81.4 160.6 1 79.2 Intersection Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 88.1 158.4 1 Weld County & CDOT 70.3 Hwy 392 at US Hwy 85 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 58.5 93.3 151.8 1 WCR 4 at US Hwy 85 Intersection Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 60 2 US Hwy 34 / 18th St at Balsam Ave Weld County & CDOT 83.7 143.7 Intersection __ 3,000,000 56.2 143.6 2 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict Weld Count County & CDOT 87.4 WCR 13 at US Hwy 34 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 54.8 85.1 139.9 2 Weld County & CDOT WCR 42 at Hwy 60 16 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Intersection or Segment.. Location Proje _ t Type Length Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit -to- Priority Tier Jurisdiction Total Priority Score (mi) Cost Score Weld County & CDOT Intersection AA St at US Hwy 85 -- 3,000,000 64.4 65.9 130.3 2 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 55 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 53.3 119.9 2 Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection WCR 33 at US Hwy 85 Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 65.1 54 119.1 2 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 55.5 61.4 116.9 2 WCR 38 at US Hwy 85 Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 22.2 94 116.2 3 Weld County & CDOT WCR 394 at US Hwy 85 Intersection -- 1,500,000 50.3 62.2 112.5 3 Weld County & CDOT Hwy 392 at WCR 27 Dedicated Turn Lanes Intersection Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 38.5 110.3 3 Hwy 392 at WCR 47 71.8 Weld County & CDOT Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 85.1 24.4 109.5 3 Hwy 60 at WCR 7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 39 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 28.8 3 107.3 78.5 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 52 at WCR 41 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 49.6 54.8 104.4 3 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 14 at WCR 39 Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 26.6 104.3 4 77.7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 31 (east) Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 69.6 31.1 4 100.7 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 96.2 4 WCR 70 at US Hwy 85 23.7 72.5 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 66.6 94 4 27.4 Two Rivers Pkwy at Hwy 60 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 5.1 88.8 93.9 4 Hwy 14 at WCR 37 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 21.4 69.6 91 4 WCR 46 at Hwy 60 (north) Weld County & CDOT Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.8 34 85.8 5 Hwy 392 at WCR 37 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 33 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 55.5 26.6 82.1 5 Weld County & CDOT Intersection Hwy 14 at WCR 29 Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 40 41.4 81.4 5 Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 1 Rural Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 12,000,000 5 Weld County & CDOT 71.8 7.4 79.2 Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 35 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 42.2 5 Weld County & CDOT 37 79.2 Intersection -- 1,500,000 13.3 59.2 5 Weld County & CDOT Dedicated Turn Lanes 72.5 WCR 46 at Hwy 60 (south) Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 51 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 41.4 28.1 69.5 5 Weld County & CDOT Weld County Evans & CDOT & Segment Lane Departure p Mitigation g 4.58 686,516 156 1 Hwy 60 / Two Rivers Pkwy / 79.6 76.4 WCR 27.5 Weld County & CDOT & Dacano Intersection Hwy 52 at WCR 19 Dedicated Turn Lanes -- 1,500,000 62.9 46.6 109.5 3 Weld County & Eaton & Intersection Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict -- 3,000,000 32.5 5 47.4 79.9 WCR 76 at US Hwy 85 CDOT 17 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location Proje t Type Length Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit -to- Priority Tier Total Priority Score (mi) Cost Score Weld Firestone County & CDOT & Intersection Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 82.2 162.9 1 80.7 Hwy 119 at WCR 3.5 Weld Firestone County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 119 at Turner Blvd Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 92.5 64.4 156.9 1 Weld Firestone County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 119 at WCR 5 Road Improvements Safety Audit and __ 1,500,000 45.1 116.9 3 71.8 Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection WCR 6 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 88.8 84.4 1 173.2 Weld County & Fort Intersection -- 250,000 95.5 1 Systemic y Traffic Signal g Modifications 76.2 171.7 WCR 18 at US Hwy 85 Lupton & CDOT Weld County & Fort Intersection WCR 22.5 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 25.9 92.5 118.4 2 Lupton & CDOT Weld County & Fort Intersection Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 34 81.4 115.4 3 WCR 22 at US Hwy 85 Lupton & CDOT Weld County & Fort Intersection WCR 20 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 16.2 91.1 3 107.3 Lupton & CDOT Weld Lupton County & CDOT & Fort Intersection Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 51.8 42.2 94 4 Hwy 52 at WCR 37 Weld County & CDOT & Gilcrest Intersection Reduced Intersection Left -Turn Conflict __ 3,000,000 53.3 51.1 104.4 3 WCR 42 at US Hwy 85 Weld County CDOT & Pierce & Intersection WCR 90 at US Hwy 85 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 34.8 5 72.5 37.7 Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 19 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 50.3 129.5 2 79.2 Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 18.5 115.5 3 97 WCR 38 at Hwy 60 Weld County & Intersection WCR 24.5 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 91.8 109.5 3 17.7 Platteville & CDOT Weld County & Intersection WCR 28 at US Hwy 85 Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 31.8 3 75.5 107.3 Platteville & CDOT Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection Systemic y Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 19.2 90.3 4 71.1 WCR 26 at US Hwy 85 Platteville Weld County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 66 at WCR 21 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 16.2 90.2 4 74 Weld Severance County & CDOT & Intersection Hwy 392 at WCR 23 Rural Single -Lane Roundabout -- 8,000,000 40 2 117 77 18 Appendix D I Prioritized Projects Table 4: Other Action Plan Jurisdictions Only Jurisdiction Intersection or Segment Location _ Project Type Length (mi) Est. Cost ($) Crash Severity Score Benefit Cost -to- Score Total Priority Score Priority Tier Dacono Segment Colorado Blvd Lane Departure Mitigation 3.04 455,405 53.6 55.2 108.8 3 Eaton Intersection E 5th St at UPRR Road Safety Audit and Improvements -- 1,500,000 19.2 67.4 86.6 5 Evans Intersection 32nd St at 3rd Ave Systemic Traffic Signal Modifications -- 250,000 94 82.2 176.2 1 Evans Segment 11th Ave Lane Reconfiguration 0.99 692,462 97.5 73.1 170.6 1 Evans Segment 32nd St Speed Management Treatments 1.01 503,304 78.8 52 130.8 2 Evans Segment Prairie View Dr / 42nd St Lane Reconfiguration 2.12 1,487,220 86.9 39 125.9 2 Evans Intersection 37th St at 35th Ave Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 90.3 33.3 123.6 2 Evans Segment 37th St Lane Reconfiguration 1.16 814,377 74.7 48.7 123.4 2 Evans Segment 37th St Shoulder Installation /Widening 2.00 3,991,198 86.1 26.8 112.9 3 Evans Segment 34th St Lane Reconfiguration 1.00 699,749 69.1 43 112.1 3 Evans Segment 17th St Lane Reconfiguration 1.01 710,162 61.7 42.2 103.9 3 Evans Intersection 34th St at 35th Ave Urban Multi -Lane Roundabout -- 6,000,000 62.2 13.3 75.5 5 Evans & Milliken Segment 65th Ave / WCR 378 Turnoff Lane Departure Mitigation 0.14 20,950 47.1 93.4 140.5 2 Firestone Intersection Sable Ave at E 1-25 Frontage Rd Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 80 98.5 178.5 1 Firestone Intersection Firestone Frontage Blvd at Rd E 1-25 Road Safety Audit and Improvements -- 1,500,000 96.2 57 153.2 1 Firestone Segment Pine Cone Ave Shoulder Installation / Widening 1.93 3,869,177 90.2 30 120.2 2 Firestone Intersection Bella Rosa Ave at Pkwy / Colorado Pine Cone Blvd Urban Single -Lane Roundabout -- 4,000,000 60 17.7 77.7 5 Firestone Segment WCR 19 Shoulder Installation /Widening 6.03 12,068,125 69.9 4.8 74.7 5 Firestone & Frederick Segment Colorado Blvd Median and Access Management 2.01 7,039,616 87.8 20.3 108.1 3 Fort Lupton Segment 9th St Speed Management Treatments 0.68 339,986 43 71.5 114.5 3 Frederick Intersection Tripple Pkwy at Rd E 1-25 Frontage Systemic Stop Control Modifications -- 150,000 35.5 97.7 133.2 2 Frederick Segment WCR 5 Lane Departure Mitigation 1.29 193,397 24.3 77.2 101.5 4 Frederick Segment Aggregate Blvd Shoulder Installation /Widening 1.39 2,770,366 70.7 28.4 99.1 4 Severance Segment WCR 74 Speed Management Treatments 1.35 676,863 60.1 67.4 127.5 2 Severance Segment WCR 23 Lane Departure Mitigation 0.78 117,433 26 89.4 115.4 3 Severance Segment WCR 74 Lane Departure Mitigation 1.59 239,241 28.4 79.6 108 3 19 Contract Form Entity Information Entity Name* Entity I D * WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS @00022699 Contract Name" WELD COUNTY SAFETY ACTION PLAN Contract Status CTB REVIEW Contract Description* ADOPTION OF THE WELD COUNTY SAFETY ACTION PLAN Contract Description 2 Contract Type * GRANT Amount* $0.00 Renewable* NO Automatic Renewal Grant NO IGA Q New Entity? Contract ID 9984 Contract Lead EPINKHAM Contract Lead Email epinkham@weld.gov Parent Contract ID Requires Board Approval YES Department Project # Department Requested BOCC Agenda Due Date PUBLIC WORKS Date* 10/16/2025 10/20/2025 Department Email CM- PublicWorks@weld.gov Department Head Email CM-PublicWorks- DeptHead@weld.gov County Attorney GENERAL COUNTY ATTORNEY EMAIL County Attorney Email CM- COUNTYATTORNEY@WEL EY@WEL D.GOV If this is a renewal enter previous Contract ID If this is part of a MSA enter MSA Contract ID Will a work session with BOCC be required?* HAD Does Contract require Purchasing Dept. to be included? Note: the Previous Contract Number and Master Services Agreement Number should be left blank if those contracts are not in OnBase Contract Dates Effective Date Termination Notice Period Contact Information Review Date* 10/15/2026 Committed Delivery Date Renewal Date Expiration Date* 10/06/2027 Contact Info Contact Name Contact Type Contact Email Contact Phone 1 Contact Phone 2 Purchasing Purchasing Approver Purchasing Approved Date Approval Process Department Head Finance Approver Legal Counsel .CURTIS HALL RUSTY WILLIAMS BYRON HOWELL DH Approved Date Finance Approved Date Legal Counsel Approved Date 10/10/2025 10/13/2025 10/13/2025 Final Approval BOCC Approved Tyler Ref # AG 102025 BOCC Signed Date Originator EPINKHAM BOCC Agenda Date 10/20/2025 Hello