The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20220558.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE ADOPTION OF MASTER PLAN FOR EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD I COUNTY ROAD I 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 Board has been presented with the Master Plan for East County Line Road / County Road 1 for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve and adopt said master plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Master Plan for East County Line Road / County Road 1 for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, and hereby is, approved and adopted. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 16th day of February, A.D., 2022. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WE D COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: G: •X,GtO• tt K. James, Chair cc: PW (ER/£P) 2022-0558 3/3/22 EG0080 a "fvQe1-(j355'7q BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW PASS -AROUND TITLE: East County Line Road (WCR 1) Master Plan DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: 2/8/2022 PERSON REQUESTING: Evan Pinkham Brief description of the problemlissue: The East County Line Road/ WCR 1 Master Plan was developed as a guide for improvements along WCR 1 between Highway 66 and Jay Road/Cheesman Street in Erie. Weld County currently has an IGA with Longmont to maintain approximately one mile of WCR 1, located just south of Highway 66. The ECL Road Master Plan was developed to assist with coordination between the jurisdictions that maintain the roadway (City of Longmont, Town of Erie, Weld County, and Boulder County). The plan will help to improve efforts to secure funding for needed improvements to the corridor, as well as ensure that improvements are properly designed to meet the plan's recommendations. Weld County has an IGA with Boulder County for the design of intersection improvements to WCR 1 at WCR 20.5, based on the plan's recommendations. The corridor alignment would be added to the Weld County GIS portal, making it available to County staff and the public. County staff would utilize the recommendations in the plan to assist during roadway and land use planning. What options exist for the Board? (include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options): 1. Adopt the final East County Line Road Master Plan and add the alignment to the GIS portal for planning purposes. 2. Don't adopt the East County Line Road Master Plan and its recommendations. Recommendation: Public Works recommends to put the East County Line Road Master Plan on the next available BOCC agenda for adoption of the plan by resolution. Perry L. Buck Mike Freeman, Pro -Tern Scott K. James, Chair Steve Moreno Lori Saine Approve Recommendation 1 Schedule Work Session Other/Comments: 2022-0558 ast County Une Road /eld COHnt\/ Road 1 East County Line Road/ ' Weld County Road I TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................................................1 ProjectGoals........................................................................................................................................................6 ProjectOutcomes.................................................................................................................................................6 CorridorAnalysis................................................................................................................................................. 7 External Stakeholder Outreach......................................................................................................................... 17 NextSteps/Funding..........................................................................................................................................23 TABLES Table 1.1- Recommended Projects by Segment................................................................................................2 Table 1.2 — Recommended Road Cross-Sections...............................................................................................4 Table 1.3 — Intersection Traffic Operating Conditions and Future Needed Improvements ...........................8 Table 1.4 - Roadway Segment Traffic Operating Conditions and Future Needed Improvements ...............10 Table 1.5 — Five -Year Crash Summary and Future Needed Improvements.................................................. 12 Table 1.6 - Bridge Inspection Results and Future Needed Improvements................................................... 14 Table 1.7 — loo -year Floodplain Crossings and Potential Solutions..............................................................15 Table 1.8 - Utility Owners (Partial List).................................................................................................0........ 17 Table 1.9 - Public Comment Types (May 2019)..............................................................................................18 Table i.io — Public Comments (May 2019)................................................................................................I... 20 Table 1.11— Public Comments (December 2o20/January 202 1) ............. ... ............................. ......................22 FIGURES Figure 1.1- Recommended Projects by Segment..............................................................................................3 Figure 1.2 — City of Longmont Recommended Cross-Section............................................................ ..............4 Figure 1.3 — Boulder County/Weld County Recommended Cross-Sections....................................................5 Figure 1.4 — Town of Erie Recommended Cross-Sections................................................................................5 Figure 1.5 — Level of Service Definitions,..........................................................................................................7 Figure 1.6 — Intersection Level of Service (No Build 2040)..............................................................................9 Figure 1.'7 — Roadway Segment Level of Service (No Build 2040)...................................................................11 Figure1.8 — Five -Year Crashes........................................................................................................................13 Figure 1.9 — Bridges and Water Crossings.......................................................................................................16 Figure 1.10 — Public Comments (May 2019 Outreach Effort)...,.....................................................................19 East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 (ECLR/WCR i) Master Plan is to develop goals and objectives for future improvements along a nine -mile stretch of ECLR/WCR 1 between the Town of Erie and City of Longmont. The goal is to identify opportunities, constraints and potential obstacles for corridor improvements and recommend a list of phased projects for completion over the next twenty years or more. Cost and time savings could be realized by jointly applying for grant funds, leveraging funds from multiple jurisdictions, or combining design bid packages for one or more projects. This master plan establishes a shared vision of corridor goals and allows the four participating jurisdictions (City of Longmont, Weld County, Boulder County and the Town of Erie) to identify needs and solutions to the shared concerns along the ten -mile corridor. The ECLR/WCR 1 master planning process evaluated traffic, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safety, bridges, flood resiliency, utilities, and environmental constraints within all three segments and identifies safety, multimodal mobility, and flood resiliency concerns within all three segments but differ in scope and priority across the segments. Because much of the corridor is shared between two or more jurisdictions, the master plan identifies and addresses existing concerns through intergovernmental cooperative planning. Participation from the general public and adjacent property owners is an important part of the master plan. Input and ideas were collected through an online commenting platform and a series of public meetings where members of the public could speak directly with project representatives. A robust public outreach process was used to gather input from property owners, the general public, ditch and utility companies. The projects recommended in this study are meant as first steps toward identifying needs, securing potential partnerships, and prioritizing within a larger scope of infrastructure needs within each jurisdiction. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Construction timing will depend on each individual jurisdiction's situation such as funding availability, budgeting, growth, and opportunities for partnerships. Recommended projects are shown in Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1. More information can be found in the Project Recommendations document. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 1 Table 1.1— Recommended Projects by Segment Segment Project ID Project Phasing Project Name Project Type Li Long-term Ute/Highway 66 Intersection Capacity & Safety Signalized Improvements Intersection L2 Long-term Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from Roadway Highway 66 to 17th Avenue Widening Segment 1 L3 Mid-term 17th Avenue Roundabout & Safety Improvements Roundabout City of Longmont L4 Short-term Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from Roadway Widening 17th Avenue to 9th Avenue Deerwood Drive/WCR 26 Intersection Capacity & Signalized L5 Long-term Safety Improvements Intersection L6 Short-term Roadway Shouldering & Multi -Use Trail from Widening and Great Western/Zlaten Drive to Vrain Creek Multi -Use Trail Pedestrian CI Mid-term St. Vrain Pedestrian Bridge & Multi -Use Trail Structure and Multi -Use Trail C2 Short-term Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements Roadway from Quicksilver Road to WCR 20.5 Widening C3 Short-term Replace Existing Dry Creek Bridge with Box Structure and Culvert & Overland Grading grading C4 Short-term WCR 20.5 Roundabout & Safety Improvements Roundabout C5 Mid-term Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements Roadway from WCR 20.5 to Oxford Road Widening C6 Mid-term Oxford Road Roundabout & Safety Improvements Roundabout Segment 2 Boulder C7 Mid-term Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements Roadway County/ from Oxford Road to WCR 16.5 Widening Weld County C8 Mid-term WCR 16.5 Roundabout & Safety Improvements Roundabout C9 Mid-term Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements Roadway from WCR 16.5 to Niwot Road Widening Clo Mid-term Niwot Road Roundabout & Safety Improvements Roundabout C11 Long-term Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements Roadway from Niwot Road to Highway 52 Widening C12 Long-term Replace Existing Boulder Creek Bridge Structure Signalized C13 Mid-term Highway 52 Intersection Safety Improvements Intersection Roadway Improvements El Long-term Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from Roadway Highway 52 to Kenosha Road Widening E2 Long-term Replace Existing ECLR/WCR Bridge over Coal Structure Creek Segment 3 E3 Mid-term Kenosha Road Roundabout, WCR 10.5 Roundabout and Connecting Roadway Roundabout Town of Eric e E4 Shortterm Replace Existing Kenosha Road Bridge over Coal Structure Creek E5 Mid-term Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from Roadway WCR 10.5 to Jay Road Widening E6 Short-term Jay Road Intersection Capacity & Safety Signalized Improvements Intersection East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 2 FIGURE 1.1 - RECOMMENDED PROJECTS BY SEGMENT SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT LI. Ute/Highway 66 Inter-- & Sctonafety imp, ,ovemey -- 85f1fetYlmplOvfinellt5 II be. 12 Roadway Widening ~ 12 W_r_eM & Safety Improvements (Highway 66 - 17th Ave) evrn nvr L3 `_ sC'h5m L4: Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements (17th Ave - 9th Ave) 9tH AVE Sr t.. t5 vrCR ih L6: Roadway Shouldering & Multi -Use Trail from LATEN UR Great Western/Ziaten Or — — lulbainC,eeA L6 II.,... rrrims Uv ,;cu.'rr rn II 13: 17th Ave Roundabout & Safety fmprovemenn Deerwood Dr/WCR 26 rsection Capacity & try Improvemenrs Recommended Projects by Segment Spot Improvement Corridor Improvement Ruundabuul I ongmonl- Widening & S,dewado ❑ RouldeiM&d County Widening Signal "j Fie Widemng QWidemng Rricge It1ID10Vemenl/RepIdrernern SEGMENT #2- BOULDERIWELD COUNTY C2: Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements (Quicksilver Rd-WCR 20.5) Cl Replace Dry Creek Bridge with Box Culvert & Overland Grading L5 Roadway Shouldering R Safety Improvements i WCR 20.5.Oxford Rd) (7 Roadway Shouldering 9 Safety Improvements (Oxford Rd-WCR 16.5) C5A: Area Project Coordination (9. Roadwoy Shouldering & Safety Improvements —- (WCR 16.5 Niwat Ad) C11. Roadway Shoulder & Safety Improvements :N,wot Rd -Hwy 52) Ci. •t. VI am Pedestrian Bridge/ Multi -Use Trail is t•u•,, nni C4: WCR 20.5 Roundabout & Softly 'nip. 0ve, ctnts W:•Jt C6: Oxford Rd Roundabout D& Safety Improvements B. VkFOR3 RD 2 % CH' WCR 16.5 Roundabout & Safety Improvements (TIONlwnt Rd Roundabout & Safety Improvements C12. Replace Boulder I -__ s, oa'. P Creek Bridge 03: Hwy 52 Intersection Safety Improvements MWLIkAL 5f: ^MENT #3 Tf 1nIRt nrQ►r MWERAL RD Headway Widening • .afely lmpravrmrnl5 +wy SZ.Kenosho Rd) / 1 r yey ' Replace Ktnoshn 'Jrldgeover Coot i soe1+`• (e KENOSUA RD u Wr-910° E3: Kenosha Rd Roundvbour/ WCR 10.5 Rovndamnn & Connecting Raadwa A NORTH East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 3 RECOMMENDED ROAD CROSS SECTIONS Although each jurisdiction has their own individual cross-section standards for minor arterials, Table 1.2 lists recommended road cross -sections developed for ECLR/WCR 1 which may slightly differ from standard cross -sections. These recommendations are based on corridor conditions, analysis, and public input. Figures 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 show the recommended cross -sections graphically. Table 1.2 — Recommended Road Cross -Sections Segment Recommended Road Cross -Sections Segment 1 Four twelve -foot travel lanes (two in each direction) with a fourteen -foot raised center median, two City of five-foot bike lanes along with an eight -foot sidewalk on the west side separated with a twelve -foot Longmont -. planting strip. Sidewalk may be attached to a curb in some areas. From Longmont city limits to Oxford Road, two eleven -foot travel lanes (one in each direction), Segment 2 seven -foot shoulders on both sides with two -foot striped buffers along the travel lanes. From Oxford Boulder Road to Highway 52, two eleven -foot travel lanes (one in each direction) with five-foot shoulders on County/Weld both sides of the roadway. County From Highway 52 to Lower Boulder Ditch, two eleven -foot travel lanes (one in each direction), one twelve -foot center median with one -foot separation on each side, and seven -foot shoulders on both Segment 3 sides of the roadway. From Lower Boulder Ditch to Jay Road, two eleven -foot travel lanes (one in Town of Erie each direction), one twelve -foot center median with one -foot separation on each side, and two five- foot bike lanes (one on each side of the road). Within both cross -sections, the raised median will be replaced with a twelve -foot turn -lane where required. FIGURE 1.2 - CITY OF LONGMONT RECOMMENDED CROSS-SECTION i.. 1 A. .I�. L . r z I •Urr 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1± s 1' East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary l 4 FIGURE 1.3 - BOULDER COUNTY/WELD COUNTY RECOMMENDED CROSS -SECTIONS SI'RIPkl) BUFFER 22•STRIPED HUFFER 7' 11' 11' 7' SHOULDER TRAVEL TRAVEL SHOULDER LANE LANE LONGMONT CITY LIMITS TO OXFORD ROAD 11' 17' 5• SHOIH,DER TRAVEL TRAVEL SHOULDER LANE LANE SH-52 TO OXFORD ROAD FIGURE 1.4 - TOWN OF ERIE RECOMMENDED CROSS -SECTIONS I 7 . 12' 12' j 12' 7 SHOULDER TRAVEL RAISED TRAVEL SHOULDER LANE MEDIAN LANE TOWN OF ERIE SH-52 TO LOWER BOULDER DITCH S. I II 1' 12. 1' 11 5' BIKE TRAVEL RAISED TRAVEL HIKE LANE LANE MEDIAN LANE LANE TOWN OF ERIE LOWER BOULDER DITCH "i'O JAY ROAD East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 5 PROJECT GOALS This master plan establishes a shared vision of corridor goals and allows the four participating jurisdictions (City of Longmont, Weld County, Boulder County and the Town of Erie) to identify needs and solutions to the shared concerns along the ten -mile corridor. The plan guides future development of this corridor by identifying and prioritizing improvements to be completed by one jurisdiction or multiple jurisdictions. The plan represents a shared understanding of the current and future needs of the corridor that can be used by each agency to assist with future development, property acquisition, inter -agency coordination and capital improvement planning. Because much of the corridor is shared between two or more jurisdictions, the master plan identifies and addresses existing concerns through intergovernmental cooperative planning. The Steering Committee members acknowledge their individual and often separate goals for the full build -out, all with different design standards and permitting requirements, yet remain open to different philosophies between agencies for the common good of the corridor. Participation from the general public and adjacent property owners is an important part of the master plan. Input and ideas were collected through an online commenting platform and a series of public meetings where members of the public could speak directly with project representatives. Final decisions for the corridor plan and individual project recommendations will likely advance beyond Steering Committee members through communications and coordination with City Councils and County Commissioners. There are also many outside stakeholders such as irrigation companies, property owners and open space agencies that will need to be engaged before approval of individual projects. Additionally, public outreach will occur for each project recommended in this report for further input during project design and implementation. PROJECT OUTCOMES The ECLR/WCR 1 master planning process identifies safety, multimodal mobility, and flood resiliency concerns within all three segments but differ in scope and priority across the segments. SAFETY Analysis of historic crashes at each of the main intersections combined with safety concerns from property owners related to traffic speeds and large vehicle traffic suggest a need to improve safety for all users including bicyclists and pedestrians. MUL TIMODAL MOBILITY Multimodal mobility is impacted by residential and industrial development/growth, and increasing use of the road by commuters, homeowners and commercial vehicles. Substantial widening is constrained in areas by adjacent properties, water crossings, and open space along all three segments; however, opportunities for widening to meet required jurisdictional standards exist along most of the corridor. FLOOD RESILIENCY ECLR/WCR 1 corridor crosses four major waterways along its ten miles. Each crossing includes a floodplain that inundates the road during large flood events and can prevent north/south travel for weeks or months at a time. The 2O13 flood closed ECLR/WCR 1 in three locations and caused significant disruption to travel for over a year following the event. The ECLR/WCR 1 master plan recommends an elevation, prioritization and improvements to some or all crossings that would improve travel along the corridor during and following flood events. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 6 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS The ECLR/WCR 1 master planning process evaluated traffic, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safety, bridges, flood resiliency, utilities, and environmental constraints within all three segments. TRAFFIC VOLUMES OVERVIEW Intersection traffic data collection consisted of weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts in early November 2018 at seven intersections and 24 -hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts at the remaining locations to analyze existing Level of Service (LOS) and determine 2040 no -build LOS. Roadway segment traffic volume data was collected to determine 2040 no -build LOS by comparing future volumes to the threshold capacity. The threshold capacity is dependent upon many factors beyond volume, such as roadway speed, percentage of trucks, frequency of access/intersections, traffic controls, peak hour traffic characteristics, terrain, and roadway geometry. See Level of Service Definitions in Figure 1.5. FIGURE 1.5 — LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS INTERSECTION Minimal delays Low levels of delay and queuing Intermittently vehicles wait through more than one signal irdication, occasionally backups may develop. traffic flow still stable aid acceptable Delays at intersections may become extensive, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance, preventing excessive backups. LOS D has historically been regarded as a desirable design objective in urban areas Traffic fills intersection capacity, long queues and delays, many vehicles need to wait through more than one green indication Traffic demand exceeds capacity of intersection, very long cueues and delays, most vehicles need to wait through more than one green indication ROADWAY A Free flow, low traffic density • Minimum delay, stable B traffic flow C Stable condition, movements somewhat restricted due to higher volumes, but not objectionable for motorists m --- vim--' D Movements are more restricted, travel speeds It® _E m mom begin to decline In a C cam—... O m 3® ci F I. Traffic fills capacity of the roadway, vehicles are closely spaced, incidents can cause serious breakdown ® m in ®E- m t� 03m ii F Forced flow with demand _ ®d volumes greater than ®o®®®o® capacity resulting in ®®m m ®m _ 9 breakdown in traffic flow CJ!®® 0 m ia® East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary ( 7 INTERSECT/ON TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS In the no -build scenario, all evaluated intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the AM/PM Peak Hour in 2040 with the exception of WCR 16.5. See Table 1.3 and Figure i.6. Table 1.3 — Intersection Traffic Operating Conditions and Future Needed Improvements Location JTraffic Operating Conditions Future Needed Improvements Segment 1 - Ci _of Longmont Signalized intersection with a Colorado Long -tern traffic projections show the need for widening Department of Transportation (CDOT) state ECLR/WCR1 to a five -lane section. CDO1"s Planning and Highway 66 highway. The intersection is projected to Environmental Linkage study recommends upgrading Highway (Ute Highway) operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak 66 to two lanes in each direction with dual left -turn lanes from hours in 2040. westbound Highway 66 to southbound ECLR/WCRL. Side -street stop -controlled intersection Addition of through and turn lanes will need to be added to this 17th Avenue projected to operate at LOS B in the AM peak intersection. A traffic signal or a roundabout will be needed in hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour in 2040. order to maintain a LOS below F. Raised median and island upgrades that allow three -quarter - Sunshine Avenue & Side -street stop -controlled intersection movements (no left -outs) is scheduled to be performed by the Rustic Drive projected to operate at LOS D in both the AM City of Longmont to maintain a LOS D during AM and PM peak and PM peak hours in 2040. hours and to increase safety. Signalized intersection projected to operate at No improvements other than traffic signal adjustments are St. Vrain Road/9th LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the recommended at this time. Realignment of WCR 26 to become Avenue PM peak hour in 2040. the east leg of this intersection is a future possibility. Deerwood Side -street stop -controlled intersection A traffic signal and an eastbound right -turn lane is recommended Drive/Weld County projected to operate at LOS F in both the AM to meet projected traffic volumes and operate at a LOS D or Road 26 and PM peak hours in 2040. better in 2040. A traffic signal or roundabout recommended upon final buildout Great Western Stop -controlled intersection, WB lefts projected of the Springs at Sandstone Ranch development to operate at a Drive/Ziaten Drive to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour in peak hours in 2040. 2040. Segment 2- Boulder County/ Weld County Side -street stop -controlled intersection Addition of through and turn lanes, along with a traffic signal or a Pike Road/Weld projected to operate at LOS F in both the AM roundabout are recommended to meet projected traffic volumes County Road 20.5 and PM peak hours in 2040. and improve multimodal safety. Side -street stop -controlled intersection A roundabout, or the addition of turn lanes and a traffic signal, Oxford Road/ Weld projected to operate at LOS D in the AM peak are recommended to meet projected traffic volumes and improve County Road 18 hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour in 2040. multimodal safety. The addition of left turn lanes or a roundabout is recommended Weld County Road Side -street stop -controlled intersection to improve the safety of motorists accessing private driveways 16.5 projected to operate at LOS C in the AM peak turning on WCR 16.5. Additionally, the existing non-standard hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. vertical curve south of WCR 16.5 should be flattened. Side -street stop -controlled intersection A roundabout is recommended, primarily to reduce speed but Niwot Road projected to operate at LOS D in both the AM will also improve capacity. and PM peak hours in 2040. Segment 3 - Town of Erie Side -street stop -controlled intersection Kenosha Road projected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours in 2040. A roundabout is recommended for both Kenosha Road and WCR 10.5 at the ECLR/WCR1 intersection. This would improve Side -street stop -controlled intersection capacity and increase multimodal safety. Weld County 10.5 projected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours in 2040. A roundabout, or the addition of turn lanes and a traffic signal is Jay Road/ ay Roaan JCheesm All -way stop intersection projected to operate recommended at this intersection. A traffic signal is Street AM at LOS F in both the and PM peak hours in recommended due mainly to the negative impacts of acquiring 2040. the ROW needed for a roundabout. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary l 8 FIGURE 1.6 - INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (NO BUILD 2040) SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT SEGMENT #2- BOULDER/WELD COUNTY I SH 66 z • Lu W ZLATEN DR Qa GREAT WESTERN DR• .Se. 1"ruin Crt, . Intersection Level of Service (No Build 2040) LOS (AM/PM) 0 B D CC F QUICKSILVER RD • e Dr' Lr,M N0.- PIKE RD WCR 201/2 WCR 20 OXFORDRD I WCR 18 __WCR 161/2 MWOT RD i 41 u eW 8 fee MINERAL RD 1 SH 52 SEGMENT #3- TOWN OF FRIF MINERAL RD `KE WE5WIEW RD \ 171 stW KENOSHA RD • WCR 10.5 ' c •f y. CHEESMAN JAY RD NORTH East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 9 ROADWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) capacity analysis, the entirety of ECLR would operate at LOS D or LOS E in 2040. See Table 1.4 and Figure 1.7. Table 1.4 - Roadway Segment Traffic Operating Conditions and Future Needed Improvements Location Traffic Operating Conditions I Future Needed Improvements Segment i - City of Longmont Ute Highway (Highway Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of Improve corridor to a five -lane section per City of 66) to 17th Avenue 17,400 and a LOS D in 2040. Longmont standards, add a raised median in areas to assist in access control, and remove substandard vertical curve. i7th Avenue to St. Vrain Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of Improve corridor to a five -lane section per City of Road / 9th Street 19,500 and a LOS E in 2040. Longmont standards and add a raised median in areas to assist in access control. St. Wain Road/9th Street Four travel lanes with a projected ADT of No roadway improvements are slated for this section of the to Ken Pratt Boulevard 20,500 and a LOS E in 2040. corridor. The addition of a multiuse path along the east (Highway 119) side of the road will be driven by development. Ken Pratt Boulevard Two travel lanes south of Zlaten Drive and Addition of roadway shoulders and a multiuse path on the (Highway 119) to St. four north of Zlaten Drive with a projected east side of the mad from the St. Vrain bridge to Zlaten Wain Creek bridge ADT of 11,400 and a LOS D in 2040. Drive/Great Western Drive. Segment 2 - Boulder County/Weld County Great Western Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of This section of the corridor was elevated out of the loo - i Drive to r0,300 and a LOS D in 2040. This evaluated year flood zone and had shoulders added in 2015. No Quicksilver Road segment encompasses the City of Longmont improvements are recommended at this time. and Boulder County/Weld County segments. Addition of seven -foot shoulders for safety. Removing Quicksilver Road to Pike Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of roadway from the ioo-year floodplain will require a Quad/WCR 20.5 r o and a LOS in 2 o combination of elevating the road and overland grading east of the road. Replacement of Dry Creek structure will maintain historic flows under the road. Pike Road/WCR 20.5 to Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of Addition of seven -foot shoulders safety, and reconstruction Oxford Road 10,300 and a LOS D in 2040. of a portion of the Liggett Ditch. Oxford Road to Niwot Two travel lanes and a projected ADT of Addition of five-foot shoulders for safety. Road 11,200 and a LOS Din 2040. Addition of five-foot shoulders and elevate the road Niwot Road to Highway Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of through the Boulder Creek floodplain. Roadway design 52/Mineral Road 11,000 and a LOS D in 2040. should be coordinated with the Boulder Creek Bridge design/construction project. Segment 3- Town of Erie Highway 52/Mineral Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of Widen road and the add seven -foot shoulders for safety with a raised median to follow the Town of Erie's Median Road to Westview Road 12,300 and a LOS D in 2040. Policy. Westview Road to Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of Widen road and add shoulders for safety with raised Kenosha Road 12,300 and a LOS D in 2040. median to follow the Town of Erie's Median Policy. Kenosha Road to Jay Two travel lanes with a projected ADT of Widen road and add bike lanes shoulders for safety. Road 10,900 and a LOS E in 2040. Location of raised median to follow the Town of Erie's Median Policy. BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The ECLR/WCR 1 corridor lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities along most of its length but paved shoulders and/or bike lanes are envisioned for the entire corridor. There are some sidewalks along one or both sides of ECLR/WCR 1 adjacent to developed properties within the Longmont and Town of Erie segments. Most of the existing sidewalks are not continuous. There is one crosswalk that crosses ECLR/WCR 1 within the north intersection leg of Ken Pratt Boulevard/Highway 119 in the Longmont segment, and one crosswalk within the south intersection leg in the Erie segment at Jay Road/Chessman Street. The St. Vrain Greenway passes under ECLR/WCR 1, south of Quicksilver Road, and a future pedestrian underpass is proposed between Jay Road and Kenosha Road. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 10 FIGURE 1.7 - ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (NO BUILD 2040) SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT SEGMENT #2 - BOULDER/WELD COUNTY w SH66 viv frrr 1 QUICKSILVER RD \ 1 'try,Creek E 177M ` 0 O C. PRATT BLVD ( rrr4 PIKE RD WCR 201/2 WCR 20 OXFORD RD M WCR 18 NI WO r RD WCR 161/2 MINERAL RD SH 52 Road Segment Traffic (No Build - 2040) Vehicles per Day (VPD) HCM LOS* less than 12,500 . D 12,500 - 1/,S00 • E 17,500 - 20,000 `Operating peak hour performance based on greater than 20,000 Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition SEGMENT #3 - TOWN OF ERIE MIP*M& RD 51.152 dew el r 1 WESIVIEW RD z KENOSHARD i a WCR 10.5 P _ n $i r. y �f 1AY RD _ CHESSMAN St NORTH East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 111 SAFETY There was a total of 436 crashes along ECLR/WCR 1 within a five-year period based on the most recent and available crash data. Crash types are predominately rear end, broadside, and approach turn with five crashes involving either cyclists or pedestrians. Most crashes were intersection related. Sixty-three percent of crashes consisted of property damage only (PDO) and 37 percent included an injury. Fatalities occurred at three locations along the corridor: Highway 66 (2015), Sunshine Avenue (2018), and Deerwood Drive/Weld County Road 26 (2017). The highest crash location in the five-year period was in the Longmont Segment at Highway 119 with 130 crashes, followed by Highway 66 (Ute Highway) with 69 crashes, with rear ends being the primary type of crash. See Table 1.5 and Figure 1.8. Table 1.5 — Five -Year Crash Summary and Future Needed Improvements ]Location (Crash period) I Crash Information Future Needed Im rovements ent 1. - Ci of: ont Sixty-nine crashes predominately rear end (45), Recommended additional lanes, updated Highway 66 (Ute Highway) (7/2012-06/2017) approach turn (4), broadside ) traffic signal and signing. Weld County Road 28(2014-2018) Two crashes: fixed object Potential road widening. 17tH Avenue (2014 2018) Nineteen crashes predominately rear end (7), fixed Roundabout should reduce both the amount object (3), broadside (2) and the severity of crashes. Sunshine Avenue (2014-2018) Eleven crashes , rear end (1), pedestrian (2), approach Additional turn lanes and raised medians turn will better direct motorists. 9th Avenue/St. Vrain Road Forty-nine crashes predominately rear end (21), fixed Recommended additional southbound through lane and advance signal warning (2014-2018) object (7), curb/raised median (5), approach turn (4) si Deerwood Drive/Weld County Road Sixteen crashes ,head on (3), sideswipe same direction Recommended traffic signal and eastbound 26 intersection (2014-2018) (3), overturning (2) right -turn lane. Highway 119 intersection One hundred thirty crashes predominately rear end No improvements recommended. (7/2013-6/2018)(88), broadside (ii), approach turn bicycle 1 Great Western Road/Zlaten Drive Fourteen crashes, broadside (4), rear end (2), approach turn (2), fixed object (2), curb/raised Removal of existing raised median and (2012-2017) median (2) installation of a traffic signal or roundabout. Segment 2- Boulder County/ Weld County Recommended addition of shoulders on Quicksilver intersection (2012- Three ree crashes, overturning (2), utility pole (1) ECLR/WCR 1, and advanced signing on Quicksilver. Pike Road/Weld County 20.5 Fifteen crashes, overturning (6), embankment (6), Recommended roundabout to slow traffic intersection (2015-2019) culvert (2) and reduce crash severity. Oxford Road/Weld County 18 Six crashes, broadside (3), fixed object (2) Recommended roundabout to slow traffic intersection (2015-2019) and reduce crash seven Four crashes, fixed object (2), rear end (2). The Recommended roundabout to slow traffic Weld County Road 16.5 intersection presence of several private driveways might have and reduce crash severity and removal of (2012-2016) contributed to crashes in the area. substandard vertical curve to improve sight distance. Segment - Town of Erie Intersection improvements including longer storage area for turning movements will Seventy crashes predominately rear end (39), improve traffic flow through the intersection Highway 52 (2012-2016) broadside (9), overturning (1) to possibly reduce crashes. CDOT is performing a PEL study on SH-52 which is expected to have its own set of proposed improvements. Kenosha Road to Highway 52 segment Two crashes, approach turn (1), embankment (1) Addition of shoulders to improve safety. (2014-2018) Kenosha Road (2013-2017) Ten crashes, rear end (3), approach turn (2), bicyclist th Recommended roundabout at both cto slow traffic and reduce crash intersections severity. Weld County Road 10.5 (2014- Four crashes, fixed object (i), rear end (1), 2018) embankment (1) Jay Road to Weld County Road 10.5 Four crashes, fixed object (2), rear end (1), wild Addition of a center lane and shoulders will segi"ent (2014-2018) animal 1) improve safety. A signalized intersection to improve safety. Jay Road/Cheesman Street (2014- Eight crashes, fixed object (6) The nearby schools must be considered when 2018) designing this intersection and signal. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 12 FIGURE 1.8 - FIVE-YEAR CRASHES SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT SEGMENT #2 - BOULDER/WELD COUNTY c W z 0 u el SUNSHINE AVE D f WCR 24 3/4 E, EN PRATT BLVD 21ATEN DR 5 -Year Crash Data *Fatalities Property Damage Only w greater than 25 Injuries less than 10 greater than 25 — less than 10 wrces 1O13201$dRa ets horn bulde tbonN. Weld County, COOT, Town of Erie, rid City of Long moot - es QUICKSILVER RD D rY reek NO2 . rB0 PIKE RD � WCR 201/2 WCR 20 OXFORD RD !I WCR 18 WCR 161/2 . ....._ NIWOT Wl de< 0°ft Ll RD 5H52 EGMENT #3 - TOWN OF ERIE MINERAPC SH52 1•, L 5T✓,A F,f, a w Z J z Z J 0 u KENOSHA RD. O I Q K.` © 8 yl 1 T � i ;AY RD © CHEESMAN 5T S NORTH East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 13 BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES The ECLR/WCR 1 corridor includes multiple crossings of streams, creeks, ditches, and other drainages, including four bridges with a minimum of 2o -foot -long spans and four structures of significant size. Based on an analysis of structural conditions and allowable roadway width, several of these crossings are recommended for replacement. Additionally, the existing structures at Spring Creek, Dry Creek, Boulder Creek and Coal Greek do not meet current storm water conveyance requirements of the associated owner's/jurisdiction's design criteria. There are also several irrigation ditches and minor crossings throughout the corridor. These irrigation facilities will need to be considered as part of future individual designs. See Table i.6 and Figure 1.9. Table 1.6 — Bridge Inspection Results and Future Needed Improvements No. Bridge-Crossing/Type Future Needed Improvements Segment 1- City of Lo ont Spring Creek/ The culvert does not pass the 100 -year storm. The City of Longmont has 1 3.5x4' metal pipe culvert completed plans to construct a new crossing at this location. Segment 2- Boulder County/ Weld County Bridge width is adequate for vehicle traffic with two eleven -foot lanes and ECLR/WCR i over St. Vrain Creek (BC- two six-foot shoulders. A separate multiuse pedestrian bridge east of the 902-22.1-SVA)/28o' long x 3/-2" bridge g is recommended., drainage of the existingvehicle bridge, and Boulder Coun y o en aces extends both east g County open P and west of the exiting bride. ECLR/WCR i south of Quicksilver Road/ Concrete box culvert is in good condition. Existing width would allow for a 3 48' long concrete box culvert w/13'-9" x widened shoulder. There maybe a need/desire to update the existing 8'3" opening pedestrian undercrossing barrier for bicyclist safety. ECLR/WCR 1 over Big Dry Creek (BC -9O1- Total replacement of this structure is recommended. The roadway width 4 20.5-DR2)/3i' long x 27' wide bridge over the bridge is not wide enough for seven -foot shoulders. The current bridge could be replaced with a box culvert designed to pass historic flows. The current structure was built in 1976. The bridge rail does not meet ECLR/WCR 1 over Boulder Creek (BC- current standards. The current roadway width would allow for two twelve- s 901-11.6-BO)/126' long x 38'-g" bridge foot vehicle lanes and two six-foot shoulders. The 2015 Boulder Creek Restoration Master Plan performed by ICON Engineering recommends bridge replacement. Segment - Town of Erie Increasing roadway width to add shoulders will require extending the Boulder and Weld County Ditch/4o' long concrete box culvert. Extension of box with like precast members is an 6 concrete box culvert option. Widening to west may be preferred. Address scour issues with widening. Not Kenosha Road over Coal Creek (BC -38- Replace bridge with new structure that can pass loo -year or desired storm 7.9 -CO) 29' Span, 28' wide) 4 - Double event. Increase width to allow 7 -shoulders. Analyze relocation of Coal Creek Inspected Tee Girders and/or Kenosha Road to fit tight field parameters. Replacement of existing concrete box culvert with a new bridge. The 2017 7 Coal Creek/36' long concrete box culvert Coal Creek Restoration Conceptual Design Report performed by ICON Engineering recommends bridge replacement. ECLR/WCR 1 over Sullivan Ditch/2o' long Increasing roadway width to add shoulders will require extension or 8 x 38'2" wide concrete bridge replacement of existing 20 -foot long bridge. Guardrail will also need to be replaced. RESILIENCY EVAL UA 1/ON ECLR/WCR 1 crosses five major floodplains along its ten -mile stretch. Generally, all the major floodplains cross the corridor from west to east except for Coal Creek, which crosses from southeast to northwest prior to its confluence with Boulder Creek upstream of Highway 52. Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineations of the regulatory floodplains, the existing too - year crossing facilities do not meet the selected evaluation criteria except for the St. Vrain Creek crossing, which was replaced with a larger bridge after the 2013 Flood and does not overtop during the too -year flood event. As such, resiliency improvements are needed if protection against flood events is desired. The too -year floodplain crossings are summarized in Table 1.7 and shown in Figure 1.9. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary l 14 Generally, evaluation focuses on developing concept floodplain crossing configurations that would protect ECLR/WCR 1 from overtopping during the one percent (100 -year) annual change discharge flood event and assumes future widening projects would consist of a two or four -lane roadway. One of the main goals of this master plan is to evaluate and identify how much, if any, of the corridor should be protected from the one percent 100 -year flood, where improvements are needed, and what types of improvements are needed. Four of the five major floodplain crossings within the study area do not meet selected evaluation criteria: 1) Spring Gulch No. 2, 2) Dry Creek No. 2, 3) Boulder Creek, and 4) Coal Creek. Table 1.7 — 100 -year Floodplain Crossings and Potential Solutions Floodp ain Floodplain Crossing Conditions Potential Solutions.. •• Detailed overtopping information not included in City of Longmont 2018-2019 Design for Channel &'hail Spring Gulch No. 2 best available data sources. Improvements. Detailed loo -year floodplain information not available. Segment 2- Boulder County/ Weld County Post 2013 Flood structures passes the updated too - No updates are required for resiliency. A pedestrian bridge St. Vrain Creek year discharge without overtopping. Slightly less is recommended east of the vehicle bridge. Resiliency freeboard than standard exists due to updated efforts similar to the vehicle bridge should be followed. hydrology after construction. A drainage study of the Dry Creek floodplain was completed. Improvement alternatives include re - Between Quicksilver Road and Dry Creek only a channelizing Dry Creek, replacement bridge at ECLR/ Dry Creek No. 2 small percentage of the too -year flows pass under WCR 1, possible addition of a bridge on Quicksilver Road. ECLR/WCR 1 at the existing Dry Creek Crossing. The recommended alternative includes replacement of the The remaining flows overtop ECLR/WCR 1. bridge with a box culvert, raising ECLR/WCR 1, and overland grading to allow Dry Creek overtopping flows to reach the St. Vrain Creek. The existing Boulder Creek Bridge will pass only minor storms. The too -year storm will overtop Construction of a new, larger bridge at Boulder Creek and ECLR/WCR 1 starting approximately i,000-feet ECLR/WCR 1 is recommended. Bridge replacement design south of the bridge to a point approximately 1,400- should occur in coordination with channel improvements Boulder Creek feet north of the bridge. Overtopping is as much as to Boulder Creek. Resiliency measures to protect ECLR/WCRd ri should be part measures protect of the design. two feet in depth. From Highway 52 to Westview Road: Boulder Improvements to Boulder Creek and Coal Creek along with Creek flows overtop ECLR/WCR 1 south of replacement bridges will address flooding issues along this Highway 52. section of road. Raising of the roadway may be required. Scxinent - Town of Erie Construction of a new, larger bridge at Coal Creek and ECLR/WCR 1 is recommended. Bridge replacement design From Westview Road to CW Bixler Boulevard should occur in coordination with channel improvements Coal Creek (approximate distance of one -and -a -half miles), to Coal Creek. Resiliency measures to protect ECLR/WCR i ECLR/WCR 1 is overtopped in the too -year storm (including raising the road) should be part of the design. event. The realignment of Kenosha Road along with the replacement of the Kenosha Bridge should be included in the design/construction effort. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 15 FIGURE 1.9 - BRIDGES AND WATER CROSSINGS SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT SEGMENT #2 - BOULDER/WELD COUNTY SEGMENT #3 - TOWN OF ERIE I ,t ,_ a,,: WCSNIFW RD K� CNOSMAR� i;qi v NORTH East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 16 UTILITIES Overhead electrical lines, vaults and boxes owned by both United Power and Xcel Energy run along the entire corridor. Left Hand Water District has a water line that runs throughout Segment 2, predominately on the east side of the corridor. Xcel distribution gas lines run north -south along the corridor. Additionally, there are private oil facilities between CR 16.5 and CR 20. These facilities include two oil tank batteries and one well head just east of the ROW line. There is also an oil tank battery on the west side of the road approximately 1,800 -feet north of Boulder Creek, and a large oil facility consisting of numerous well heads and tanks on the northeast corner of WCR 10.5 and ECLR/WCR 1. Ditch and utility companies were contacted as part of the study process and will need to be contacted again as individual projects are developed. Due to the extensive effort associated with contacting utility owners, only a partial list of known utility owners with facilities along the corridor were identified, as shown in Table i.8. Table 1.8 — Utility Owners (Partial List) Crestone Peak Resources Extraction Oil & Gas KP Kaufmann & Co Kerr McGee Anadarko Production... Gathering, Platte Valley Xcel Energy PDC Energy Peterson Energy Black Hills Energy District 8 North, LLC (Extraction Oil & Gas) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Town of Erie Left Hand Water District Level 3 now CenturyLink New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir & Ditch Northern Water United Power Inc. United Private Networks CDOT Region 4 There are multiple environmental conditions that could impact the design of future improvements of the ECLR/WCR 1 corridor; however, none of these conditions are likely to impact the feasibility of improving safety, mobility and/or flood resiliency. Wetlands and waters in the study area include 33 mapped features consisting of irrigation ditches, roadside drainages, swales, natural streams, fringe wetlands and one pond. Several irrigation ditches occur in the study area. Major irrigation ditches, such as the Liggett Ditch, have wide open -water channels with abutting wetland and/or riparian vegetation. The irrigation laterals vary from well-defined channels with well -developed wetlands to narrow (one -foot wide) field laterals lacking any wetland vegetation. Some of the field laterals are constructed of concrete. The smaller laterals and roadside drainage ditches were not included in the mapping unless they are associated with well -developed wetland vegetation that extends beyond the main ditch. Natural drainages include St. Vrain Creek, Dry Creek, Boulder Creek and Coal Creek. EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH The Master Plan employed a comprehensive public outreach process to evaluate the needs, issues and opportunities along ECLR/WCR 1. Public outreach activities to notify stakeholders about the project and invite them to participate in the process were combined with an interactive comment map for users to provide a comment on the nature and specific location of their concerns. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 17 PUBLIC OUTREACH Aside from several meetings and close coordination with Boulder County, Weld County, City of Longmont and Town of Erie representatives, a robust public outreach process was used to gather input from property owners, the general public, ditch and utility companies. PROPERTY OWNERS There are approximately 179 properties along the ECLR/WCR 1 corridor. Existing public ROW widths vary along the corridor but are predominately 6o -feet within the counties and between 6o and 120 -feet in some areas within the incorporated areas. In areas where road improvements have occurred, ROW has often been dedicated during development to match the City/Town ROW needs based on the roadway classification. As with many projects, additional ROW will be required, especially in areas where the existing county ROW is all that is currently available. All property owners along the corridor were notified during the planning process and all four jurisdictions are committed to working with individual property owners during future design and construction processes. GENERAL PUBLIC Stakeholders were notified by email, social media, press release website and postcard of the project and invited to provide input and feedback. Public involvement efforts yielded over 300 comments from online interactive maps, public open houses, and one-on-one stakeholder interviews. The public input process included two rounds of public input opportunities. The May 2019 outreach effort included a public open house and a map -based online comment option. The second outreach effort in December 2020/January 2021 included four virtual open houses and a revised map -based online comment option depicting recommended improvements. The May 16, 2019 public open house served as an opportunity to present corridor conditions, visit with the public, and collect feedback. Maps, stickers, and flipcharts were displayed, and participants were encouraged to add their comments directly on the location of concern. Maps were split by corridor segments and jurisdictional staff were on hand to answer questions. There were 62 meeting attendees, 78 comments received at the open house, and 102 online comments received during the first comment period. Comments received were separated into four categories: access, safety, congestion, bike/pedestrian, or other. Safety was the most categorized comment, followed by congestion and bike/pedestrian concerns. Table 1.9 summarizes the types of comments received and Figure 1.10 shows the comment locations for the May 2019 public outreach effort. Table 1.9 — Public Comment Types (May 2019) Comment category Number of Comments Safety 72 40% Other 45 25% Congestion 30 17% Bike/Pedestrian 20 11% Access 13 7% Total 18o i00% East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 18 FIGURE 1.10 - PUBLIC COMMENTS (MAY 2019 OUTREACH EFFORT) 49 Comments SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT 85 Comments SEGMENT #2 - BOUI.fFP"^FF'. r . COUNTY 46 Comments "ENT #3- TOWN OF ERIE ',.. QU K41t ERR i �� w,y,,... _. A ,.d � E2 , t. 1iiui.ti t y.., ay Q # . .. . : •terVA� • Y,l� f .P. ry ... �ry M1 f J• I a�.rvP . !^�.• —�frt.{ rte. .. n 1�:..'.: NORTH East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 19 Table 1.10 summarizes public comments from the May 2019 public comment period, and project numbers (i.e. "Li") are incorporated to demonstrate concerns that will be addressed with recommended improvements. Comments in the "Public Comments on Existing Conditions" column of Table i.io are from the May 2019 public input period and were specifically used to develop alternatives and revise "Preliminary Project Concepts". Table 1.10 — Public Comments (May 2019) -;:;;aw- Public Comments on Existing Conditions Preliminary Project Concepts (May 2019) • Designated or protected bike lanes throughout the corridor Project recommendations include widened General and • Consider alternate parallel bike corridor shoulders and/or bike lanes whenever Miscellaneous • Potholes were noted as a maintenance issue possible/feasible and will follow design guidelines to (applicable to accommodate traffic volumes and truck traffic. most of the • Industrial/oil industry -related truck traffic Environmental impacts will also be considered with corridor) • Consider wildlife corridors and impacts, particularly every project, including wildlife corridors and around creeks and drainageways historic properties, buildings and facilities. • Historic properties, buildings and facilities • Future widening should occur on the west, on the City of Upgrade the existing signalized intersection with five Longmont side, to lessen impacts to existing residences lanes south of Highway 66 with a detached multiuse on the Weld County side pathway on the west side. Future movements would Highway 66 • A traffic study should be conducted, and a traffic light is include dual westbound left -turns off Highway 66. (Li) needed at Hwy 66 City of Longmont property west of the roadway • Intersection should be expanded to two lanes in each would allow for future widening to avoid or direction from 9th to 66 minimize the need for acquisition of right-of-way • Suggestion for 35 mph and electronic speed limit signs from property owners east of ECLR/WCR r. 17th Avenue • A traffic signal should be installed at this intersection Replace the stop -controlled "T" intersection with a (L3) • Issues and safety concerns with turning north from 17h double -lane three-legged roundabout to improve Avenue onto ECLR/WCR 1 safety, traffic flow and maneuverability. The • Speed of traffic causes pedestrian crossing issues on 17th roundabout and approaches would include detached Avenue at the Jim Hamm Nature Area sidewalks to improve pedestrian access and safety. • Maneuverability issues/tight turning and congestion The double -lane roundabout would help (need for reconfiguration and additional lanes) regulate/reduce speeds through the intersection. • Access on to county road from driveway Sunshine • High traffic volumes, narrow shoulders Proposed future roadway widening to five lanes and Avenue (L3) • Area is dark, suggested streetlights sidewalk improvements along this stretch of the • Suggested adding a traffic signal or roundabout corridor. 9`, Avenue (Lq) • Replace light with roundabout, concerns about traffic speeds • Concerns about traffic speed and noise in residential area Deerwood • Suggested pedestrian crossing light for safe access to Drive/County Road 26 (L5) Union Reservoir Nature Area • Request for northbound right turn lane on ECLR/WCR 1 Proposed future traffic signal. onto County Road 26 • Improve turn lane markings for those turning into the Ken Pratt distribution center. BLVD/Highway • Suggested bike/pedestrian underpass for safer access to Walmart No improvements are being recommended as part of 119 • Driver confusion about merging and yielding for this Master Plan. eastbound traffic heading southbound on ECLR/WCR 1 • Need pedestrian crosswalk for Great Western to Zlaten Widen ECLR/WCR 1 between Zlaten Drive and the Drive and protected bike lanes bridge over the St Vrain Creek to allow for paved Great • Connections to the St. Wain Greenway and surrounding shoulders. The multiuse trail would be extended Western/Zlaten destinations are desired south to St. Vrain Creek and connect to the proposed Drive (L6) • A turn lane for northbound traffic turning onto Ziaten pedestrian bridge over St. Wain Creek. Recommend and advance notice that people are turning would aid installing a traffic signal or roundabout at time of traffic turning southbound out of Walmart full residential buildout. ent 2- Bouldl tm Weld Co • Consider sparing removal of fences, gates, and cll- Quicksilver Road/St. Vrain established trees . Extend no passing zone further to the south to the flit Proposed future widened shoulders from Quicksilver Creek (C2) station Road to County Road 20.5. • Su ested roundabout at Quicksilver Road East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 20 Location Public Comments on Existing Conditions Preliminary Project Concepts (May 2019) • anes and a shoulder or a multiuse trail/path Improve the existing two-way stop -controlled Pike nd turn lanes and a roundabout or traffic signal intersection with a single -lane roundabout to Road/County ... nd speeding issues accommodate future traffic volumes. Major Road 20.5 (C4) tch has erosion/sedimentation impacts irrigation facilities with the existing ditch running oulder and ditch on the west side of the road diagonally under intersection should also be about traffics ed addressed with the proposed project. • Recommend roundabout or traffic signal and widened shoulders to address speed, facilitate traffic flow and Improve the existing two-way stop -controlled Oxford improve safety intersection with a single -lane roundabout to Road/WCR 18 • Sight distance/visibility concerns associated with trees accommodate future traffic volumes and improve (C6 & C6A) and fences on the NW comer of the intersection approaches and sight distance. Irrigation • Driveway access and domestic farm animal presence improvements would also be included. concerns Improve the existing one-way stop -controlled • Safety issues associated with passing on a double yellow intersection with a single -lane roundabout to line/speeding, and poor visibility/sight distance accommodate future traffic volumes. Improve access WCR 16.5 (C8 & • Concerns about adding a third lane through this area to the adjacent property owners with realigned C6A) • Widening should occur on the undeveloped side of the driveways and/or connector roads. Improve visibility and access to and from the existing western road driveways by removing the sub -standard vertical curve. • Both concerns and advocating for roundabout Niwot Road • Suggestion for a four-way stop Improve the existing one-way stop -controlled (do & C6A) • Speed and truck traffic concerns intersection with a new single -lane roundabout. • Visibility/sight distance issues with vertical curves • Residential access issues Existing traffic signals are operated by the Colorado • Residential access close to the intersection — safety Department of Transportation (CDOT) which is Mineral concerns currently being studied through the SH 52 PEL Road/Highway • Signal timing improvements needed Study. Traffic analyses for this Master Plan indicates 52 (C13) • Add turn lanes and additional through lanes that a southbound right turn lane is needed to c 2040 volumes of ECLR/WCR r and ad/Highway • Increase length of turn lane onto Highway 52 R Mineral Road/Highway d 52. Additionally, there is a need to increase storage and add shoulders. Segment - Town of Erie .... • No turn lane and poor visibility. Westview Road • Historic site (southeast of West View Road) • Existing water well to be aware of Proposed future road widening to three lanes with Buffalo Road • Concerns about turning left off Buffalo Rd. onto ECLR/WCR 1, suggested a left turn lane or median shoulders from Highway 52 to Jay Road. • Increased congestion, difficult for school bus traffic South of pulling from dirt to asphalt. Buffalo Road • Poor visibility •_Steep ditches • Request turn lane on ECLR/WCR 1 • Poor visibility (vertical sight distance issues) when Kenosha turning from Kenosha Rd on to ECLR/WCR 1 Road/Weld • Lots of driveways/access points Proposed future road widening to three lanes from County Road • Motorists frequently run stop signs Highway 52 to Jay Road. Proposed future roundabout at Kenosha and WCR 10.5. 10.5 (E3) • Request for separated sidewalk/path • Speeding concerns, suggested electronic speed monitoring signs CW Bixler • Speeding concerns, recommended 35mph past Boulevard neighborhoods • Lack of desire for raised medians Proposed future road widening to three lanes and South of CW • Lack of room to expand road (homes, mature trees and utilities) Bixler • Speeding concerns, prefers no medians shoulders from Highway 52 to Jay Road. Boulevard • Need for sidewalks • Request for turn lanes into subdivision Evans Street • Request for turn lanes to accommodate church traffic • Recommend sidewalks and turn lanes Improve the existing four-way stop -controlled Jay Road/ • School zone sign flashing activates with no children intersection with a traffic signal to meet current and Cheesman present future traffic demand. Intersection improvements Street (E6) . Heavy congestion around school drop off/pick up would be designed to improve approaches and bicycle and pedestrian safety in a school zone area. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 21 December 2020/January 2071 Virtual Open House:. The virtual open houses held between December 2020 and January 2021 provided an opportunity to present the draft Master Plan, answer questions from the public, and collect additional feedback on the recommended projects. Each of the four events were held on a Zoom platform and included a map and diagram -based presentation on the proposed recommendations, an interactive discussion, and question and answer sessions with community members. The first three virtual open houses each pertained to a different segment of the corridor, City of Longmont, Boulder/Weld Counties, and Town of Erie. The fourth open house, held in January 2021, focused specifically on the proposed recommendations for the WCR 16.5 intersection of the Boulder/Weld Counties segment. A total of 102 community members attended the virtual open houses, and another 88 participated using the map -based online comment option during the second comment period. During the online open houses, participants provided feedback through live polls, chat comments and verbal discussion. The live polls asked participants to rate their comfort level with the proposed recommendations, providing four options to choose from: comfortable, somewhat comfortable, I have concerns, and I need more information. In each workshop, the poll results illustrated that a majority of participants were comfortable with the proposed recommendations and felt they met a clear need in the community. Public comments indicated an increased understanding of the proposed corridor improvements among participants. Comments also brought attention to safety concerns, particularly the implementation of roundabouts, and an expressed interest in implementing different mechanisms to address them. Comments indicated there will be a need for clear opportunities to engage with the public on the use of roundabouts in the design stage of each project. Table 1.11 summarizes "Public Comments on Project Recommendations" from the December 2020/January 2021 public comment period. Input was used to evaluate if the alternatives met and accurately addressed the community concerns. Table 1.11— Public Comments (December 2020/January 2021) Public Comments on Project Recommendations (December 2020/January 2021) General and Miscellaneous (applicable to most of the corridor) • Small town character • Tree preservation • Sidewalk and bike path connectivity consistent throughout • Options for bicyclist access during construction • Consider less widening, speed cameras, and other mechanisms to discourage speeding • Interest in seeing roundabouts at additional intersections • Ability of tractor and related equipment to maneuver safely within roundabout • Interest in bike path/lane connectivity between Ken Pratt Blvd and UTE/Highway 66 • Suggested further coordination with City of Longmont to add the groundwork for future signalized intersections • Consider placing a bike ramp between the multi -use trail, currently labeled as existing sidewalk, and where the on -street bike lane ends • Approval of improved connectivity between Mill Village and the Greenway Segment 2- Boulder County/ Weld County • Support for roundabout as an efficient and safe option • Consider cyclist education on roundabout usage • Ability of drivers to adapt to roundabout usage • Suggested to keep roundabouts well -lit • Concern with proximity of bike access to pasture fencing and boundary East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 22 Public Comments on Project Recommendations (December 2O2O/January 2021) Segment 3 — Town of Erie • Concern medians may impede visibility • Realignment of Coal Creek and impact on Coal Creek Trail • Interest in bike connectivity between Erie Village and ECLR/WCR 1 • Concern with ability of other drivers to follow Yield signs and navigate roundabout safely NEXT STEPS/FUNDING The projects recommended in this study are meant as first steps toward identifying needs, securing potential partnerships, and prioritizing within a larger scope of infrastructure needs within each jurisdiction. Funding for transportation improvements is limited compared to needs. However, all of the improvements recommended in this report have benefits that far outweigh costs and should be pursued by the participating agencies. Potential funding sources include road funds from all four jurisdictions, private development, oil and gas revenues, and state and federal safety funds. BOULDER COUNTY A 2007 Boulder County ballot issue passed by voters in 2007 provides funding for a list of forty-seven projects including improvements to ECLR/WCR 1. The countywide sales tax has funding available to add paved shoulders to ECLR/WCR 1 south of Longmont to Jay Road in the Town of Erie. However, given the newly identified safety and flood resiliency needs identified in this report, it recommends funding those needs as well. WELD COUNTY While Boulder County has maintenance responsibility for ECLR/WCR 1 south of Longmont, many of the intersection needs on the corridor primarily access Weld County and are of high benefit to Weld County residents. Cost -sharing or other funding arrangements are likely needed for specific locations where benefit to both counties warrant additional discussion on funding and implementation. Property acquisition for ROW should be handled by each corresponding jurisdiction to avoid property ownership in one county by the other. CITY OF L ONGMONT The City of Longmont has sole responsibility for implementation of most of the improvements in Segment i. Ownership, both north of 17th Avenue and south of Zlaten Drive, is jointly owned by Boulder County and Weld County and could provide opportunities for funding partnerships. TOWN OF ERIE The Town of Erie has primary responsibility for implementation of future improvements south of Kenosha Road within Segment 3. Ownership north of Kenosha Road is jointly owned by Boulder County and Weld County and could provide opportunities for funding partnerships. CONCL USION Regardless of funding source, time of implementation, or final design of specific projects, the improvements recommended in this plan will greatly enhance access, mobility, safety, and resiliency for users from within and beyond the four jurisdictions participating in this plan. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Executive Summary 1 23 • v y Y I Jam-. SFfMFI[T 1 a CITY OF LON'fl M(WI SEGMENT #2 - BOW 'ER/WE' P rnl JTV L2: Road Widen;, (5 lanes):Pro¢7e adjustments SN E5 17th/1v L4: Road Widen; (5lanes): 17th Ave - 9th Ave L. .�..� n'TIIAVE LS: traffic Signal (Deerwood Dr/WCR 26) L coo °e,Y'. BLVD L6: Zloten Or tu IAlrn DR St. Vrain Creek (1 alternative pJICR I Recommended Projects by Segment Spot Improvement Corridor Improvement ORoundabout Longmont- Widening & Sidewalks O Boulder/Weld County- Widening Signal Erie- Widening QWidening Bridge Improvement/Replacement East County Line Road/Weld County Road I .. WFSTI hr,v, RD KENOSI IA LVrq ' J S a JAY NO ® L H[HMAIJ ,I Summary of Engineer's Opinion of fl Probable CostJ•q 001,00 East County Line Road! Weld County Road 1 Master Plan C j u B -- a ENGINEERS, ING. Segment Project Project ID Project Implementation Grouping 'instruction Total ROW Acquisition Design Engineering Total Ute/Hi hway 66 Intersection Capacity & Safety Improvements Li Long -Pero] $623,000 $31,000 $60,00o $714,000 Roadway Widening & Safety Inlpruv, nwnts hum I Iighway 66 to 17th Avenue L2 Lung -Penn $4,120,000 $0 $396,700 $4,516,700 Segment 1 17th Avenue Roundabout & Safety Improvements L3 Mid -Term $1,738,000 $144,000 $167,400 $2,049,400 City of Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from 17th Avenue to 9th Avenue 14 Short- Term $2,252,000 $400,000 $216,800 $2,868,800 Longmont I)rerwu 111 Drive/WCR 26 Intersection Capacity & Safety Improvements L5 Long -Term $703,000 $o $67,700 $770,700 Roadway Shouldering & Multi -Use Trail from Great Western/Zlaten Drive to Vrain Creek L6 Short- Term $1,275,000 $27,500 $122,800 $1,425,300 Segment Subtotal: $10.711.000 16602..500 $1.03i.doo $12.344.900 St. Vrain Pedestrian Bridge & Multi -Use Trail Ci Short- Term $1,450,000 $18,000 $188,500 $1,656,500 Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements from Quicksilver Road to WCR 20.5 C2 Short -Term $1,374,000 $75,000 $132,300 $1,581,300 Replace Existing Dry Creek Bridge With Box Culvert & Overland Grading C3 Short- Term $2,224,000 $60,000 $214,200 $2,498,200 WCR 20.5 Roundabout & Safety Improvements C4 Short- Term $1,880,000 $184,000 $245,000 $2,309,000 Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements from WCR2o. to Oxford Road C5 Mid -Term $2,257,000 $5,000 $217,300 $2,479,300 Segment 2 Oxford Road Roundabout & Safety Improvments C6 Mid -Term $1,487,000 $80,000 $144,000 $1,7i1,000 Boulder Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements from Oxford Road to WCR16.5 C7 Mid -Term $475,000 $0 $45,700 $520,700 County/Weld WCR 16.5 Roundabout & Safety Improvements C8 Mid -Term $1,664,000 $47,500 $16o,ioo $1,869,600 County Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements from WCR16.5 to Niwot Road C9 Mid -Term $478,000 $15,900 $46,100 $540,000 Niwot Road Roundabout & Safety Improvements Cm Mid -Term $1,235,000 $67,200 $118,900 $1,421,100 Roadway Shouldering & Safety Improvements from Niwot Road to Highway 52 C11 Long -Term $1,343,000 $12,600 $129,300 $1,484,900 Replace Existing Boulder Creek Bridge C12 Long -Term $5,500,000 $75,000 $715,000 $6,290,000 Highway 52 Intersection Safety Improvements C13 Mid -Term $810,000 $23,000 $78,000 $911,000 Segment Subtotal: $22.17rj.000 $663soo 82.43d.doo $25.272.600 Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from Highway 52 to Kenosha Road Ei Lung -Term $2,236,000 $69,500 $215,300 $2,520,800 Replace Existing ECLR/WCR Bridge over Coal Creek E2 Long -Term $2,352,000 $10,000 $305,800 $2,667,800 Kenosha Road Roundabout, WCR 10.5 Roundabout and Connecting Roadway E3 Mid -Term $2,625,000 $162,700 $252,800 $3,040,500 Segment 3 Replace Existing Kenosha Road Bridge over Coal Creek E4 Short- Term $5,500,000 $50,000 $715,000 $6,265,000 Town of Erie Roadway Widening & Safety Improvements from WCR 10.5 to Jay Road E5 Mid -Term $2,980,000 $103,100 $287,000 $3,370,100 Jay Road Intersection Capacity & Safety Improvements E6 Short- Term $1,311,000 $14,700 $126,200 $1,451,900 Segment Subtotal: $17QQ4,oQo $410.000 $1,002,100 $iq.ni6.ioo i. Projects Li and L2 could be combined into one (i) bid package. 2. Projects C3 and C4 could be combined into one (1) bid package. 3. Project implementation recommendation is based on several factors and is subject to change, see Master Plan. 4. Estimated costs are in 2021 dollars. TOTAL $49,890,000 $1,675,700 $5,367,900 $56.933,600 East County Line Roadl %Veld Couoh- Road I SEGMENT #1 RECOMMENDATION (L1): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT UTE/HIGHWAY 66 OVERVIEW Improve the existing signalized intersection at ECLR/WCR i and Highway 66. ECLR/WCR i would be 5 -lanes south of Highway 66 with a detached multiuse pathway on the west side. Future Project Description movements would include dual westbound left -turns off Highway 66. City of Longmont property west of the roadway would allow for future widening to avoid or minimize the need for acquisition of right-of-way from property owners east of ECLR/WCR i. Public comments suggest concerns for traffic speed, bicyclist safety, Public Input right-of-way acquisition and congestion. Comments and polls were mostly in support of the proposed recommendation's ability to meet the multiple community needs. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has prepared a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study on State Project Alternatives Highway 66. The PEL study suggests that a future grade separated intersection may be required at this intersection. This ECLR/WCR r study projects that a signalized intersection with 5 -lanes on ECLR/WCR i would function acceptably through the year 2040. Recommtendation Installation of new upgraded signalized intersection to meet 2040 multimodal traffic projections. PROJECT PRIORITIES Accidents are moderately high at this intersection, with a large amount being `rear - end' accidents. The proposed design would need to take existing crash data into account. The signalized intersection should be designed to allow full movements for both pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed City of Longmont park at the southwest corner of the intersection would be a major draw for multimodal regional traffic. The project area is not located within a too -year floodplain; however, culvert Resiliency replacement and drainage improvements as part of the proposed intersection project, north of Spring Gulch No.2, would increase resiliency within the area. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT`S GENERAL NOTES: • CONCRETE MULTI -USE PATH ON THE WEST SIDE OF ECWWCHz • IMERSECTION CONFIGURATION DESIGNED TO MEET 2040 ANT1CIPATEO TRMTIC NEEDS • MOLD EASTERN EDGE OF ASPHALT SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION TO M RIP112E IMPACTS TO PROPERTIES • WWER ROADWAY PROHLE OF ECtR/WCRS APPRQX TELY SEGO FEET SOUTH OF INIERflCtION TO RESOLVE VERTICAL SIGHT KSUFS • ROADWAY IAYOUI5 MID LANE WIDTIK DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE £2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIOHT-OF-WAY ACOUIfRmON I5 ESTIMATED LEASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL ass t.I Innty Line ltuad/Weld Counts Roast I Corridor Plan I it 1 =— wrea5Ern0NC0NTD I .• / � M , neNLf IN FUTURE TME DESIGN I V4 fl1 NOW L14F IMNOIIVM WIFti !U M'N'M:Zf S.LVI FC1.R/WL'R1 AND tITE/SH&6 H14VM1JAY LE .END c n fiLl1L1Pn -ter wacsLo cuuwnnw• -rte mil► East ('ounts line Road/ ,.\ Neld ('ounh, Road 1 SEGMENT #1 RECOMMENDATION (L1): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT UTE/ HIGHWAY 66 14 T EXTEND IMPROVEMENTS TO 17TH AVEftJU i APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -40!?. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY • r rff tl l.r j.P ECLR/W('R 1. -___._ __ __._ - __ 1 _ GENERAL NOTES: • CONCRETE MULTI -USE PATH ON THE WEST SIDE OF ECLR/WCR1 • INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION DESIGNED TO MEET 2040 ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC NEEDS • HOLD EASTERN EDGE OF ASPHALT SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO PROPERTIES • LOWER ROADWAY PROFILE OF ECLR/WCR1 APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF INTERSECTION TO RESOLVE VERTICAL SIGHT ISSUES • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL -tfIr AI CCr Inu i I i Ii vJ 9 1 m _ T ZSECTION CONFIGURATION CHANCE IN FUTURE DESIGN Y FUTURE PEL ROW ALIGN THROUGH LANES TO MINIMIZE SHIFT ECLR/WCRI. AND UTE/SHGG HIGHWAY LEGEND a/w EXISTIN4 R14Ht OF WAY VU PROPOSED R747tT OF WAY BASED an so ON TYPICAL SECTIONS II PROPOSED EPCE OF ASPHALT SCALE IN EEET I:.IsI CtLtnly I.inc Run(1/A\c 1(i COLI II I\ IZUULI I /I!► East Counts line Road/ +\ Weld County Road I SEGMENT #1 RECOMMENDATION (13): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT 17TH AVENUE OVERVIEW Improve safety and traffic flow through the existing stop - controlled "T" intersection at ECLR/WCR 1 and 17h Avenue. The roundabout and approaches would include detached Project Description sidewalks, widened to accommodate bicyclists. The double - lane roundabout would help regulate/reduce speeds on ECLR/WCR 1 and avoid conflict with the electrical steel towers better than a signalized intersection would. Public requests include separated bike path or protected bike lane to the new Spring Gulch trail, safety issues with Public Input bicycle/pedestrian and vehicular mobility, and congestion. Comments and polls were mostly in support of the proposed recommendation. Comments indicated concern for the ability of other residents to adapt to a roundabout. Alternatives including a traditional stop -controlled intersection and a roundabout intersection were analyzed: A. Roundabout — The center of the roundabout would be offset slightly west of ECLR/WCR 1. The roundabout would be designed to control traffic speeds. Raised Project Alternatives medians and splitter islands would be installed at the approaches and departures. B. Signal — Due to the required turning lanes, this option would require a larger right-of-way take east of the road. The southbound right -turn lane would be very close to a steel electrical tower. A double -lane roundabout is recommended to improve safety Recommendation by slowing vehicles through the intersection. A roundabout would reduce right-of-way takes east of the roadway. PROJECT PRIfP!Tlr-- A roundabout would help control speeds on ECLR/WCR 1 and allow for raised medians for pedestrian refuge. Mobility will improve with the new roundabout since delay times (especially on i'7" Avenue) will be decreased, and new wider detached sidewalks will be installed for pedestrians and cyclists. The project area is not located within a loo -year floodplain; however, culvert replacement and drainage improvements as part of the proposed Resiliency project, north of Spring Gulch No.2, would improve resiliency within the area. I ;�,ist _lint) Line Road/W'eld County Road i. Alternative "A" (Preferred) Alternative "8" ALTERNATIVES I1II � py��R OPoIOOR IMRaQVEMIHrTO RN AVENUE '•yv -. CONCRETE yDEWALK CONSTRIICIED BY DEVLOP[H'T IY e }} AU'JI V MAJ✓k VU'.VL4 LIN, iO;'i. 1an1 Kl.;yI LANs I..., FI .- _. MPI XIM ILRnw! GENERAL NOTES SHIFT ROADWAY TO THE FASTTO AVOID 1R L v AvOIDmD MA10 NHT01 V 11 n F µ14 1 ll f .iI . L; —ILKF IWMO (TYPC/Jj I 11uN ,r - I` I F �� -�VMSfl UC LR? AnOfV EXIST NC IggIGATON LINC O ThEUDRCNES . � SI O THE EAST yy srDRA4E STRUCTURE MAY uEEO Tn RE gQMDvfo DAM. D IGNC 'M' • •H APPNOX:ArELY IIO W ROW RQOVIMCD ?R PL 4 . ECLR/WCRI ANP E t 71 AVEN! IE LEGEND NDAEOUf DESNiN - w �'�.\ m[4'YIW r. ____`•� THE STANDARD .. '•� _ " s•urr R OW rO nil EAtr ra ITMAN AVOID PO'WERHNE TOWERS !'- N wlwiu" 1•�wm I NEGUNRFNr ImLL ENCROACH oN E21snNa yy PPOPFA'Y •mmun4slM WI �ti uxluo"+�G•m 'WI 4 , IXIWD WYXOYBMEMTp M10MVAY Ii HIM✓XOJEHFIn IP fl Ta-J" 1 �'ONf' I _ . w Ma 1 CI'41F kWrW OR J,(51`'A/E •-..•+ s F C ' t 1 r.+.. •• R / AVOID MAJOR POWER MINOXIfMTE YOW ALYWKIIION-N' LINE TOWCR.S WTTf - T' •_� l ^ P.'GI? IAPJt _ PROROSCV CONCF RC I '.RFTF 51DFWKk C04GT0.U[1fC I1Y DEVlI<PIR 1 • • rw IN5i vAw t A J14 rowO POWCR '� uH iOWLRG W M __ _� A;q{Ay1AIE AC V A �. .i ,. 1.. GrIPN4 NN14Ai )L (WF — iTORAGf. IR VC•VRE MAY wF ED ro bf 4ENCRN. NollG' ` • 5HDTROTH •VFMIM WAYTOE MSI TOAVOIO TRANSMISTION TOWERS . i E. iTii N AVENUE LEGEND IMVROENTS COULD PAET VOST1NL IRRI4ATION IINESlprn'HFS n' EC4R/WCRAND • MPRR OVEMENCOULD IMRACt MtOPERtt AI OWNERS TO F PAST t • • RECOMMEND SYOPIJCHFi 10 MNNTMN INrERSECTON FNNCDON - N aewwurswv SVOI 0.O POWER RO NF EAST rO �N�,C•®rynle,wVya0 • ROAD CROSS SOI115AN LANE NTA$&EOOo PESCRJTHECE IP1R THE STANMRD AdLL FNro.UHF rows RG rm"x.MLww• e a " ROAD CROSSSER4NSINTAIS ES 4&TW AMP ONRPLW t PRO.ERTRUA(v ON LNISnNN • PoGM-OF-WAY KO OISrrWN66rMAIE09ASED ON THE CURRENT - PROPERTY roNaOAa n•w"`r �� •,• � mlMi•i•4w Mt •u•....r Currxlul l'Iia F:ul County Line Road! Weld County Road I SEGMENT #1: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (L3): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT 171H AVENUE I —CORR�IDOR IMPROVEMENT TO 4TH AVENUE CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED BAY REVEL ., LJTL1tl.-..+..S 1 .may AVOID MAJOR POWER LINE TOWER WITH R14HT LANE ECLRJWCRi E' ,F -- APPROXIMATELY 100 OF ROW REQUIRED' w 2 RAISED CONCRETE MEP AN OR XERI,CA E(TYPICAL) '� w Q . / T: - - " -" - IM EXTEND PROVEMENT TO Hf HWAY 66 AVOID MAJOR POWER' G LINE TOWER WITH\ --- RIGHT LANE PROPOSED CONCRETE _ G:flN - -' MPH � �- __ w - ... :/./ .:_ ..,, .._ ten am APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -1S it Vii' .. GENERAL NOTES: • SHIFT ROADWAY TO THE EAST TO AVOID TRANSMISSION TOWERS • IMPROVEMENTS COULD IMPACT EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES/DITCHES • IMPROVEMENTS COULD IMPACT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE EAST • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 1S AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION AND MAY VARY DURING ACTUAL DESIGN • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • BIKE ROUTE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE FINAL ROUNDABOUT DESIGN • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION • 15 MPH ROUNDABOUT DESIGN SPEED Fast County Line Road/Weld County Road i Corridor Plan of BIKE RAMP (TYPICAL) ? .+A pp ��tl POTENTIAL fMPACT TO EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE i' STORAGE STRUCTU RE MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED APPROXIMATELY 120OF ROW REQUIRED I ` ECLR/WCR1- AND E. 1 -7TH AVENUE LEGEND _ °' - EXIST?N4 RIGHT OF WAY SHIFT ROAD TO THE EAST TO a/r PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY SASEP AVOID POWER LINE TOWERS ON TYPICAL SECTIONS o 40 W WILL ENCROACH ON EXISTING HH. PROPOSEPED4EOFASPHALT I 7 PROPERTY ti_ EXISTNG IRRIGATION PIPE SCALE IN FEET East Count Line Road/ Weld C ounh Road I SEGMENT #1 RECOMMENDATION (L6): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1, GREAT WESTERN/ZLATEN DRIVE TO VRAIN CREEK OVERVIEW The proposed project would widen ECLR/WCR 1 between Zlaten Drive and the bridge over the St. Wain Creek to allow for Project Description paved shoulders. The multiuse trail would be extended south to St. Wain Creek and connect to the proposed pedestrian bridge over St. Wain Creek. Need for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to improve Public Input safety, along with vehicular congestion issues. Comments and polls were in support of the proposed recommendation's ability to meet the multiple community needs. Project Alternatives N/A Widening of ECLR/WCR i along is recommended to increase safety for motorists and bicyclists. Recommendations also Recommendation include installing a traffic signal or roundabout at time of full buildout of the Springs at Sandstone Ranch development. Extending the multiuse trail would provide continuity to the Quicksilver underpass and trail system south of St. Wain Creek. PROJECT PPl2PH rc Adding widened shoulders and an improved intersection would increase safety for both pedestrians and motorists. The detached trail would enable both pedestrians and bicyclists to be separated from motorists. Mobility for both pedestrians and bicyclists would be greatly improved with Mobility connectivity to the regional trail system in the area. The southern portion of the project area is located within a too -year floodplain associated with St. Wain Creek. The roadway profile is above the Resiliency 100 -year. The possible use of roadway slope revetment/stabilization should be explored as part of the design. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS �' APflIWTUfA ACQIKSlilpn sNexR.DeR wwERIN4 ra e4MMeer ro rwsn w uuocesmuen. . % t ! _ t- / APPR')YfMA[! r vAC ll,,lil9N-b/ '-MUI. 11 Hf f%All "-CGA'NEC( (O EYIS Y.V. LIf:ftJilK N. <ro Ftr ru Lun dr vl r TdAt J4 u_1 r . • •' • 4E WIDENSOTN SIDES OFECIRMCRS ( I.. ;_rv, • ADD EASTERN MULTI -USE TRAIL TO CONNECT TO FU7IMF PEDESTRIAN BRN4E ` ' OVER ST. VRAIN CREEK .:. • CONNECT WIDENED SHOULDERS TO E%IST014 BRIODE OVER ST. VRNN CREEL •, ' • WAY CAQUISITION IS AN ESTWATE BASED ON me CURRENT I ECLRIWCRI AND 4REAT WESTERNIZLAI EN DRIVE LEGEND MUWCIPAL TYPICAL SECTION AND MAY VARY OBEP 8 ACNAL DESIGN �.i.� £WW4.;y,r E. way • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD RJA' CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE iz OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN . —a—nwm omrtwwo w.0 East County Line Ruad/Weld Cminty Road 1 Corridor Plan CURRENT .. •,.,+•T a• mru Cfl �!► East Count. Line Roaib' N eld (oun1 Road I SEGMENT #1 RECOMMENDATION (16): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1, GREAT WFSTERN/7l ATFN fRlvF Tn VRAIN CREEK ST. VRAIN CREEK QUICKSILVER ROAD / 4 9 ri' I RECOMMEND ADD ROUNDABOUT WITH SPRINGS — . Y2An . M INC TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR FULL BUILDOUT OF THE ATy SANDSTONE RANCH APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION 8' SHOULDER WIDENING TO CONNECT TO EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTUE ` . ___R—.� ., ,.:. to .: } ------------- -- APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -2..O' -MULTI-USE TRAIL CONNECT TO FUTURE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GENERAL NOTES: • WIDEN BOTH SIDES OF ECLR/WCRI. • ADD EASTERN MULTI -USE TRAIL TO CONNECT TO FUTURE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER ST. VRAIN CREEK • CONNECT WIDENED SHOULDERS TO EXISTING BRIDGE OVER St VRAIN CREEK • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 1S AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION AND MAY VARY DURWG ACTUAL PESIGN • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION East County Line Road/Weld County Road i ECLR/WCRi -CONNECTYO O EXISTING SIDEWALK Lu I x 1 I � � ' r a 5 r y � •� !( ., �,rr �mda -a:-sip � I F_CLR/WCR1 AND GREAT WESTERN/ZLATEN DRIVE LEGEND N• EXnTN4 RlGITT OF WAY A/M PROPOSED RJCHT OF WAY BASED •/1 -_ 0 ON TYPICAL SECTIONS ✓<✓<I •TTT PROPOSED EDGE OF ASPHALT SCN E IN FEET wt\ East Counn Line Road/ Weld Counn Ruad I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C3): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT DRY CREEK BRIDGE OVERVIEW Al TCRNATIVES Eliminate flows from the too -year event from overtopping ECLR/WCR 1. This Project Description would require overland grading west of ECLR between Dry Creek and Quicksilver Road, and replacement of existing bridge with a box culvert. Public Input Comments on the proposed recommendation were in overall support, with an interest to preserve silver maples trees along the east. Four alternatives were evaluated (see all alternatives figure to right): 1. Improve existing channel alignment — Improvements to the existing creek alignment and increase capacity to carry the ioo-year flows. Install a new ion -year bridge at ECLR/ WCRi to allow loo -year flows. 2. New spill channel — Redirect the Dry Creek channel west of ECLR/WCR 1 and run channel to the north to intercept the St. Wain Creek upstream of the existing ECLR/WCR 1 bridge. Construct a bridge at Quicksilver to allow flows under the road. Historic flows within Dry Creek would be allowed to Project Alternatives flow under ECLR/WCR 1 through a new box culvert structure. 2A. Overland grading and raise ECLR/WCR 1— similar to Alternative 2, storm water would be stopped west of ECLR/WCR 1 and allowed to flow to the St. Vrain Creek. However, instead of a deep channel and a bridge at Quicksilver Road, flows would be allowed to spread out and take a more natural path to the river. 3. Overflow channel — This two -stage channel would divert most of the flows into a new channel located closer to N.11gth Street, which would drop into the St. Wain River. Historic flows within Dry Creek would be allowed to flow under ECLR/WCR 1 through a new box structure. In an effort to minimize improvements to the Dry Creek channel outside of the Recommendation ECLR/WCR i corridor, Alternative 2A is the recommendation. Replacement of the existing ECLR/WCR i Dry Creek Bridge with a box culvert and a slight lowering of Quicksilver Road to allow flood water overtopping will also be required. PROJECT PRIORITIES Safety would be improved by allowing the roadway to stay open during the loo -year storm events, thereby allowing north -south passage during a flood emergency. Multi modal mobility through this section of the corridor would not be disrupted by storm flows Mobility less than the loo -year event. The project area is located within a ioo-year floodplain. Improvements would eliminate ioo-year Resiliency flows from overtopping the road. Improvements could supply roadway resiliency in storm event over too -year. m^:ruu.w Alternative "A" (Preferred) All Alternatives - -WR IIMIstit'E sloth I.Ar1R l LO'MS Lrn)h LMLE STOM E�£vli MIZJV 1, Ln MlWKM U M&[4 MP RNCWLWRI MP r V3(OMMDJOW 50.VIoftCOHIIINIIOW Off W5 S rC1R 4VOORMWG MO'EM /JII MSfa [CIR m.VLow f1'ORl WAITR It RPU Yo QI k sJYra RAP.vt _ , 1 LLOW I V NF VI l}(4r cN p K i R2YIKL X0 1 I `— .(n _ (____Lh4MNAM1A oT�mro1Y. 11•/A . 4..4I '. • Wt MWAII*ROMO IM PDX C1LLV£R Y Y[wL.IVSIil flip fst �Y • s£fn v.£rif£A(tavwIIIIUV AwfupxMsftvre are flip vv.f.: " MP vt CRt IFID DRY CREEK L+LL11NOUTSMNLS MD floA0 VN6A 00lOfYMB RR4>MO MAAD • RWOWI.YMYJuq ._____ _ �. - •. US a FOffC • 11NNM1NMYuwnN p[a fPMTN M£N OMTIf MW 6MfM[1VnL 1 ..#. IT :T W flvV1 _ -Ti II I f .: II I i naX: Ia OO£ • n. sa -_. !� 1 '. .rylm If�IN Oi ,:IIIIt I IAllt RO,Id/\\eld Cutlilh ILuuj I l'orii(Iur East Counts line Road] Weld Count) Road I SEGMENT #2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C3): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT DRY CREEK BRIDGE ALLOW OVER -TOPPING FROM DRY CREEK TO FLOW a NORTH TO THE ST. VRAIN CREEK. RECESS QUICKSILVER i '" ROAD TO ALLOW FLOOD FLOWS TO OVER -TOP ROADWAY.. MINOR ROADWAY SHIFY WEST TO FIT FIELD CONDITIONS CONTINUES SOUTH TO PIKE ROAD -.,+— CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO PIKE ROAD ECLR/WCRi. CURRENT ISSUE: STORM WATER FLOWS DURING BETWEEN DRY CREEK AND QUICKSILVER ROAD RECOMMENDED SOLUTION: COMBINATION OF Ri AREA WEST OF ECLR TO ALLOW STORM WATER FLOW co THE ST. VRAIN CREEK. LARGE STORM EVENTS OVERTOP ECLR USIN4 ECLR AND GRADING OF OPEN TO FLOW TO QUICK SILVER ROAD AND I�*' REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE WITH 13OX CULVERT (APPROXIMATE SIZE 15Wx�.'H) TO ALLOW HISTORIC FLOWS TO PASS UNDER ECLR GENERAL NOTES: • SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE BOX CULVERT MAY BE ADJUSTED DURIN4 DESIGN. • STORM WATER TO FLOW "OVERLAND" BETWEEN QUICKSILVER AND THE ST VRAIN CREEK WITHOUT GRADING OF FIELD • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS iN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL Fast Cuuntv l.inu RuaLlj Weld County Road I Corridor Plan RAISE ECLR BETWEEN 6" AND 12" BETWEEN DRY CREEK AND — QUICKSILVER ROAD TO PREVENT ROADWAY FLOODING ECLR/WCR1 AND PRY CREEK 6RIDGE LEGEND f •N EXISTIN4 RIGHT OF WAY 4'0 40 eo PROPOSED SE OF NS nAiED II - � ON TYPICAL SECTIONS PROPOSED EDGE OF ASPHALT /R► East County Line Road Weld County Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C4): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT PIKE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 20.5 OVERVIEW Improve the existing two-way stop -controlled intersection at ECLR/WCR i and WCR 2o.5/Pike Road with a single -lane roundabout to Project Description accommodate future traffic volumes. Major irrigation facilities with the existing ditch running diagonally under intersection should also be addressed with the proposed project, and coordination should be done with the ditch companies to accommodate improvements. Commentors on existing conditions shared that heavy traffic to and from WCR 20.5 creates need to improve operations to accommodate heavy commuter traffic from Weld County communities. Safety improvements Public Input needed especially due to high level of truck traffic and to accommodate bicycles. Slow traffic and make sure to accommodate wildlife crossings. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendations mostly support the proposed roundabout, specifically as useful way to truck traffic movement. A. Roundabout —Center of the roundabout would be offset southeast of the existing intersection to reduce impacts to the fire station and to maximize deflection of traffic entering the roundabout. To slow the traffic entering the roundabout. Raised medians and splitter islands would be installed at the approaches and departures. An optional slip lane on the northeast quadrant is Project Alternatives shown to better accommodate morning commuter traffic. The slip ramp improvements could result in higher speeds and potential safety impacts. B. Signal — Addition of right -turn lanes and/or left -turn lanes in each direction. Installation of a new traffic signal to control movements and improve safety. The footprint would be wider than the roundabout and potentially increase off-peak hour delays. A single -lane roundabout would: • Increase safety by slowing vehicles though the intersection. Allow for Recommendation 'continuous' traffic flow — decreased delays. • Improve off-peak operations. • No need for traffic signal maintenance. • Decreased congestion and emissions. PROJECT PRIORITIES Slower traffic, raised median would separate traffic, reduce severity of accidents. Vehicles would navigate the roundabout intersection without having to stop. Speeds would be reduced within the roundabout to approximately 15-20 MPH, bicyclists would 'Thb#11•'' be able to ride through the roundabout without being overtaken by a vehicle, and a raised median would provide pedestrian refuge. The project area is not located within a loo -year floodplain; however, culvert replacement Resiliency and drainage/irrigation improvements along this stretch of roadway between Dry Creek and Boulder Creek would increase resiliency. ALTERNATIVES _ F.CWWi'lll vAPPROXIMATE FOW ACgUI5RIDN-'L --- RNSEO CONCRETE MEDIAN OR XERISC APE (TPrCAI.) — GENERAL NOTES: - MOW WESTERN EDf.E OF ECLL4 CR: • AVOID IMPACT 10 MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE RESCNE STATION 10 • NOLO NORTHERN EDGE OF WCR2O • MAY BE POSSIBLE TO COMBINE INTERSECOON IMPROVEMENTS WTI ECLR/WCRS WIDENING PROJECENORTH FROM QUICKSILVER TD THE INTERSECTION • BIKE ROUTE WILL BE DEIERMINEP BY THE FINAL ROUNDABOUT' PESWN • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIOIH5 DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECROHS IN TABLE L2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACOUI$mON 15 E911MATED OASED ON THE CURRENT pI ACPHVXIMAi! NOW A cQt,MrION . -- CORRrLOF:MP vLncEN r 1'Q O}LAb 4 QA, API•IS!1}:MAJt C o A �. fUrsD••• CENFRAL NO(E5. • ROATAQAY LAYOUTS AND WIE WIO1M5 DESCRIBED BY TW 5FmO RP ROAD CROSS 5ECUON5 IN TABLE X2 OF THE CORRIDOR RAN • R4HT-OF-WAYA000I$RWN IS ESTTMATEO BASED ON THE CURRENTMVNICIPAL TYRCAL SECIIONHOLD WESTERN E04L OF EL'LAA4CRi • AWN IMPACT TO MOUNTAIN NEW RRE RESCUE STATION La t`.rlst mint% Line Road/\Veld C(ntty Road i 11(11. ft Plan 0 N\A RY x WR---- :. . — SLIP LMJE FOR CORRIDOR IMPROVEMEVr 10 QUICAS!LYER ROAD HEAVYAM '`IOVEMENI5 RELOCATE OR PIPE EXI511NL IRR! AVON LRCN e / . D Vii` ECLR/WCR]. ANP WC R1o; LECENP MO£rrIP V•t 'AM 11'KWSLNH !! 6 MOwrtAM L1FW 14i{ RlSUE SIAVON 10 •r 1 AVOID ArOInONAL 4MPK1$ TO FIRE STATON DR'VEWAY (MATCH E}6TING) \ '••C:.\ A 4•PRO.rINAIE ROW ALU'J ASIIIUN-b'� K 1 1'1111 I11A11 A♦F/-�( N -----..--- 1' 11II11!']"\ -. /o8,:GV MI+U'/!MT. L rWrU 11241a.; E. CLR/WCR1 ANP WCR2OI LEGEND 114. PPIW*e—Wt • W-� IIPOPeRIn PrI•t Yvo aaICYMtlIY �IVOIOIPP PNMYf PIIYfYYIYYr At •4I- East Counh Line Road/ CSvld Counh Road I SEGMENT #2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C4): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT PIKE/WELD COUNTY ROAD 20.5 C.' 'a : • 1 REPLACE IRRIGATION PIPE UNDER INTERSECTION „r- - - ' ' �• ""' AVOID ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO FIRE / STATION DRIVEWAY (MATCH EX(STING) ' 1 *' RELOCATE OR PIPE •p . EXISTING IRRIGPITCH APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -6' y `. v, bi ll—t. ' t l N 1 • ° H•N OWN (n y�+ R/M � a17 w.4 _ 6 -...LT ECLR/WCRI __ / - MPH ,.,. - J +. .• .a. •MR1+ •nti f+ ' r ��r�'_ w _ -.... - ...- -_� _ dS x.. -h.Ww .'..'a. o ^"d IN'SJ •Aail'.,dvHg6V4_fli••s'N. ym-fYM� •— 1 (}^t%1�.•:Y �µ�-✓r+R4+� 1 "a�Y+g i x k+ _+,^ - YIELD -+r ........ . _. wr USE -` APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION-w'J RILL Lvrc ; RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN OR XERISCAPE (TYPICAL) SLIP LANE FOR CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO QUICKSILVER ROAD GENERAL NOTES: HEAVY A.M. • HOLD WESTERN EPGE OF ECLR/WCR1 { MOVEMENTS RELOCATE OR PIPE EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCH • AVOID IMPACT TO MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE RESCUE STATION 1O 1 • HOLD NORTHERN EDGE OF WCR2o t; z . f'.E • MAY BE POSSIBLE TO COMBINE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WITH ECLR/WCRI WIDENING PROJECT NORTH FROM QUICKSILVER TO THE INTERSECTION ECLR/WCR1 AND WCR2oz LEGEND • BIKE ROUTE WILL SE DETERMINED 13Y THE E FINAL ROUNDABOUT _ � x DESIGN X" .. EXISRN4 RICI- T OF WAY -_ • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN a/r PROPOSED R14HT OF WAY BASED ' U ON TYPICAL SECTIONS D 4o • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT "' H 3 yr. PROPOSED EDCE OF ASPHALT w MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION �I • 2OMPH ROUNDABOUT DESIGN SPEED L EwmN41RRICAnON PIPE SCALE IN FEET East Counh- Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan Fast ('ounq Line Road/ ,'\- weld Count) Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C6): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT OXFORD ROAD OVERVIEW Improve the existing two-way stop -controlled intersection at Oxford Road with a single -lane roundabout to accommodate Project Description future traffic volumes and to address safety, sight distance, and speeding issues. Adjacent historic graveyard northeast of intersection must be protected. Concern for traffic speed, safety for bicyclists, historic house & cemetery, and agricultural/farm equipment access. Public comments support a roundabout at this intersection to reduce speed and widening shoulders along the corridor to protect Public Input bicyclists. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were mostly in support of the proposed roundabout, as the best option for slowing traffic and increasing safety for bicyclists and motorists. Comments also noted interest to preserve trees, wildlife habitat and include wildlife crossings where possible. A. Roundabout — The center of the roundabout would be offset southeast of the existing intersection to improve sight distance and avoid impacts to historic features. Approaches to the roundabout would have curvilinear alignment to slow the traffic entering the roundabout. Raised medians and Project Alternatives splitter islands would be installed at the approaches and departures. B. Signal controlled — Addition of right -turn lanes and/or left - turn lanes in three of the four directions. Intersection could be controlled by a traffic signal. A single -lane roundabout is recommended for the following reasons: • Increase safety by slowing vehicles though the intersection. Recommendation • Allow for'continuous'trafficflow— decreased delays • Increase in sight distances. • No need for traffic signal maintenance. • Decreased congestion and emissions. PROJEC I PRIORITIES Slower traffic, raised median would separate traffic, reduce severity of accidents. Improvement to sight distance. Vehicles would navigate the roundabout intersection without having to stop. Speeds would be reduced within the roundabout to approximately 15-20 MPH, Mobility bicyclists would be able to ride through the roundabout without being overtaken by a vehicle. Raised median would provide pedestrian refuge. The project area is not located within a ioo-year floodplain; however, culvert Resiliency replacement and drainage/irrigation improvements along this stretch of roadway between Dry Creek and Boulder Creek would increase resiliency. (st t UIniv I,1111 Ituatl;\\ tld ( Illlllty I:IhI ALTERNATIVES fu amw.awOSI! W 1D NRMT•MP V coMmaeaolmlTawrw swzLaw W .. Alternative "A" . —� (Preferred) -- — _ — •^ APPROXIMATE ROW ACGWsmoN- a r ' / O AWVSr IMERSERION TO THE SOWHFAST TO IMPROVE / -� -•illTo:u: lncTrrzr HOLD ' - ....� • HOLD WESTEW EDGE DF ECW WC'R, kAJ.L - - - '�� • HOW NORTHFFN EAGE OF OXFORD ROAD CLN'A"Vi •WIVENQXFORD ROAD SHOULDERS TO IMPROVE SAFET' MLLIANO�- '< nPPRCnwnT? rtcw ♦[wVmorL :. • AVOID IMPACFTO HISTORIC CWEfERY x(I"Pi I \ 1 • BIKE ROUTE WILL BE PEYFRMINED BYTNE FINAL (TYPICAL ROHNOAEOaFDE51GN TH• EDWAYLADROAD P ROSS E SCT1ONS DESCRIGINT"IL ED 9Y 3 ,. •n ING Or vl� i2'lrf lt.�Fr THE CQ POOROAD CROSS SECOONS IN TABLE 14 01 a nIE CDRIuoA PUN ;i ..m.,... �`z'.—_ • W E CURRENT WAY ACOLYSTON IS AL ACnED BASED ON -..v THE ClAiIi MIINICIPK TYRCAL SECTON v a• •"• —� M'•,YWs �M"P • ISMPNPOUVDABOIn DESIGNSPEED / V _____.nu... Alternative "8" East ('ounty Line Road/ •'\ Weld Counh Road I SEGMENT #2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (C6): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT OXFORD ROAD C c CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO Nf WOT ROAD - -- ECLR/WCR1 \APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION-iS GENERAL NOTES: • ADJUST INTERSECTION TO THE SOUTHEAST TO IMPROVE / SAFETY AND SIGHT DISTANCES • HOLD WESTERN EDCCE OF ECLR/WCR1 , I RAISEL? • HOLD NORTHERN EDGE OF OXFORD ROAD .. CONCRETE • WIDEN OXFORD ROAD SHOULDERS TO IMPROVE SAFETY MEDIAN OR • AVOID IMPACT TO HISTORIC CEMETERY XERISCAPF • BIKE ROUTE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE FINAL (TYPICAL) , ROUNDABOUT DESIGNT-1i;;.;jjj ,: • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY % !J THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 12 OF • THE CORRIDOR PLAN ' • RIGHT -OF - ACQUISITION WAY IS ESTIMATED BASED ON '; tPr'"" }iy s u THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION ilI • 15 MPH ROUNDABOUT DESIGN SPEED ilb y rt. _ O `r brN' Flpi r. I. I J fi—a.,=JL .r..3 �.l,�y�yqxn� ma Y w.•J • rw,• —n'P v j &S?R 14 .E 1 E O : rien ML LANE MPH ' r j ' I ---- HISTORIC C'EMETERY APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITfON-fl/ ECLR/WCR1 AND OXFORD ROAD LEGEND --- 4/• EXISTIN4 R14HT OF WAY NF' a/a PROPOSED R14HT OF WAY BASED ON TYPICAL SECTIONS j PROPOSED ED4E OF ASPHALT ----------- Fast County Line Road/Weld County Road i Corridor Plan Gast Counts tine Road/ Weld County Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C6A): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1, AREA PROJECT COORDINATION OVERVIEW This project worksheet has been added to illustrate the potential Project Description addition of two roundabouts at both 119th Street and 115th Street and Oxford Road to control speeds and improve the safety of the intersections. Public comments suggest concerns with traffic speed, unsafe Public Input passing, and safety for bicyclists on Oxford Road. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were in support. A. Construct roundabouts as part of future roadwork. Size Project Alternatives and design to be determined. B. Maintain existing stop -controlled intersections. While the addition of future roundabouts at 115th and 119th Recommendation Streets and Oxford Road were not analyzed as part of the ECLR/WCR 1 Masterplan, the additional roundabouts may provide traffic calming and reduce serious accidents. PROJECT PRIORITIES General safety improvements realized by the addition of roundabouts including slower traffic and raised medians to separate traffic and reduce severity of accidents. Vehicles would navigate roundabout intersections without having to stop. Since speeds would be reduced within the roundabouts to approximately 15-20 MPH, Mobility bicyclists would be able to ride through the roundabout without being overtaken by a vehicle. Resiliency Not analyzed as part of the ECLR/WCR 1 Master Plan. I,aut C'uuntv lint it.'d/\\tIcI C'UIIuty Rand i RECOMMENDED PROJECT COORDINATION East County Line Road/ rs Weld County Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C6A): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1, AREA PROJECT COORDINATION ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENTS ra OXFORD ROAD WCRis FUTURE ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENTS ' Y H . •••• •t;1_ - . ••, •H: r-1 •� _f-,= .-. ` WCRi.6 _!{ 4.f .. - :. - s , r PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS J PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT ' IMPROVEMENTS 3 NIWOT ROAD ; .„- w . t s c ECLR/WCR1 AND SURROUNDING AREA PROJECT COORDINATION RECOMMENDATION LEGEND 4ENERAL NOTES: • COORDINATE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF NIWOT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, WCR16a IMPROVEMENTS, AND "rti, 73 OXFORD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 0 500 w SCALE IN FEET East County Line Road/Weld County Road I. East County Line Road) ' R e1d Country Road 1 SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C8): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT WELD COUNTY ROAD 16.5 OVERVIEW Improvements to this intersection include reducing speeds, allowing for increased capacity, and improving safety. Traffic volume on WCR 16.5 is projected to increase as development to Project Description the east occurs. Recommended improvements also include removing the sub -standard vertical curve south of WCR 16.5 which will improve safety by increasing visibility and access to and from the existing western driveways. Safety issues associated with passing on a double yellow line/speeding, and poor visibility/sight distance and adding a Public Input third lane through this area. Comments on the proposed recommendation were in support of the proposed roundabout as an effective solution to address multiple community concerns. A. Construct a single lane roundabout slightly northeast of the current intersection. Existing driveways would reconfigure to allow safe access to the roundabout. B. Add a center turn lane to WCR 16.5 to improve access for Project Alternatives left turning vehicles and reduce the chance of a rear end collision for turning vehicles. C. Add a raised median to WCR 16.5 to control access. Re- route driveways and create a common driveway across from WCR 16 Eh. This alternative would severely restrict access relative to Alternative "B". Alternative "A" is recommended because it does the best job of Recommendation fulfilling the project objectives of lowering speeds, increasing safety, and allowing for future increased capacity. Alternative "A" is also the alternative desired by adjacent property owners. PROJECT PRIORITIES Improving the vertical profile of the roadway would increase sight distance and vehicles would navigate the roundabout intersection without having to stop. Speeds would be reduced within the roundabout to approximately 15-zo MPH, bicyclists would be able to ride through the roundabout without being overtaken by a vehicle. Raised median would provide pedestrian refuge. The intersection is not located within a 100 -year floodplain; however, culvert Resiliency replacement and drainage improvements at this location between Dry Creek and Boulder Creek would increase resiliency. ' sI U'nuntc I-int RO'Id FcI(I CI)uulk R1,1,I Alternative "A" (Preferred) Alternative "B" ALTERNATIVES —COPdiOVR rMPRWyJ1f Nr TV IT'w V' RCAF I f CIW'.�C0.L LOWER NOAO St APPWXIMATFLY{ INCHES TO COWIER VEAPCAL SICNT IS5VL5 4ENEML NOTES LOWER MAD PROFILE SOOIN OF ut TO IMPROVE EAEEIY AND VENIICRL s14NT DISTANCE • WORKWrtN WIN COMPMYO PONTIAL DiCN IMPACTS • MNNTNN IXKTu4 ACCESSES TE CI ,. r1A'41RN4ATWN UNE DAKiID E fNp1E5 EXISTING R OnLE N To WIDna WAD )STNS floP0 ED PROP RENT: 10 PMWATE PROPER I. InVxPrt Nt NI 1u MINOI gVAJ I LCIWVICRI - - u J R :3r.Y="Yl1.a., .. L\"+-..4V'"•�Y— n LOMFF ROAD Or ncly 4 N01 RS4 ES � TO COR RECT vrinCAL 514NT I550E5 WRTCAL PROFILE NEEDS TO lE / LOWER EXISTN4 WAD APM07JMMY GENERA. NOTES IAJFR MAD RPOEILE sfyM OP SN MPIi'7/ Vli \ A✓N( IMATE NO W A (. lr6l i M— cL 'WL:R, .v o ATP.^ Le;Fmv Nm � 1NOPs.ur Wm p i�4N� • Y E/ISAAC Igor/A. IOa1 . / fFtsntt V To ROAD WAD F HE nonu D REM ECLR/wCR. ANAWCuaa{ LE 1;Erlr. �N� R�Iryl"pll"V31 �M �M•MRY"rtYWVW\ 7r� ir111f4MN1F ,YI—Q\VAWc m\weru.r Yrt. East Counh Line Road; Weld Counts Road I SEGMENT #2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (CS): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT WELD COUNTY ROAD 16.5 r_- , . . .- I CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO NIWOT ROAD 1' s .....`G• —/^_r.._._... z/.0.10e..... v.TIM... ECLR/WCR1 • - d j LOWER ROAD BY APPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES TO CORRECT VERTICAL SIGHT ISSUES H. EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE VERTICAL PROFILE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED LOWER EXISTING ROAD APPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES GENERAL NOTES: * LOWER ROAD PROFILE SOUTH OF $6x /EXISTING TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND VERTICAL / PROFILE SIGHT DISTANCE • WORK WITH DITCH COMPANY ON POTENTIAL PITCH IMPACTS • MAINTAIN EXISTING ACCESSES TO PROPERTIES • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WfPTH'_ DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SEC7iONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION -i-i_i PROPOSED PROFILE 1 i� YIELB y . Li is MPH 11 APPaoxrMATE ROW ACQUISITION -'r RAISED % �;� CONCRETE XERISCAPE 3 ECLR/WCRI- AND WCR L61 LEGEND (TYPICAL) -.n EXISTING IU411T OF WAY I. / .....__.,_.... PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY BASED / ON TYPICAL SECTIONS 0 40 Ho PROPOSED ED4E OF ASPHALT I EXK71N4 IRRIGATION PIPE SCALE IN FEET hest Minot) lint Road/W1'cld Count Road i Corridor Plan East County Line Road/ Weld (ounh Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C1O): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT NIWOT ROAD OVERVIEW The proposed project at ECLR/WCR i and Niwot Road would Project Description improve the existing one-way stop -controlled intersection with a new single -lane roundabout and reduce excessive speeds when coupled with other roundabouts along the corridor. Public concerns included safety and mobility issues associated with lack of bicycle facilities, speed, commuter traffic, sight Public Input distance, and heavy industrial truck traffic. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were mostly in support, with some concerns on the ability of other drivers to safety adapt to a roundabout. Two intersection alternatives were analyzed: A. Roundabout — The center of the roundabout would be roughly equal to the center of the existing intersection. Approaches to the roundabout would have curvilinear alignment to slow the traffic entering the roundabout. Project Alternatives Raised medians and splitter islands would be installed at the approaches and departures. B. Stop -controlled — Addition of a southbound right -turn lanes and a northbound left -turn lane and wider shoulders on both sides. A single -lane roundabout is recommended to increase safety by Recommendation slowing vehicles though the intersection. A roundabout is not required for traffic congestion purposes but is recommended as a traffic calming alternative. PROJECT PRIORITIES Safety would be improved with slower traffic, and the raised median would separate traffic and reduce severity of accidents. Vehicles would be able to navigate the roundabout intersection without having to stop. Speeds would be reduced within the roundabout to approximately 15 - Mobility 20 MPH, bicyclists would be able to ride through the roundabout without being overtaken by a vehicle and raised medians would provide pedestrian refuge. The project area is not located within a too -year floodplain; however, culvert Resiliency replacement and drainage/irrigation improvements along this stretch of roadway between Dry Creek and Boulder Creek would increase resiliency. L1 l t u(llliv lint Itll;ul!1\ ill ( minty 1<uud Alternative "A" (Preferred) Alternative "8" ALTERNATIVES - 1 sroP— I COR JPOR IMiRC'A N!ur IO 41411WAv 32 p M�UIM1V. kdU /.000!91')-p' LANE Wiums P••.1. (i )ARV ROM CROSS IA EMECORRIOORPUN 1(( ON IS ESTIMATED MUNIOPAL LYPICµ 1i I h ' 'I. CORPIOOII MP4oviMENT IO O,,;Q v R0AL) m x, ECLR/WCRi AND NIWOT ROAD LEGEND I vYNY - _w -£w• East ('ountv Line RoatL' W eW ('ounq Road I SEGMENT #2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (do): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT NIWOT ROAD saflaJ Q ro o 3 • CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO HIC(HWAY 52 ECLR/WCR1 -- viK ____ 'v' APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -13' . RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN OR XERISCAPE (TYPICAL)- GENERAL NOTES: • SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE ROUNDABOUT MAYBE ADJUSTED DURING DESIGN • THE ROUNDABOUT PRIMARILY SERVES AS A TRAFFIC CALMIN4 MEASURE AND IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN INTERSECTION FUNCTIONALITY • IMPACT TO SURROUNDING IRR1QAT1ON DITCHES • BIKE ROUTE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE FINAL ROUNDABOUT DES14N • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION SPEED Fast t aunt) Line Road/AVeld l:ounty K,i iiI I MPH] 1 �- I MAY USE t1LL LANE h +n _ APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -51 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO WCR16 ECLR/WCR1 AND NIWOT ROAD LEGENND •N EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY --- R/I PR0POSEP RIGHT OF WAY BASED 0�_ 80 ON TYPICAL SECTIONS ------ PR0POSEP ED4E OF ASPHALT ernIeIII av East Counh Line Road/ Weld Counh Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C12): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE OVERVIEW Replace the existing bridge with new structure(s) which would pass lou-year flows under ECLR/WCR 1. Due to current creek Project Description configuration and a non-standard bridge, less than 30% of 2O13 flood flows passed under the roadway. The remaining 7O% flowed over the road, both south and north of the bridge. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were in Public Input support. Comments included interest for options for cyclists during construction. Project Alternatives N/A Develop a design which includes a combination of improvements to Recommendation Boulder Creek and the construction of new bridge structures to allow too -year flows to pass under the roadway. PROJECT PRIORITIES Safety would be improved by allowing the roadway to stay open, thereby allowing north -south passage during a flood emergency. Wider shoulders and higher barriers would provide safety for cyclist. Multi modal mobility through this section of the corridor would not be disrupted by storm flows less than the 1OO-year event. Bridge would be widened to allow for standard shoulders. The project area is located within a ion -year floodplain. Improvements would eliminate loo -year flows from overtopping the road and reduce the area of the Resiliency Boulder Creek floodplain near the bridge. Improvements could supply roadway resiliency in storm event over too -year. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT I'.-1511 I JIE IllV LIIIt' IZ I).ltIi\\v' k! ('n lII)tA IZua d I 0111'1 I(II)1 1'1;111 S Fast (bunt Line Ron& N dd (buntt Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C12): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE East CLun[y Line kuad/1%cld County Road i /R\ Fast Count, line Road! 4 Weld Count, Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C13): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT MINERAL ROAD/ HIGHWAY 52 OVERVIEW Existing traffic signals are operated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Traffic analyses indicate that southbound Project Description and northbound right turn lanes would be needed to accommodate 2040 volumes of ECLR/WCR 1. Additionally, there is a need to increase storage and add shoulders. Public comments suggest the need for improved signal timing, Public Input addition of turn lanes and increased driveway spacing away from the intersection. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were mostly in support. CDOT is in the early stages of preparing a Planning and Project Alternatives Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study on State Highway 52. Future designs at this intersection must be coordinated with CDOT. • The addition of southbound and northbound right turn lanes and designing additional storage length to the existing right Recommendation and left turn lanes. • Future widening should occur west of the existing right-of-way as not to further encroach into the residential property on the northeast corner. PROJECT PRIORITIES Accidents are moderately high at this intersection, with a large amount being 'rear -end' accidents. The addition and improvement of turn lanes, along with the addition of shoulders should increase safety on ECLR/ WCR i. Improvements to the signalized intersection should be designed to allow full movements for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Added/improved turn lanes would reduce motorist delay. me project area is located wtmm me boulder ureelc 100 -year tlooaplam; Resiliency therefore, intersection improvements would need to consider resiliency features such as slope revetment/stabilization and drainage improvements. RECOMMENDED IMn"?OVEMENTS `' y J - -- i` _ (4 lea. v. AJwWLYT iO NiWOT FO/.➢ -...-- r DCIGIDOII IMR40VEa[NSTO RBN09Nn ROAO� '/ �� IP4 AYV.bVMAIL Faw AIYU $ f 'I i �� I I L FN ADD CIIHB e) • ADDH$flOC pEft5 OggNRN UNE • hIDEN SWIDERSEOR FOR NO • EwnrAW SWBAfl RA NOAV%.aY to ANDSOV(NsovuoOPERl IUPNWL TLNiF,^ •♦WNO NATE SISPNE OFNETOADWAY T AY= RROPERT' WEALT ECLlLWCR3 AND $H52/MINERAL ROAD LECIENP • OWAYEa1PROV140 LIME wotMn UCWAYsl B61N4 %.WNED RQAV —mtwmnW♦u• � CRSSSROADWAY IAYW W AND .a f T o"DoRV A 111E STANOMD ROnI: CROSSSELWANSW TABLE 1305 TIM CORNPoARLW �I+—•♦eromwwnuw,wo ♦ w • PIG Nf-Of-WAYACQVInn0 ESTNA1r WED ON1 NBRENr NVNK,PAL °i 4W'10i° ___~ T91GL5lrnoN I . .. . .•t._ •rrooua�w•. ?,it Clnuuv Line Ituud/ AV('Id County Rnnd I Corridur Plan /R► East (aunt Line Road/ r'\ Weld ('aunt Road I SEGMENT #2 RECOMMENDATION (C13): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT MINERAL ROAD HIGHWAY 52 ..- -. . .. O •I •A . e. At • 3 ECLR/WCR1 - 1 - . e . . na CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO KENOSHA ROAD. APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -5' GENERAL NOTES: x T. • ADD SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE • WIDEN SHOULDERS FOR SAFETY 0. 3 • EXTEND STORAGE BAYS FOR NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND TURNING TRAFFIC s r ' • MAINTAIN EASTERN EDGE OF ROADWAY TO MINIMIZE PROPERTY IMPACT •! v• • COORDINATE IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE HIGHWAY 52 BEIN4 PLANNED BY CDOT. r'' x • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD w CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL rn TYPICAL SECTION Est Clu nt) Line Road/Weld County Road i v. . APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -3' ny— CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT TO NIWOT ROAD 1� I ECLR/WCR1 AND SH52/MINERAL ROAD LEG — -• . - EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY sia re/V PROPOSED RI4HT OF WAY BASED 0 20 41 ,,. ON TYPICAL 5ECRONS Y t PROPOSED EPCE OF ASPHALT SCALE IN FEET mil► East Counh Line Road/ Weld County Road I SEGMENT #3 RECOMMENDATION (E2): EAST COUNTY LINE Ro4n/WEiD COUNTY ROAn 14T COAL CREEK BRIDGE OVERVIEW Replace the existing bridge with a new structure which would pass loo -year flows under ECLR/WCR t. Icon Engineering completed a Project Description conceptual design of a new bridge in 2018. The proposed channel and bridge location would be dependent on the selected improvements of Kenosha Road included in project Ei of this master plan. Public Input Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were in support. The location of the proposed bridge would be dependent on the Project Alternatives selected improvements of Kenosha Road included in project Ei of this master plan. Develop a design to include a combination of improvements to Recommendation Coal Creek and the construction of new bridge structure to allow too -year flows to pass under the roadway. PROJECT PRIORITIES Safety would be improved by allowing the roadway to stay open, thereby allowing north -south passage during a flood emergency. Multimodal mobility through this section of the corridor would not be disrupted Mobility by storm flows less than the too -year event. A proposed regional multi -use trail along Coal Creek would greatly increase non -motorized mobility. The project area is located within a loo -year floodplain. Improvements would eliminate too -year flows from overtopping the road and reduce the area of the Resiliency Coal Creek floodplain near the bridge. Improvements could supply roadway resiliency in storm event over too -year. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT :,ia t (ninty Lint' ku,ul/\\ rId (utility kund i Cot I [([()I PLnt East County Line Road/ Weld County Road I SEGMENT #3 RECOMMENDATION (E2): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT COAL CREEK BRIDGE ECLR/WCR1 i PROPOSED BRIDGEREPLACEMENT K ,b•t'" GENERAL NOTES: • SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE BRIDGE MAYBE ADJUSTED DURING DESIGN • BRIDGE ESTIMATES BASED ON THE COAL CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION MASTER PLAN PUBLISHED BY ICON ENGfNEERING IN 2O18 • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RfC.HT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTfMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION East County Line Road/Weld County Road i -i_ Corridor Plan 1 it � FUTURE COAL CREEK REALIGNMENT ... e$ ECLR/WCR1 AND COAL CREEK SR(DGE LEGEND — EXISTIN4 R14HT OF WAY 11/0 - PROPOSED R14HT OF WAY BASED o 40 w ON TYPICAL SECTIONS II PROPOSED EDGE OF ASP4ALt sr_a F IN FFFT East County Line Road/ Weld County Road I OVERVIEW This proposed realignment project includes two intersections along ECLR/WCR 1, Project Description the first at Kenosha Road and the second at WCR 10.5. The two intersections are currently offset by a quarter of a mile. All alternatives are designed to handle 2040 traffic. Public comments suggest the need for improved safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, difficult vehicular turning movements, and poor visibility. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were mostly in support, with some concerns on the ability of other drivers to safety adapt to a roundabout. Input suggested that the proposed Public Input recommendation would make it safer to turn left from Kenosha onto ECLR/WCR1. Commentors also expressed interest to understand the ways that a roundabout design could handle large farm tractors and equipment. Input also suggested an interest to understand options for safe cyclist use of roundabouts and much safer to turn left from Kenosha onto Countyline. Three alternatives were analyzed: A. Double Roundabouts— Both the Kenosha Road and WCR 10.5 intersections would receive a 3 -legged roundabout. B. Roundabout and stop -control — The addition of a roundabout at Kenosha, and Project Alternatives the addition of right turn and left turn lanes at the WCR 10.5 intersection. WCR 10.5 would remain stop sign controlled. C. Single Roundabout — Realign Kenosha Road to the southeast to align with WCR 10.5. WCR 10.5 would also be realigned to the northwest as illustrated in the exhibit. A roundabout would be added to intersect/combine all four roadway legs into one intersection. It is recommended that a single lane roundabout be added at both the Kenosha Recommendation Road/ECLR and WCR 10.5/ECLR intersections to increase safety by slowing vehicles though the intersections. A new bridge over Coal Creek would be installed just south of WCR 10.5. PROJECT PRIORITIES Slower traffic, raised median would separate traffic, reduce severity of accidents at Kenosha and at WCR 10.5. Vehicles would navigate the roundabout intersections without having to stop. Since speeds would be reduced within the roundabout to approximately 15-20 MPH, bicyclists would be able to ride through the roundabout without being overtaken by a vehicle. The addition of the roundabouts would decrease vehicle delays. The project area is located within the 100 -year floodplain of Boulder Creek/Coal Creek; therefore, Resiliency intersection and roadway improvements would be designed in conjunction with the flood improvement design. East Count)' Line Road/Weld Counts Road t Alternative "A" (Preferred) Alternative "B" Alternative "C" Corridor Plan ALTERNATIVES _, i m C.av�..:...0 aw..:x iuw .r ,t .t. p.«i•. y. East County Line Road/ Weld County Road I 1MY USE - LL LAKE 77 7 _ _ I-APPROXIMATES ROW ACQUISITION-&' OSHA ROAp. MAY USE J Lml ti REPLACE BRIDGE RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN OR XERISCAPE (TYPICAL)- - FUTURE REALGGNEV COAL CREEK .I ai M1"*ItI.III* � Q 4 GENERAL NOTES: I, • COAL CREEK TO BE REALIGNED IN THE FUTURE PER THE ICON ENGINEERING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT ' p • COAL CREEK BRIDGE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED IN THE FUTURE TO COORDINATE WITH THE ICON ENGINEERING 13 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT AND THE ECLR/WCRi m l MASTER PLAN -- • IMPROVE BOTH CW BIXLER BLVD- RIGHT TURN LANES TO THE SOUTH TO MEET AASHTO STANDARDS • PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT TO BE DESIGNED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FLOOD MITIGATION > • BIKE ROUTE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE FINAL ROUNDABOUT DESIGN Hy v, • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY ; THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL SECTION • is MPH ROUNDABOUT DESIGN SPEED �♦ i -{ 15 MPH 71: -- iI 1J MPH APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -20' EXISTING OIL f3A ITERY may,--v..- WCR�-0? FUTURE COAL CREEK r RIDGE ECLR/WCR1 AND KENOSHA ROAD/WCR1O2 LEGEND •/• EXISTIN4 RIGHT OF WAY Pm PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY BASED ON TYPICAL SECTIONS 0 ,00 200 PROPOSED EDGE OF ASPHALT SCALE IN FEET Fast County Line Road/Weld County Road I Corridor Plan /!A East ('ount% Line Road/ •'\', N eld County Road I SEGMENT #3 RECOMMENDATION (E4): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY RoAn 1 , KENOSHA ROAD AT COAL CREEK BRIDGE OVERVIEW Replace the existing bridge with a new structure which would pass too -year flows under Kenosha Road. This project would be Project Description completed in conjunction with projects E3 (Kenosha Road/WCR ro.g) of this master plan. Icon Engineering completed a Coal Creek Restoration Plan that can assist with design. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendation were in support. Commentors expressed interest to better understand the interaction between the proposed recommendation and Public Input Erie's plan to extend the Coal Creek Trail adjacent to the (realigned) Coal Creek drainage, as well as the interaction between the bike lanes in the proposed recommendation and additional bike lanes in other planning efforts. Project Alternatives N/A Develop a design to include a combination of improvements to Recommendation Coal Creek and the construction of new bridge structure to allow loo -year flows to pass under the roadway. PROJECT PRIORITIES Safety would be improved by allowing the roadway to stay open, thereby allowing East-West passage and access to ECLR during a flood emergency. Shoulders would be widened on the bridge. Multi modal mobility through this section of the corridor would not be M° disrupted by storm flows less than the loo -year event. The project area is located within a too -year floodplain. Improvements would Resiliency eliminate loo -year flows from overtopping Kenosha road and reduce the area of the Coal Creek floodplain near the bridge. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT East Count) Line Road/Weld County Ruatl i Cnrriclui 1'I,iu Earl C'ounh Line Road/ Well Countq Road I SEGMENT #3 RECOMMENDATION (E4): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELD COUNTY ROAD 1, KENOSHA ROAD AT COAL CREEK BRIDGE Fast (bunt} Line Road/Weld County Road i mil► East Counts Line Road/ S Weld County Road I SEGMENT #3 RECOMMENDATION (E6): EAST COUNTY LINE ROAD/WELL COUNTY ROAD 1 AT JAY ROAD/CHEESMAN STREET OVERVIEW ALTERNATIVES The proposed project would improve the ECLR/WCR i and Jay Road/Cheesman Street four-way stop -controlled intersection Project Description with a traffic signal to meet future traffic demand. Intersection improvements would be designed to improve approaches and bicycle and pedestrian safety in a school zone area. Public comments suggest concerns for child safety/sidewalk, bicycle and crosswalk improvements and congestion near the Public Input elementary school, traffic, visibility issues and speeding. Comments and polls on the proposed recommendations were mostly in support, with a shared interest to preserve the small- town character of the area. Two alternatives were analyzed: A. Traffic Signal — Addition of left turn and right -turn lanes. The addition of a traffic signal. B. Roundabout — The center of the roundabout would be north Project Alternatives of the existing intersection. Approaches to the roundabout would have curvilinear alignment to slow the traffic entering the roundabout. Raised medians and splitter islands would be installed at the approaches and departures. This option would require large right-of-way takes. A conventional signalized intersection is recommended at this intersection for the following reasons: Recommendation • Less right-of-way acquisition and impacts to adjacent businesses, compared to a roundabout. • More conventional intersection for bicycle and pedestrian crossing, especially elementary students. PROJECT PRIORITIES Safety would be improved with widened shoulders and turn lanes. The traffic signal would be design with the nearby schools in mind. Added lanes would increase vehicle mobility. The traffic signal would increase Mobility mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists as future traffic volumes increase. Connectivity to regional trail system would also improve mobility. The project area is not located within a too -year floodplain; however, proposed Resiliency drainage and intersection improvements would increase resiliency south of Coal Creek. Alternative "A" (Preferred) Alternative "B" i ` \ PftU%LMAIE ROW.QQ W5IMN SE' s t' R C.. llIAJe Grv. Sv I IML I ILrt! 'v._"0. •M 1 �1k-_/) 1) ___ - __ max • tAROt PRIVATE WWPERIYACCOISIOON REODIRED • . i - , 1 • APR WNLRETE MULTUSE PbH TO CDNNECFTO TNC ;�3 - xilr ` l • . FVNRE COAL CREEK TRNL I PN$EO CONCRETE MEDWI / ... RFMO� ' i • WCW FD ololWnC'CA w OP%ERK AIRIE w"0 ` ,. `• �E NF�� Ayq[pJ(µIATF ROW ACOWJIEa,N-6'� • C T!s OYANLT VED6TR(W LROS-.n�...�� • w+�c. • &PDUN ABOiT DE.HLN FEERMINED BY THE WAL • CORRIDOR NIMWEMENf TO WLRfOyE(NOCNA ROAD • ROADWAYLAYOUISAND LANE WIDMS DESCWBED BY z ECLR/WCR1 AND JAY ROAD/CHEESMAN STREET LEGEND TIE nANDARD ROAD CROSS SECONS IN TA!U %A I`.. Sj ._ ` —. • _ ._.. Of TR CORRIDOR PLW , - us•ro o.r .s. •• RIO NT -OF -WAY ACyUD'TON IS ESTNIATED BASED Ox N .. I —N— weN•w•w.wMNv �'�- VHECVMEMTMUNICIPALT9ICALSFClpN a: •" : °qq: , rmKnNPew I.'ast County Line Road/bveld Count o Road t CJ1'I1Rtol flan East County Line Road/ Weld County Road I `+«R4rwNT #3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (E6): EAST COUNTY LINE ROADIWFLD COUNTY ROAD 1 AT JAY ROAD/CHEESMAN STREET APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUfSITION-6' Tfl 7. s �1 ECLILWCRJ. --- -'- APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -17'— • NO TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ADDED • ADD LEFT TURN LANES ON ECLR/WCRI • WIDENING SHOULDERS TO IMPROVE SAFETY • ADD CONCRETE MULTIUSE PATH TO CONNECT TO THE FUTURE COAL CREEK TRAIL • ROADWAY LAYOUTS AND LANE WIDTHS DESCRIBED BY THE STANDARD ROAD CROSS SECTIONS IN TABLE 1.2 OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN • RfGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL TYPICAL POTENTIALLY ADD MEDIAN�REFUGE FOR PEDESTRIANS CONTINUE CONCRETE TRAIL TO FUTURE COAL CREEK TRAIL APPROXIMATE ROW ACQU:SITION-18 •. CORRIDOR 1MPROVEMENTTO WCR1-o? APPROXIMATE ROW ACQUISITION -6' 1. POTENTIALLY ADD MEDIAN REFUGE FOR PEDESTRIANS ' �' w ® x ECLR/WCR1 AND JAY ROAD/CHEESMAN STREET LEGEND W Pn '" P R/+ EXISfnN4 R14Hr OF WAY E„p VP PROPOSED R14Hi OF WAY BASED 0 20 40 • ON TYPICAL SECTIONS �PROPOSED E04E OF ASPHALT 1�Q � Cnu G,u CLCT East County Line Road/Weld County Road i Curric.lur Plan oun oun Line oad oad 1 Public Involvement Repo March 2021 East County Line Road Master Plan East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 330 Public Involvement Report PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to summarize the public involvement outreach efforts to -date, as well as provide a comprehensive overview of the public feedback received between May and June 2019 and again between December 2020 and January 2021. The project team implemented several public involvement techniques to facilitate direct and web -based interaction with citizens to discuss their issues, concerns and ideas related to the East County Line Road Corridor extending from the City of Longmont, through Boulder County, to the City of Erie. Public participation is essential in evaluating and developing possible improvements. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Representatives from Boulder County, Weld County, City of Longmont, Town of Erie and J -U -B Engineers/The Langdon Group (JUB/TLG) employed a comprehensive public outreach strategy to evaluate the needs, issues and opportunities along East County Line Road. Multiple methods were used to notify stakeholders about the project and invite them to participate in the process. The first public comment period, held from May 3 to June 30, 2019, focused on existing conditions, concerns and ideas. Using the collected data, a series of recommended project improvements were developed. The proposed project recommendations were then used to guide the second round of public comments, collected by virtual open house and online interactive map between December 9, 2020 and January 8, 2021. Below is an overview of public involvement and outreach activities that occurred through the two public comment periods. Outreach Efforts Prior to Open House Events Information and project details were posted on Boulder County's website including a link to the 3P Visual map, which allowed stakeholders to provide comments about the project area during the comment period. Online Interactive Map — 3P Visual On May 3, 2019, the online comment tool, 3P Visual, was launched. The 3P Visual tool is an interactive comment map that allows users to click on a specific location and provide a comment on that location. The initial 3P visual map provided community members the opportunity to identify areas of concern along the existing corridor. Using the proposed project recommendations, a second 3P Visual was developed and launched on December 9, 2020. The interactive map presented project recommendations along the corridor and if clicked on, provided community members with additional information on each of the projects and an opportunity to leave comments. The comment period closed on January 8, 2021. The second round of online public input received 87 comments. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 331 The Boulder County and JUB/TLG project team worked together to identify a comprehensive list of stakeholders (including property and business owners along the corridor) with potential interest in participating in the plan update. These stakeholders were then informed of project activities through fliers, mailed postcards, website postings, e -mails, social media posts, a A press release, and local media. Letters were also mailed to property owners along the corridor limits. Public Open House On May 16, 2019, a public open house was held to visit with the public and collect feedback about a°'m�"`fl )lS East County Line Road. The project team replicated 3P Visual by providing maps, stickers and flipcharts so participants could add their comments directly to the location of concern within the study area. Display maps were broken down by corridor segments and project staff were on hand to answer questions and have discussions about the corridor. Valuable insights were gathered about corridor issues and recommended improvements. Attendees were provided with five numbered sticker dots to place on the general comment maps. Attendees then placed the numbered stickers on the comment maps and wrote the corresponding number and comment on a flip chart next to the map. Attendees were also given the opportunity to provide input on comment forms. ■ 62 meeting attendees • 78 comments received at the open house ■ 102 online comments received during comment period Virtual Open Houses Four virtual public open houses were held in December and January 2021 to present and solicit feedback on the proposed project recommendations to the public. On December 15, 16 and 17, 2020 virtual open houses were held each for the Longmont, Boulder/Weld Counties and Erie segments of the ccrridor. A fourth open house was held on January 20, 2021 focused on the proposed recommendations for Weld County Road (WCR) 16.5 intersection. The virtual open houses included a map and diagram -based presentation on the proposed recommendations, an interactive discussion, and question and answer session with community members. Virtual Open House attendance • Erie Segment — 33 ■ Boulder/ Weld County segment — 28 • Longmont segment — 42 ■ WCR 16.5 intersection —17 East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 332 3P VISUAL COMMENT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Overall Comment Breakdown Comment Source Online Interactive Map Open House TOTAL Number of Comments 102 78 180 Comment Breakdown by Category Percent Total 57% 43% 100% All comments received in the first round of public input were separated into four categories: access, safety, congestion, bike/pedestrian, or other. Comments were further analyzed to specify which segments received the most comments in the project area and the issues associated with those geographical locations. In addition, comments were analyzed to determine top priorities/improvements for high comment geographical locations. The table below identifies the segments, priorities, and issues/improvements identified by the public. Comment Category Number of Comments Percent Total Access 13 7% Safety 72 40% Congestion 30 17% Bike/Pedestrian 20 11% Other 45 25% TOTAL 180 100% Comment Breakdown by Project Poll results were collected from attendees at the virtual open house events and participants using the online interactive map. For each proposed recommendation, both groups were asked: Are you comfortable with the proposed project recommendations in this segment? For Weld County Road 16.5 (C8), participants were instead asked: Are you comfortable with exploring the roundabout option for 16.5 (C8)? The four response choices for both questions were: 1) Yes — Comfortable, 2) Yes — Somewhat comfortable, 3) No — I have concerns, and 4) I need more information. The table below identifies the projects and the responses collected from attendees at the virtual open house. Yes — Yes — Somewhat No — I have I need more Project Comfortable comfortable concerns information (L1) Ute/Highway 66 14 1 4 (L3) 17th Ave Intersection 9 2 1 East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 333 Project (L6) Great Western/Zlaten Dr to Vrain Creek (C3) Dry Creek Bridge (C4) Pike Road/Weld County Road 20.5 (C6) Oxford Road (C8) Weld County Road 16.5 Roundabout (C10) Niwot Road (C12) Boulder Creek Bridge (C13) Mineral Ridge/Highway 52 (E3) Kenosha Road/Weld County Road 10.5 (E4) ECLR/WCR Bridge over Coal Creek (E6) Jay Road/Cheesman Street Yes — Yes — Somewhat No — I have I need more Comfortable comfortable concerns information 4 4 6 3 5 8 7 6 7 I'• f� Comment Breakdown by Segment 31 C 4 3 2 3 2 1 1 N 2 E 1 3 1 2 2 1 Using the same poll results collected from attendees at the virtual open house events and participants using the online interactive map, responses were separated by corridor segment and further analyzed to identify how comfortable participants are with the recommended improvements. In the online open houses, participants' concerns were discussed and clarified. Yes — Comfortable Yes — Somewhat comfortable No —I I have concerns I need more information TOTAL City of Longmont 35 17 29 1 82 Boulder County 44 25 21 4 94 Town of Erie Percent Total 27 46% 6 21% 17 29% 3 4% 53 100% East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 334 1 City of Longmont Area (49 comments) _ 2 Boulder/Weld County Area (85 comments) 3 Town of Erie Area (46 comments) • Congestion .. Priorities„ . Bike/Pedestrian . Safety . Safety • Congestion . Access • Right-of-way • Add turn lanes at the following locations: o E Ken Pratt Blvd. o Zlaten Drive Implement no passing zones o Highway 26 . Protected bike lanes throughout the corridor • Increase number of lanes at the following . Poor visibility at the following intersections: Protected bikes lanes throughout the corridor locations: o Oxford Road . Add turn lanes at the following locations: o E 9th Avenue — SH 66 o WCR 16.5 o SH 52 o Near the intersection of E 17" Avenue o Nimot Road o Buffalo Road Issues/Improvements • Protected bike lanes along corridor and around . Install traffic signals at the following locations: o Westview Road Spring Gulch Trail o Oxford Road/WRC 18 o Kenosha Road • Install traffic signals or roundabouts at the o SH 52 o CR 101.5 following locations: . Add turn lanes at the following locations: o Bixler Road o Highway 56 o Oxford Road Evans Street o E i" Avenue o WCR 20.5 o E 9u' Avenue Right turn lane on SH 52 and Mineral Road Keep current ROW and do not encroach on property lines from SH 66 — WCR 28 *Priorities are listed in order of importance based on number of comments in that category. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices General Analysis ■ Most Comments - Segment 2 (Boulder/Weld County) generated the most comments. The most comments were located in the Boulder/Weld County segment between WCR 18 and WCR 16.5. Many of these comments were regarding lack of visibility, and the need to add turn lanes and install traffic signals within that section of the corridor. ■ Top Priority/Category - Safety was the most categorized comment, followed by Congestion and Bike/Pedestrian concerns. Many safety concerns included an element of bike/pedestrian issues as it was expressed that protected bike lanes should be implemented throughout the corridor. TOP FIVE THEMES/CONCERNS Public Comment Priority List 1. 2. 3 4. 5171 ATTACHMENTS Vehicle Safety Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Congestion Traffic Flow/Adding Turn Lanes Adding Traffic Signals ■ Public Comment Maps • Density of 3P Visual Comments • All Public Comments • Access • Safety • Congestion • Bike/Pedestrian • Other ■ Study Area Comments • Map book • 3P Visual Comment Matrix East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 336 East County Line Road %/10-3rLL; rici(i East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 337 Density of 3P Visual Comments ! °_ High Low Segments Se mm1 WI . [nyN logmont OLgmenl e]. aeolrtweh iWnry Segmem ea rownol Er4 0 0.5 1 2 Miles East County Line Road/Weld County Road I Corridor Plan I Appendices l 338 49 Comments SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT 85 Comments 46 Comments SEGMENT #2 - BOULDER/WELD COUNTY 1 corridor Plan I Appendices I d`I NORTH SF 'MENT #1 - CITY OF LONCMMflN'T Study Area Comments Access (13) CrZrMENT #2 - BOULDERIWELD COUNTY my Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices NORTH p I` n ��:Y2�u Y[� vN WCIILC.a,m.wny ti } ^ G�i9f:G' axnso� 1I_ �qq g �A ••_ 'H F ' am �fl i. Y�V�4 • .B ¢ S i w� �n r aE jjt 1 r' � f �. y SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT Study Area Comments Congestion (30) East SEGMENT #2 - BOULDER/WELD COUNTY Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices NORTH SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT SEGMENT #2 - BOULDER/WELD COUNTY Corridor Plan I Appendices NORTH SEGMENT #1 - CITY OF LONGMONT SEGMENT #2 - BOULDERIWELP (%fi!!NTY P .1 East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices NORTH East County Line Road Master Plan East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 345 Comment Type f.A • Safety C Congesti. • Peclestri: Access • Oher Segments QSegment Segment Seer^'^f A NORTH as Comment Type e` • Safety _s` S 7 J Congestion — 4 a� • Pedestrian/Bicycle Access t i • Other t. Segment, i ® Segment ul City of Longmont QSegment $2- Boulder/Weld County t s > Segment#3-Townot Erie L r L • @ 9 e.K 9 . ..... _. u+• � � � v iSZ " A NORTH . Rte- .,�M` • ;...r yS I i fir''. ' . �,tl�li!!!� lltw+wE i 33♦i s a. ° i I.. •h f �� ' .. 0.4 si Miles Comment Type ax•• Safety Congestion • Pedestrian / Bicycle Access • Other Segments OSegment #' - City of Longmont ® Segment #; - Boulder/Weld County Segment 03 - Town of Erie • L el A NORTH is Comment Comment Segment Comment Number Type 1 Segment #1 - City Congestion A traffic study on CR 1 North should be included. A traffic light is needed at Hwy 56 of Longmont 2 Segment #1 - City Other OH: Have an organic ed center with small park here. The rest remain organic farm. of Longmont 3 Segment #1 - City Other OH: Pothole. of Longmont 4 Segment #1 - City Congestion OH: Future widening needs to go to the west, on the City of Longmont side. of Longmont 5 Segment #1 - City Other OH: Japanese Gardens (Tribute to Japanese Longmont Tribute) OH: I agree! of Longmont 6 Segment #1 - City Other OH: Don't touch property lines beyond current lots. of Longmont 7 Segment #1 - City Safety OH: Speed limit it too high and there is no police presence to enforce. Would like to see 35 mph of Longmont and electronic speed limit signs. 8 Segment #1 - City Other OH: Pothole OH: Serious of Longmont 9 Segment #1 - City Other OH: Current R.O.W. 30' of Longmont East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 10 Segment #1 - City Other OH R O W Reservation 75' of Longmont < 11 Segment #1 - City Congestion OH Can R O W be shifted west to lessen impact on Weld Co property/residence(s)7 OH I of Longmont worry more cars = more accidents/noise/congestion 12 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped Agree completely with the comments concerning a bike lane I've ridden this route back and of Longmont forth to Westminster a few times but presently it's just too dangerous by bike Disagree with installing traffic circles I grew up in New Jersey in the 70s & 80s 13 Segment #1 - City Congestion Should be expanded to two lanes from 9th to 66 of Longmont 14 Segment #1 - City Congestion Needs to be 4 lane due to congestion of Longmont 15 Segment #1 - City Safety OH 35 mph of Longmont 16 Segment #1 - City Safety 17th Ave & ECL road safety concerns and trouble turning intersection/road needs lights of Longmont 1 17 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped A separated bike path or protected bike lane is needed with access to the new Spring Gulch of Longmont trail 18 Segment #1 - City Safety Unsafe for pedestrians to cross 17th to Jim Hamm Traffic too fast of Longmont 19 Segment #1 - City Congestion This intersection needs a light of Longmont East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 354 20 'r� Segment #1 - City -Access Hard to turn north from 17th onto County,Line here of Longmont 21 Segment #1- City Safety tight -trouble turning onto and off of 17th ave, -- of Longmont ' 22 Segment #1 -City I Congestion ` Should be widened to 4 lanes hot 2 with center turn lane due to` congestion`- - of Longmont �" 23 Segment #1 ` City Access Access on to county road from driveway is terrible High traffic volume of Longmont 24 Segment #1 - City Safety Road needs street lights ( very dark) accidents have happened because there are no street + - of Longmont lights car, lights at night are difficult to recognize distance of vehicles when turning very dangerous at nights 25 Segment #1 - City j Safety All stretches needia protected bike lane/path or at least a safe shoulder of Longmont 26 Segment #1,- City Safety OH Add a stoplight, signal, roundabout or something similar The road has -no shoulder of Longmont Pedestrians walk in grass to get to Walmart/hospital/119 27 Segment #1 -City , Safety Please replace light with roundabout if this is the planned connection east`to west This will of Longmont help calm traffic speeds 28 Segment #1 - City '- Safety OH Day and night speed limits of Longmont 29 Segment #1- City Other , Anticipated widening will undoubtedly requ,ire,encroachmentsjmto developed_ residential of Longmont improvements- The easement offsets should be shifted West to lessen setback/ROW takings in _ Y the Northern (Hwy 66) sector Naive and wishful'thinking? East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 355 30 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped Need pedestrian crosswalk for Great Western to Zlaten Drive. Many folks walking that area and of Longmont sometimes with pets. 31 Segment #1 - City Other Too Much noise for residential, reduce speed limit to 30 of Longmont 32 Segment #1 - City Safety There needs to be a light for kids and bikers and walkers to cross the street in order to safely of Longmont get to and from union res 33 Segment #1 - City Other Install walls to block noise from street. of Longmont 34 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped Bike lanes on CR1 would be so nice, increasing safety for bicyclists, and adding access to Union of Longmont Reservoir via bike lanes would be a nice added bonus. 35 Segment #1 - City Safety Would be nice to have a north -bound turn lane onto the road to Union Rez. I need to slow of Longmont down to turn when there is a boat on my car. I've been almost rear ended several times. 36 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped This entire corridor is in need of better bike facilities. of Longmont 37 Segment #1 - City Other OH: 18 -Wheelers turning in/out of Longmont 38 Segment #1 - City Safety Needs a safe bike lane of Longmont 39 Segment #1 - City Safety The turn lane lines for southbound to eastbound turning traffic are jumbled up with those for of Longmont turning into the distribution center. Is there a better way to mark the turn lanes that safely shows you intend to drive beyond the center's driveway, yet are m East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 40 Segment #1 - City Safety The inter"section at Ken�P�att and CR1 is ext'refriely,dangerous for pedestrians and biker`s`°��„ of Longmont �'f,l �t� Perhaps alternative, routes (re7,overpasses or tunnels) either` at or close to the intersection� would be helpful , ` t ` 41', `� Segment #1 City Bike Ped I have almost been hit o_ n`my bicycle 3 times now at this intersection Both directionEven when of Longmont � I use the_peestnan walksignalsi We,need an underpass'� 42, ' Segment #1 -'City ` Bike-Ped „_ no safe pedestrian walk on south side of`HWY-119 ; = of Longmont 43 Segment #1"- City 'Safety A merge lane added,here for Eastbound Ken Pratt to Southbound CR1 would make`this,a much of Longmont safer turn People think there is a merge when there's ,simply ,a yield - 44" , Segment #1 - City Congestion Lots of traffic southbound,between`Hwys 119 & 52,,with a considerable,amount turning east of Longmont l' onto CR 20'5 A turn lane, will help keep traffic moving 45 ,, Segment #11„City j . Access 'Atur`n lane for northbound, traffic turning onto Zlaten would have been wise The advance of Longmont notice that peopleaie1turning would aid,traffic turning southbound out'of Walma t r ,t 46 Segment #1 - City- � Access It would be nice if this sidewalk extended at least down ,tothe 'St Vraimn Trailhead, - of,Longmont ' ti _ `5 YY a i t 4 i i � — ice4 F h Segment #1' City Bike Ped "Going south from -the UCHealth-hospital down to the,greenway on your bike is frightening' _47; ri of Longmont` . �� it " `h °iT k` f' tt t' . _2�ri_ •',--ter i ," , i ` t4" 48 _ Segment #1" —City' Safety headed south or north by bike between 119 and the Greenway is stressful ;I would love a«`� it of Long1mont ;{'� �, r �4 �protect`ed bike laneconnect ,to 49 � Segment #1'- City, ? Bike' Ped A bike lane/path would be preferred but at a'`minimum'the shoulder needs to be wider' , of Longmont . - £ r between Great Western Dr & Quicksilver Rd Quicksilver is one of onlly 3 access points on the tF ' ' eastern ,St Vrain greenway so it needs better' connectivity to=nearby neigh - East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 357 50 Segment #2 - Other OH: Bank swallows (Boulder Cty spp. of special concern) live here. One of few habitat areas Boulder/Weld suitable for Bank Swallows within Boulder County. County 51 Segment #2 - Bike Ped Consider being selective about where lane widening is considered to spare fences, gates, well- Boulder/Weld established trees. County 52 Segment #2 - Safety East County Line Road has become somewhat of a drag strip in this area. Generally southbound, Boulder/Weld starting at Quicksilver. Also, it would be awesome if the no passing zone was extended further County south, to near the firestation or beyond. Thanks 53 Segment #2 - Safety County Line Road is used daily by bicyclists, both north and southbound. It is extremely Boulder/Weld dangerous with no shoulder or bike lane on a road with so much vehicular traffic. At a County minimum, please add bike lanes and a shoulder. Nirvana would be a multi -use tr 54 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Approved oil battery - too many trucks - safety Boulder/Weld County 55 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: S.B left would increase traffic cut thru on Oxford. Boulder/Weld County 56 Segment #2 - Other OH: Historic House 1899. Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 358 57 Segment #2 - Other OH: Look at wildlife crossings. Boulder/Weld County 58 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: CR 20.5 has turned into an industrial rd. Hope frack projects, gravel pits, and more. Don't Boulder/Weld turn CR 1 into CR 20.5! County 59 Segment #2 - Other OH: Needs turn lane to east! Boulder/Weld County 60 Segment #2 - Safety Left turn lanes needed for NB & SB directions Boulder/Weld County 61 Segment #2 - Other OH: Good location for a round -about. Boulder/Weld County 62 Segment #2 - Other OH: Agree with the round about. Boulder/Weld County 63 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Paving pike and Quicksilver would increase traffic on 119th St and reduce traffic on county Boulder/Weld line. County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 64 Segment #2 - Other OH: Fracked 19 wells. Boulder/Weld County 65 Segment #2 - Congestion There's a turn lane for nb traffic to turn right onto CR 20.5; a merge lane for traffic from CR 20.5 Boulder/Weld to join nb traffic would also help. County 66 Segment #2 - Safety Would like to have a no passing zone in front of our driveway. When people pass, they're going Boulder/Weld way beyond the speed limit in and it changes from no passing to passing fairly close to the County north of us. 67 Segment #2 - Safety As an avid cyclist, I have been trying to think through bicycle safety between Hwy 119 and Hwy Boulder/Weld 52. I do not think this section is a good route for bikes and only ride on it for short stretches. County Like 287, even with broader shoulders there are just too m 68 Segment #2 - Other OH: Look at wildlife crossings. Known concerns are Dry Creek No.2 drainage, Oxford, etc. Boulder/Weld County 69 Segment #2 - Other [Liggett Ditch] OH: This ditch has erosion/sedimentation impacts - Is the county involved? Boulder/Weld County 70 Segment #2 - Other OH: Look at wildlife crossings. Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices I 360 71 Segment #2 - Other OH: Fracked 11 wells. Boulder/Weld County 72 Segment #2 - Congestion The narrow shoulder and ditch on the west side of County Line Road make this section feel Boulder/Weld "uncomfortable" - especially in winter/icy road conditions. County 73 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: People drive too fast for this roadway. Too much traffic and trucks. Tractors and farm Boulder/Weld equipment use East County Line a lot. County 74 Segment #2 - Other OH: OK with shoulder widening only. Boulder/Weld County 75 Segment #2 - Safety This is a great connection between Longmont and Erie but dangerous by bike. A protected bike Boulder/Weld lane is needed. E -bikes make this connection much more feasible to a wider group of bike County users. 76 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Traffic light at all large intersections. Boulder/Weld County 77 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Enforce speed limits! Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 361 78 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Please decrease the amount of traffic, "not" increase it with improvement. Boulder/Weld County 79 Segment #2 - Safety All stretches need a protected bike lane/path or at least a safe shoulder Boulder/Weld County 80 Segment #2 - Safety Round abouts at Zlaten, Quicksilver, Pike and Oxford. Unsafe intersections due to speeds, Boulder/Weld visibility (especially white outs from snow and brown outs from dust) and pedestrians at Great County Western/Zlaten. 81 Segment #2 - Other OH: Homestead before 1889. Boulder/Weld County 82 Outside Study Area Safety Poor visability at the intersection of Oxford and County line rd. 83 Segment #2 - Safety The intersection of County Line and Oxford has very limited sight distance for vehicles traveling Boulder/Weld eastbound on Oxford to see traffic coming from the north on county line road due to trees and County fence on the NW corner of the intersection. This results in e 84 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Stop sign at Oxford and 119th. Boulder/Weld County 85 Outside Study Area Safety Poor sight distance for eastbound Oxford Road traffic turning north or south. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 86 Segment #2 - Access OH: Dead end (subdivided); 6 landlocked neighbors. Boulder/Weld County 87 Segment #2 - Other OH: Rd. 18 Boulder/Weld County 88 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Leave Ken Pratt to 52 alone or slow it down! Boulder/Weld County 89 Segment #2 - Other OH: 1/2 mile driveway. Boulder/Weld County 90 Segment #2 - Bike Ped All stretches need a protected bike lane/path or at least a safe shoulder Boulder/Weld County 91 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Stop sign. Boulder/Weld County 92 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Dissuade use of Oxford. Direct traffic to use 52 or 287. Encourage use of 1-25. OH: I agree! Boulder/Weld OH: I disagree. Who makes this kind of decision? County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 93 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Stop light. Boulder/Weld County 94 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Roundabout here would discourage thru traffic speeding and address intersection safety. Boulder/Weld OH: Agree OH: I don't agree with this - slow the traffic down. This is an agricultural section of County road. OH: I don't see traffic signals/four-way stops as 95 Segment #2 - Other OH: Never been maintained by Weld. Boulder/Weld County 96 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Safer shoulder with buffer. Boulder/Weld County 97 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Lower speed limit to 40 mph on this section. Boulder/Weld County 98 Segment #2 - Safety OH: High spot in the road makes our driveway dangerous to exit and enter. People drive way Boulder/Weld too fast and come over the hill and can't slow down fast enough. I suggest cutting or lowering County the section to remove the high spot which creates line of sight issu 99 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Horse property. Many horses in these barns - any animal on road would be killed - and Boulder/Weld maybe people hitting them. County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 100 Segment #2 - Safety OH: We are all too close to the road to widen it. 3 serious accidents have happened here! Patrol Boulder/Weld this road - no one obeys speed limit especially rock trucks! County 101 Segment #2 - Other OH: Residences Boulder/Weld County 102 Segment #2 - Other OH: This is an agricultural area - tractors and farm equipment use city line regularly! Boulder/Weld County 103 Segment #2 - Other OH: This is an agricultural area - tractors and farm equipment use city line regularly! Boulder/Weld County 104 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Residential horse property. Lower speed limit - make it safer to pull out with trailers, not Boulder/Weld wider with more traffic! OH: Very important! County 105 Segment #2 - Bike Ped This is the only north south route for bicycles other than 95th Street (some shoulder), 287 (65 Boulder/Weld mph freeway) or WCR 7 (very narrow) for miles. County Line needs bike lanes as it is County frequented by large semi trucks hauling to/from adjacent gravel pits, fa 106 Segment #2 - Safety I would lower and monitor the speed limit between On Oxford and Niwot road. 95th St. from Boulder/Weld Lafayette through Erie runs 35 to 45 we have a similar number of properties along this road. County ItfrcOs not safe for bikes kids or animals or animal trailers. I would East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices I 107 Segment #2 - Safety People passing on a double yellow three of us of almost gotten killed coming out of our Boulder Boulder/Weld County driveway. We need immediate relief from this not five years out. I canrcOt see how County many times a day I hear people honk in front of our place 7465. I c 108 Segment #2 - Safety Crazy sight distance issues. Can't see south from 16 1/2. Boulder/Weld County 109 Segment #2 - Other OH: Road widening is problematic in this stretch between Nimot Rd and Oxford due to many Boulder/Weld horses, trees, fences, etc. Any widening should be done on the undeveloped part of the road. County 110 Segment #2 - Safety OH: Visibility is very poor here (nearly killed once) - slow traffic to 40 mph between Nimot Rd Boulder/Weld and Oxford. County 111 Segment #2 - Other Protect the brick landscaping wall and mailbox during any widening and/or improvements to Boulder/Weld the road. County 112 Segment #2 - Bike Ped There are enough cyclists to warrant a bike lane. Boulder/Weld County 113 Segment #2 - Safety OH: High speeds! Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 366 114 Segment #2 - Other [In response to potential 3 -Lane Section] OH: No OH: No! OH: No! OH: NO PLEASE! OH: Boulder/Weld 3 lanes are unnecessary! OH: I see this much pavement as overkill! County 115 Segment #2 - Safety Please do not add more traffic circles, they prevent emergency traffic from getting quickly to a Boulder/Weld site. They also are a problem for all the truck traffic on this road. County 116 Segment #2 - Other [In response to Potential Minor Intersection Adjustment] OH: Low priority? Boulder/Weld County 117 Segment #2 - Safety Commuters drive this road like a race track with no consideration at all for residents. They are Boulder/Weld consistently over the speed limit, tailgate, and make unsafe passes when we slow for our County driveways. CLR is in much need of slowing down traffic by adding 4 w 118 Segment #2 - Safety OH: High spot in road makes driveway to south dangerous; lower this road section. Boulder/Weld County 119 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Commuters and oil and gas are not our neighbors! They speed, they ruin the roads, they Boulder/Weld are disrespectful. Don't make CR1 a commuter to oil and gas thoroughfare! County 120 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: "If you build it (widen) they will come!" Oil and gas will be overjoyed. Don't use public Boulder/Weld money to prepare the way for 100,000's of oil and gas pick-up trucks, semis, tankers on City Rd. County 1. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 121 Segment #2 - Other OH: Look at wildlife crossings. Boulder/Weld County 122 Segment #2 - Bike Ped Because Panama Reservoir interrupts 119th, there is no even _reasonably_ safe way for cyclists Boulder/Weld to get between Lookout/Kenosha and Niwot roads. CLR ought to have a bike path (not a lane) County the entire way to Longmont, but if that is not feasible, then at lea 123 Segment #2 - Other OH: Keep CR1 rural! Boulder/Weld County 124 Segment #2 - Safety The access point into this residential area is dangerously close to the intersection. I see Boulder/Weld narrowly avoided accidents here all the time. County 125 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Better timing on light. It often takes 3-4 for the light to change for N/S bound traffic on Rd. Boulder/Weld 1. If you are not sitting at the intersection, N bound traffic may not get the light when it turns County green for south bound. Sometimes light will not change. 126 Segment #2 - Access OH: Add lane for right turn only. OH: Second that! OH: Third it! Boulder/Weld County 127 Segment #2 - Access OH: Add right turn lane (3 lanes total) OH: I agree with this. Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 368 128 Segment #2 - Congestion West bound SH52 needs separate right turn lane to turn onto ECR Boulder/Weld County 129 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Need to widen the intersection with turn lanes and through lanes. Boulder/Weld County 130 Segment #2 - Congestion SH 52 needs to be expanded to 2 lanes in each direction. Interchange at SH 52/SH 119 is also Boulder long overdue! County/Weld County 131 Segment #2 - Congestion OH: Choke/bottleneck intersection. Boulder County/Weld County 132 Segment #2 - Other The traffic signal light at Hwy 52 and County Line Rd needs adjusted. You have to wait to long Boulder for get a green for north and south bound traffic. Also the turn lanes on county line are to short County/Weld (need to be longer distance) County 133 Segment #2 - Other OH: More green time going south on CR1! OH: Please, I second that. Boulder County/Weld County 134 Segment #2 - Congestion Need a turn lane from north bound county line rd to east bound Hwy 52 Boulder East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 369 County/Weld County 135 Segment #3 - Town Access Right hand turn lane needed when turning right onto Hwy 52. people try and squeeze by on the of Erie shoulder. 136 Segment #3 - Town Other Is there a sensor on this light when heading north/south on County Line. Can take the light of Erie awhile to change even when there is no cross traffic. 137 Segment #3 - Town Other OH: 1,000 more houses planned. of Erie 138 Segment #3 - Town Congestion The left turn onto Hwy 52 westbound from CR 1 should have a much longer turn lane. of Erie 139 Segment #3 -Town Other OH: water well of Erie 140 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped no turn lane and poor visability of Erie 141 Segment #3 - Town Access OH: Existing water well is here. The raised median is inconvenient and does not allow access to of Erie driveway from southbound lane. Impedes on our property and impacts our safety,. 142 Segment #3 - Town Safety This is a great connection between Longmont and Erie but dangerous by bike. A protected bike of Erie lane or separated path is needed. E -bikes make this connection much more feasible to a wider group of users. 143 Segment #3 - Town Other OH: Is i possible to move this side as the east side affects a lot of people and wells? of Erie East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 170 144 Segment #3 - Town Other OH Historic site of Erie 145 Segment #3 - Town Access OH Turning left off of Buffalo Rd onto S County Line Rd is dangerous as more cars use the road of Erie A left turn lane or median would allow us to turn half -way then merge into southbound County Line Rd Thank you for planning in advance and asking for our 146 Segment #3 - Town Safety no turn lane and poor visibility of Erie 147 Segment #3 -Town Bike Ped The shoulders need to be wider It is not safe to walk, jog, ride and no cross walks of Erie 148 Segment #3 -Town Safety Almost getting rear ended when we turn into our driveway of Erie 149 Segment #3 - Town Safety Popular road for bicyclists, however there is no bike lane from hwy 52 in the southern direction, of Erie I resulting in significant risks to bicyclists 150 Segment #3 -Town Congestion Congestion has increased and it is unsafe for school bus traffic pulling from dirt to asphalt of Erie 151 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped l would like to see bike paths the entire length of CR1 The number of cyclists who use the of Erie roads present a huge safety issue for all concerned Providing safe cycling off the road entirely would relieve a lot of stress for me as a drivers 152 Segment #3 - Town Safety Time for a separated bike path from Jay Rd to Hwy 66 Similar to the one on 63rd in Gunbarrel of Erie or the one along US 36 Safer for cyclists and less stressful for motorists 153 Segment #3 - Town Safety the deadend a Kenosha and County line road is not well marked of Erie East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 371 154 Segment'#3 '7 Town Safety = No turn -lane on co'unty line rd and poor visibility -to turn from Kenosha rd on to county line rd of,Erie - ' 155 - Segment #3 -.Town Congestion ' Traffic circles of Erie 156 Segment #3 ; Town' Safety When -heading north on E County Line Road =,can'beTdifficult to turn West onto Kenosha Rd and - of Erie _ _ dangerous when icy in and in winter weather 157 Segment #3 =Town Safety ;ti the,ditches are to steep - of Erie' r 158 Segment #3 - Town',' Safety , ' ' Kenosha Road,to Jay Road should'have a sidewalk/path seperated from the road People run - of, Erie , ' - ' _ on this segment pushing strollers and there is not enough room , ' 159 - Segment #3 Town' Bike Ped Any improvement must include extending the Coal Creek trail -to Kenosha Road, which requires of Erie a tunnel or other option to cross county line road 160, -Segment #3 - Town Safety No turn lane on county'line rd to turn, on to CR 101/2 - - _ ofErie -,161 Segment,#3_- Town Safety Motorists from CR 10 5 run,the stop sign frequently,_ pulling in,front of traffic going 50 mph- of Erie 162 - Segment #3 --Town Safety Lots of driveways and poor visibility on hills between Oxford and Niwot Rd, speeding cars VERY of`Erie 'hazardo'us'here, consider drop speed limit to 40, add electronic '!Your speed is 'south of ,- _ 16-1/2 163 Segment'#3— Town 'Safety - - 35mph past neighborhoods, of Ene _ East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 372 164 Segment #3 - Town Safety 35mph past neighborhoods of Erie 1 165 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped Bike Lane of Erie 166 Segment #3 - Town Access 40 mph speed needs to be moved up to this location, make 50 mph start north of this of Erie intersection Left turn lane on to Bixler too short for 50 mph speed 167 , Segment #3 - Town Access OH No desire for raised medians - Bikeway was supposed to be routed through the McStain of Erie development Currently, the McStain development will cause future issues for landowners getting out on County Line Road 168 Segment #3 - Town Access OH Encroaching on my front door, water well Decrease speed in this section of County Line of Erie Road No raised medians - impeded ability to turn 169 Segment #3 - Town Other OH Will destroy 6-8 mature cottonwoods - of Erie 170 Segment #3 - Town Safety New subdivision access with no turn lane on county line' of Erie 171 Segment #3 - Town Other OH Utilities are buried on our side of the road Where will they be relocated? What happened of Erie to the original plan of the wider/main road going thru/near Kanoshe Farms? 172 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped no sidewalks from subdivisions to schools or downtown of Erie 173 Segment #3 - Town Safety no turn lanes there is a busy church that has increased congestion of Erie East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 373 174 ' Segment #3 -Town -Safety - Speed bumps and sidewalks approaching town of Erie, = - 175 Segment #3 - Town Safety no turn lanes in either direction of Erie - - - 176 Segment #3 - Towri Safety Have seen/experienced issues with people running these stop signs Need to increase visibility of Erie and warning leading up to stop- 177 Segment #3 - Town Congestion This area is a huge bottleneck multiple'times a day Seems like the school zone sign is flashing _ of Erie ,' _ when not a child is in sight More compact times of the slower speed limit when children are actually present would help keep things moving 178 Segment #3 =Town Congestion Heavy congestion around drop off/pick up times,at the schools ofErie 179 Segment -#3 - Town - Safety School crossings i Erie elementary and middle school_ Road expansion would serve as an of Erie increased risk in area of high pedestrian traffic for the two schools - 180 Segment #3 - Town Congestion Elementary school traffic is congested of Erie ' East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 374 East County Line Road Master Hii; East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 375 Comment Comment Segment Comment Number Type 1 Segment #1 - City Other How will this plan for a roundabout coordinate with the City of Longmont's work to add the of Longmont groundwork for signalizing this intersection at a future time, which I believe is a part of Longmont's current work on CLR? 2 Segment #1 - City Safety Posted Speed Limit is 45 but most traffic does between 50 and 55 throughout Segment 1. A 50 of Longmont MPG vehicle entering a roundabout should be concern unto itself. In addition during peak hours where all three branches are congested would slow velocity and timing of County Line albeit allowing greater throughput from E 17th. At such high speeds, even if the vehicles reduced to 40 or 35mph, would cause inner circle vehicles to cross over to outer circles upon exiting the roundabout...because Longmont has LOTS of experience with drivers not knowing how to navigate roundabouts. This would increase accidents. This will be even more pronounced for northbound County Line making a left into E 17. Southbound traffic will be prone to colliding with vehicles continuing on in the roundabout to exit on E 17th. Currently the left-hand turn late on County Line is always 5 to 8 cars deep. 3 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped Are the green lines indicative of bike lanes? The plan for cyclists along this entire project is a bit of Longmont fuzzy. I would like to see these plans pulled out and explained separately. 4 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped If the on street bike lane ends at this point please make a curb cut and connection to the multi of Longmont use path. 5 Segment #1 - City Safety Roundabouts seem to cause more issues. Most folks do not know how to properly use them. I of Longmont would feel much safer with a light or the current stop sign. Roundabouts are not the answer to traffic problems. There are more times than not that I am unable to enter one for quite some time because traffic just keeps going and I have seem countless close calls in the, far too, many the city has placed in recent years. East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices Segment #1City Bike'Ped� ' hwould`truly hope that a 3-foot,bike lane isadded to this load-r,Used'alot by cyclists and of Longmont tom-�'� 5 .. ^° ,.. r i, _ .td — wcurrently very dangerous "' ', `' `` x ��')�� iF t1a' / Segment#1City ; .Other',,- I am,ve'ry concerned about the loss bf}anytrees in this area These�construction projects always ` of Longmont end up destroyinglarge of vegetation -much larger than you would think The Jim Hamm area is home to manyzimportanttrees for wildlife/raptors Why,can't,you push the road, widening to the east here and not the west Also what will happen to the'parkmg and trail on the Jim,Harnm area? The city just spent tons of money on this area and,it'should not bemessed with push the roadway to the east where there just non important Ag land which is a dime a ' dozens 8 , Segment,#1- City ' Other Hopefully this canbe a four-way intersection _ - of Longmont 9 ' Segment #1- City I Other Don't'steal parkland for car infrastructure, of Longmont, 10 Segment #1- City =; Other RoUnd-a-bcutiiil� ; ) k" _ ,s�' ` _ 7 ,of Longmont 11 Segment #1`-OCityJ Congestion - Missing,connectionbad traffic+ congestion = °. ' of Longmont�� ,� �� r _ .yy, ;{ � r + 4 ate {� �` � t q ,.A r . — 12 #1- City Other Is it fiscally r�espon'sible to put in a signal then roundabout? Recommend saving taxpayer money" „Segment of Longmont and going straight�to roundabout Unless you planning on issuing scribor some type of'secunty , to raise money outside of taxation (which uses money other people create,'mostly through," their'labor`)'zuJ � - 13,' Segment- #1- City- ; Other - Building them anice driveways` of Longmont c r I l East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 377 14 Segment #1 - City Other Should be a roundabout of Longmont 15 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped My keen interest is to ensure that there's sufficient shoulder for cyclists between Ken Pratt and of Longmont Hwy 66 If that's what the Green lines indicate south and north of this roundabout, I'm all for that I 16 Segment #1 - City Safety If you sit and observe long enough at every other round about in the city/state, you'll see that of Longmont people don't know how to drive properly through these It increases the risk and decreases safety Please remove round abouts for this projects 17 Segment #1 - City Other I love roundabouts They are so much more efficient and safer of Longmont _ 18 Segment #1 - City -Other I support the use of roundabouts rather than traffic signals in general but also particularly at an of Longmont U intersection like this where it isn't really necessary and would be a huge negative impact on the neighbors to the east 1 19 Segment #1- City Other The irrigation ROW to the south is insufficient It needs to be piped and maintained by the city of Longmont ' 20 Segment #1 - City Other I like the roundabout Consider copying Netherlands with the bike lane on the outside of Longmont Concepts can be found here http //www aviewfromthecyclepath com/2014/05/the-best- roundabout-design-for-cyclists html 21 Segment #1 - City Access People don't know how to use roundabouts and if the speed limit is not reduced, there won't of Longmont be an opportunity to enter it, traffic going N and S will be favored, happens all the time 22 Segment #1 - City Safety This concept might work at entrances and exit of 25,but not at this intersection New Jersey of Longmont tried that decades ago After all the deaths and accidents, they took them out I live there It is a death trap now You will make it worse People today do not know how to yield Put a street East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 378 light in with left turn. Look at all the accidents that happened before and during the apartment construction 23 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped The bike lane abruptly ends a bit south and a multi use path starts a bit north, surely a better of Longmont design for bikes could have been developed for this small stretch. This plan has bikes weaving in and out of the traffic flow. 24 Segment #1 - City Access Only one access, creates additional traffic and emergency access issues. of Longmont 25 Segment #1 - City Safety Very comfortable with slower speeds due to construction. of Longmont 26 Segment #1 - City Other This could be a nice place for neighborhood center with shops of Longmont 27 Segment #1 - City Access Full movement would be better. This will add VMT. of Longmont 28 Segment #1 - City Other Nicer narrow. Seems un-needed to widen and wasteful. of Longmont 29 Segment #1 - City Access Would appreciate the speed limit lowered, we live along this road and it's hard to get out of our of Longmont driveway with the volume of traffic. A roundabout would make it worse, traffic lights provide a break in traffic. 30 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped PLEASE add a light here with crosswalk. Mill Village needs to be safely connected to the path of Longmont down to the Greenway and this will solve that problem. 31 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped Since this south portion of the segment does not seem to include bike lanes and the muti use of Longmont path is likely to serve as a bike path please unsure that the connection from the northwest East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices corner to this southeast corner is strong, for example there should be signage and cross walk painted in this right hand turn lane 32 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped A flashing pedestrian crossing might be a good idea here to ease east west movement of Longmont 33 Segment #1 - City Access No way to get out Everything is funneled here Have to go down and around, which adds about of Longmont 1/2 mile VMT per trip to WalMart 34 Segment #1 - City Other Trucks use this and it is marked "Not a Truck Entrance" Based on behaviour, should clearly be a of Longmont truck access Plus, reduces VMT 35 Segment #1 - City Access Cars go very fast Hard to take a right and get over to take a left of Longmont 36 Segment #1 - City Other This intersection should be a round about of Longmont 37 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped Missing sidewalk connection here Very odd of Longmont ' 38 Segment #1 - City Access Trucks don't use this Seems wasteful to make trucks go around Adds probably 1/2 mile VMT of Longmont per truck 39 Segment #1 - City Other Hopefully this develops more traditionally than suburban, make neighborhoods of Longmont 40 Segment #1 - City Other Make this a neighborhood if it develops, traditional of Longmont East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 380 41 Segment #1 - City Other This does not feel like "human habitat" nor a gift for future generations, but instead a gift to of Longmont develops from our easy -money central bank system. What a shame ... 42 Segment #1 - City Safety Very confusing intersection. Lots of "near misses." Bring down speed, narrow and put in of Longmont roundabout. Would slow speeds, but increase throughput. 43 Segment #1 - City Safety This "merging area" causes issues. People use it to speed ahead, especially trucks of Longmont 44 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped No bike lanes of Longmont 45 Segment #1 - City Bike Ped I don't understand the mulit use path that connect to nothing on either end but since it seems of Longmont there is no on street bike lane this should help cycicists navigate the roundabout more safely as long as it is designed to connects to the street surface with a ramp. 46 Segment #2 - Safety Consider adding an additional SB lane (climbing lane for trucks going up the hill). Also have Boulder/Weld concerns with roundabout at bottom of hill and accident potential on snowy/ice packed roads. County 47 Segment #2 - Bike Ped Are there any bicycle improvements along this segment? Boulder/Weld County 48 Segment #2 - Bike Ped Love this! A great connection to Sandstone and the Greenway for east Longmont. Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 49 Segment #2 - Congestion This intersection needs improved and I support the round about, people can't seem to use a Boulder/Weld four way stop any better than the round about and with all the trucking traffic here allowing big County trucks to keep moving, albeit slowly, may be better than having cross traffic stop. I hate seeing signals in rural areas where they don't fit and are not needed 95% of the time. 50 Segment #2 - Other Will need to get much more information on this segment as it will directly affect personally Boulder/Weld property. County 51 Segment #2 - Other Please preserve silver maples lining the east portion of the project. Boulder/Weld County 52 Segment #2 - Other What does the designation P/L on the drawings mean. Boulder/Weld County 53 Segment #2 - Bike Red Shoulder does not equal bike lane. Boulder/Weld County 54 Segment #2 - Safety As residents and the property owners on the NW corner of the proposed roundabout, we Boulder/Weld perhaps will be impacted as much as any other neighbor/concerned party. We support the County single lane roundabout as proposed, as the best option for slowing traffic, increasing safety for bicyclists and motorists and potentially enticing the rerouting of heavy commerce traffic. The Pleasant View Ridge School (circa 1899) is a registered Boulder County landmark and, along with the historic cemetery, must be protected from encroachment, molestation, and unintentional impacts (such as water drainage from culvert redirection). The mature trees on the SE corner also warrant protection as much as possible; they provide habitat and are home to generational owls, other birds and other wildlife. Wildlife crossing and signage should be ast County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices considered as part of this development plan. The raised median warrants a xeriscape design, compatible with the rural area. Working in tandem with the 15 mph roundabout, we strongly request stop signs be placed on Oxford Rd at 115 and 119 intersections. Currently, speed is unchecked on the 2 mile stretch of this "country road" to 287, enticing out -of -area commuters and scofflaws to use this road as an unpatrolled speed track. We appreciate the invitation to participate in this proposed project and request continued inclusion as plans proceed. Thank you. Ellen and Stuart Readio 55 Segment #2 - Safety Stop signs would be the simplest, cheapest and least obtrusive solution. They are also very Boulder/Weld effective at speed control. This may keep traffic flowing, but it takes up a lot of ground. In County general, I like traffic circles but to me they seem more appropriate in an urban setting. 56 Segment #2 - Bike Ped For cyclists, will there be a detour option or way to pass over during co struction? Boulder/Weld County 57 Segment #2 - Safety At night this will need to be well lit. Add blowing snow. What is in the center of the roundabout. Boulder/Weld Plan on many coming in too fast to make it. County 58 Segment #2 - Bike Ped Where are the bike lanes? Boulder/Weld County 59 Segment #2 - Other Should be a roundabout. Boulder/Weld County East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 383 60 Segment #2 - Other Should be a roundabout. Boulder/Weld County 61 Segment #2 - Other Why is a traffic circle needed here? Especially if a circle is added at CR 161/2, this would seem Boulder/Weld to be unnecessary. County 62 Segment #2 - Access Weld County families live east of ECLR1 on what you call due to a historical misnomer, WCR 18. Boulder/Weld This road is actually privately owned by 4 different residents, going east, the first 1/2 mile County (which does not run along a section line, it's diagonal to it), is owned by the Rasmussens, the second part is owned by the Harper/Del Tufos, the 3rd part is owned by the Kraffts, and the 4th part is owned by the Fosters and it dead ends on their property, with a total of about 4/5's of a mile of dirt driveways from ECLR1 to the end of the dead end. These are privately owned and function purely as our egress and ingress to a Public Road and driveway. Weld County will tell you it is a Public Road but it is not. There are six families who use what I will call Rd18, though it is just a driveway, many of whom have lived at this dead end for 12, 20 and over 30 years. 63 Segment #2 - Other Part 1: The roundabout you are recommending in the master plan is not a good idea for many Boulder/Weld reasons. It's completely obnoxious. It's unnecessary. It will ruin the wooded area on the SE County corner. It will slow down, in front of our driveway, huge oil and gas tanker trucks. The corner and the roads there are much too narrow to add a huge cement structure. I exit and enter ECLR 1 numerous times a day onto Road 18. 95% of the time there is no traffic and I just enter the road. Yes, when I do need to enter when traffic is heavy people are going 50 or so miles per hour. When I was in the online discussion you said that people go as fast as they can due to the comfort level of the road. So then, why would you widen the road in this area 5 feet on either side because that would encourage more speed? Better to leave the road the width it is, and add at least 2 of the electronic speed control signs with automatic ticket givers on both sides (2 East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices on each side 35mph and down to 25 mph) of ECLR1 as you approach Oxford/Rd 18. Just like on Via Appia between South Boulder Road and McCaslin. 64 Segment #2 - Other Part 2: Those signs show your speed, blink when you are going over the speed limit and I know Boulder/Weld they can be made to take pictures of license plates and send tickets to speeders. Also, they County could be installed relatively soon and cheaply. So, please don't widen the road and install a huge obnoxious roundabout. Instead, about 3/4-1/2 mile north and south of Oxford/Rd 18, place 2 electronic speed signs for each direction, slow the speed limit down to 35 mph and then to 25mph. People respond very well to these signs and after a few tickets would start slowing down. The project would be infinitely cheaper, could be done much sooner, and the actual purpose of the whole project would be achieved SAFTEY! It would slow people down to make that 3 way corner safer for everyone! Also add 2 of those electronic signs on Oxford Road going east starting at 119th avenue, so by the time people arrive at the stop sign at Oxford and ECLR1 they are going 25 mph. This would slow people down and thereby help all of the residents on Oxford as well. Also it would keep commuters from speeding and help with slower agricultural vehicles so they can make their turns etc. The roundabout does not fit reality on this corner, multiple electronic speed signs and tickets, and keeping the road the width it is (with bike lanes added), and reducing the speed limit dramatically as you approach that corner with electronic speed limit signs would make everything safer for everyone and not ruin the character of the area. Please add these signs soon and give it a trial run for 2 years before you reconsider this obnoxious and unnecessary roundabout that impinges on so many people's private property and the character of the area. Thanks for reading! 65 Segment #2 - Access The dirt road to the east is a private road and should not be included in a roundabout. Drivers Boulder/Weld do not use roundabouts properly or safely. The most cost effective and simple solution would County be to add stop signs on CLR. This is an agricultural area and farm equipment, hay trucks and horse trailers would have a challenging time navigating a roundabout. This proposal encroaches on agricultural properties, livestock and mailboxes. The residents are responsible for maintaining this road. Drivers on a roundabout would most certainly take a wrong turn and East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices I end up driving this dirt road. The only place to turn around safely is 1/2 mile down on private property, which is not appropriate for a road that is not maintained by the County. 66 Segment #3 - Town Other Another good use of the roundabout! of Erie 67 Segment #3 - Town Safety This will make it much safer to turn left from Kenosha onto Countyline. of Erie 68 Segment #3 - Town Safety Roundabouts are dangerous. People don't understand it's the same rules as a 4 -way stop in of Erie regards to yielding. With the increase in development at Morgan Hill there will be more traffic. What we need are more lanes, not a roundabout. 69 Segment #3 - Town Other Happy to see a roundabout! They work great of Erie 70 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped As I mentioned in the 12/16 Zoom meeting, if Erie plans to extend the Coal Creek Trail adjacent of Erie to the (realigned) Coal Creek drainage, north of the dog park and toward Kenosha Road, would the trail pass over or under East County Line Road? Will the proposed bridge accommodate an underpass or would cyclists and pedestrians cross at -grade. (That is, will an even newer bridge need to be built in that area, eventually, to take into account trail use?) From the perspective of a cyclist (safety) and taxpayer (I don't like to pay twice for something). 71 Segment #3 - Town Congestion Increased traffic causes a steady stream through the roundabout, Kenosha traffic difficult to of Erie enter. Will cause backup on Kenosha. 72 Segment #3 - Town Access Are these roundabouts able to handle large farm tractors and equipment? The one on Erie of Erie Pkwy & 119 have narrow lanes East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 386 73 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped If v'e'have the new path (ped & bike) before Ene Village -turn, why do we,need to have bike of Erie ' _ - lanes on this section of CRL1? Keep the bike traffic to the new path??? - 74 Segment #3 = Town Safety 50MPH speed limit at this point to fast for turning into Erie Village since cars are slowing to of Erie get in left turn lane 50MPH needs'to be moved down past Erie Village 75 - Segment #3 - Town Safety No median -The M'cStain development (W) is exiting higher onto CLR1 than the driveway (E) A of Erie median will block visibility when exitmg the driveway turning south - 76 Segment #3 ' Town -Other - Median is a waste of land taken from the current residents owning the properties ,- - of Erie 77 Segment #3 - Town Other ' Maintain the current 2 lane to preserve our old town feel Expand the lane'to 3, past Erie Village of Erie turn offs Also decrease speed limituntil after Erie Village The 35mph is not maintained and there is tailgating in this area 78 Segment #3 - Town Other I think a light will not be helpful Better to have a roundabout, - ofErie 79 Segment #3 -Town Other, The only time there is traffic is when school lets out So, maybe an,extra lane near the school of Erie Other than that, we don't need extra lanes in Erie on County Line Rd and it will,take away land, and'that small town feeling that makes Erie special - 80 ' Segment #3 - Town 'Other' Should be a roundabout - ' ofEne _' 81 Segment #3 - Town Bike Ped , which side of road is path planned on? concerned with proximity to pasture fencing and of Erie , - boundary' road is already dangerous in our area because of speed of vehicles and'hill just north of our property Safety concerns have been discussed with Boulder County transportation _ department n = _ East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 387 82 Segment #3 - Town Safety - I'm not sure why a roundabout is -proposed here As a,cyclist who make a, left hand turn' from f Erie=-' _ Kenosha on to Countyline, I feel like it's safer for me to make a lefthand turn as it stands now as opposed to going around this solution to slow down vehicles from the standpoint if cars don't stop while I'm gomg'around it - East County Line Road/Weld County Road 1 Corridor Plan I Appendices 1 388 New Contract Request Entity Information Entity Name * Entity ID BOULDER COUNTY -50O004496 Contract Name * EAST COUNTY LINE RCADj WELD COUNTY ROAD I CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN Contract Status CTB REVIEW ❑ New Entity? Contract ID 5574 Contract Lead EP1NKHAM Contract Lead Email epinkhamLsco.weld.co.us Contract Description * THE MASTER PLAN IS A GUIDE FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG A I 0 -MILE CORRIDOR BETWEEN STATE HIGHWAY 66 IN THE CITY OF LONGMONT AND JAY ROAD IN THE TOWN OF ERIE. Contract Description 2 Contract Type Department Requested 8OCC Agenda Due Date AGREEMENT PUBLIC WORKS Date* 02,'12,42022 02f`'1 12022 Amount* * rtment Email $0,00 CM- Will a work session with 8OCC be required?* Publi Works@weIdgov.cam NO Renewable * NO Department Head Email Does Contract require Purchasing Dept. to be included? CM-PubhcWork5- Automatic Renewal DeptHead eldgovcor Grant County Attorney GENERAL COUNTY ATTORNEY EMAIL IGA County Attorney Email cM- COU NTYATrORNEYWELDG DV.COM if this is a renewal enter previous Contract ID If this is part of a MSA enter MSA Contract ID 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 Review Date * Renewal Date 02 r`08 2023 Termination Notice Period Committed Delivery Date Expiration Date 0215 2023 Contact Information Contact Info Contact Name Ctact Type Contact Email Contact Phone 1 Purchasrng Purchasing Approver Purchasing Approved Date Contact Phone 2 Approval Process Department Head Finance Approver Legal Counsel JAY MCDONALD CHR15 D'OVID1O KARIN MCDOUCAL DH Approved Date Finance Approved e Legal Counsel Approved late 02; 1 1 2022 02,' 1 1 1, 2022 02'11 2022 Final Approval &OCC Approved Tyler Ref # AG 021622 ROCC Signed Date BOCC Agenda Date 02'1612022 Ofgi or �g EPINKH Hello