The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20221408.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR STATE HIGHWAY 52 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - VARIOUS ENTITIES 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 an Intergovernmental Agreement for the State Highway 52 Access Control Plan among 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 the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Town of Erie, Town of Frederick, City of Dacono, City of Fort Lupton, Town of Hudson, Town of Keenesburg, and the County of Boulder, commencing upon full execution of signatures, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said agreement, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said agreement, 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 Intergovernmental Agreement for the State Highway 52 Access Control Plan among 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 the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Town of Erie, Town of Frederick, City of Dacono, City of Fort Lupton, Town of Hudson, Town of Keenesburg, and the County of Boulder, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said agreement. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 18th day of May, A.D., 2022. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELOUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: d„ittivo Weld County Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Boar o hty At orney S co Date of signature: 5/x.7'7 GC : Pw Him /SM/EP) 7 /as /22 K. James, Chair 2022-1408 EG0080 O_An+rn c+ =O 4458'1 g BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW PASS -AROUND TITLE: SH 52 Access Control Plan IGA DEPARTMENT: Weld County PERSON REQUESTING: Evan Pinkham DATE: 4/29/2022 Brief description of the problem/issue: Weld County staff, along with Boulder County, Dacono, Erie, Fort Lupton, Frederick, Hudson, Keenesburg as well as CDOT have worked together to develop the SH 52 Access Control Plan (ACP) as well as the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The SH 52 Technical Team met on 14 separate occasions from May 2020 to November 2020 in order to discuss the project and provide input. The project focused on a 42 mile stretch of SH 52, which extends from SH 119 to SH 79. In order to gain public input, two public engagement meetings were held during the development of the plans as well as circulation of quarterly newsletters. The ACP and PEL will help to guide development along the corridor as well as aid in planning for Improvements to the corridor. CDOT requires that all involved agencies sign the IGA and abide by the recommendations in the ACP. CDOT is requesting that Weld County provide them with a resolution or letter of support to be included in the SH 52 PEL study appendices. Please refer to the attached SH 52 PEL and ACP documents. What options exist for the Board? (include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options): 1. Agree to place on the next available BOCC agenda to authorize the chair's signature on the IGA. Provide CDOT with a copy of the resolution. 2. Request a work session to further discuss. Recommendation: Staff recommends the BOCC adopt the SH 52 PEL and ACP IGA. Place this on the next available agenda. Perry L. Buck Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem Scott K. James, Chair Steve Moreno Lori Saine Approve Recommendation Work Session Other/Comments: Schedule 2022-1408 W/11( eC UUY) DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG TOWN OF ERIE, TOWN OF FREDERICK, CITY OF DACONO, CITY OF FORT LUPTON, TOWN OF HUDSON, TOWN OF KEENESBURG, THE COUNTY OF BOULDER, THE COUNTY OF WELD, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY 52 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is entered into effective as of the date defined below by and among the Cities/Towns of Erie, Frederick, Dacono, Fort Lupton, Hudson, and Keenesburg and the Counties of Boulder and Weld (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Cities and Counties"), and the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation, said Parties each being referred to as an "Agency" or "Party" and being referred to collectively herein as the "Agencies" or "Parties". RECITALS: WHEREAS, The Agencies are authorized by the provisions of Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the Colorado Constitution, and Sections 29-1-201, et seq., C.R.S., to enter into contracts with each other for the performance of functions that they are authorized by law to perform on their own; and WHEREAS, Each Agency is authorized by Section 43-2-147(1)(a), C.R.S., to regulate access to public highways within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, The coordinated regulation of vehicular access to public highways is necessary to maintain the efficient and smooth flow of traffic without compromising pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and alternative modes of transportation circulation, to reduce the potential for traffic crashes, to protect the functional level and optimize the traffic capacity, to provide an efficient spacing of traffic signals, and to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, The Agencies desire to provide for the coordinated regulation of vehicular access for the section of Colorado State Highway 52 between Colorado State Highway 119 (M.P. 0.00) and Colorado State Highway 79 (M.P. 41.94) (hereinafter referred to as the "Segment"), which is within the respective jurisdictions of the Agencies; and WHEREAS, The Agencies desire to collaborate to assure all transportation modes including pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, and mass transit are given sufficient consideration and adequate funding support with each transportation improvement project that affects access within the identified project limits; and WHEREAS, The Agencies are authorized pursuant to Section 2.12 of the 2002 State Highway Access Code, 2 C.C.R. 601-1 (the "Access Code") to achieve such objective by written agreement among themselves adopting and implementing a comprehensive and mutually acceptable highway access control plan for the Segment for the purposes recited above; and WHEREAS, The development of this Access Control Plan adheres to the requirements of the Access Code, Section 2.12. WHEREAS, The Agencies desire to acknowledge the preparation of the SH 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study (CO 119 to CO 79) as a vision for the Corridor and a parallel planning effort to recommended transportation improvements to increase safety, accommodate increased travel and freight demand, and support multi -modal connections. Such acknowledgement does not imply any control of the PEL over this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein contained, the Agencies agree as follows: 1 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 1. The Access Control Plan dated December 1, 2021 for the Segment (hereinafter referred to as the "Access Control Plan") is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 2. The Agencies shall regulate access to the Segment in compliance with the Access Control Plan, the Highway Access Law, Section 43-2-147, C.R.S., (the "Access Law") and the applicable sections of the Access Code. Vehicular access to the Segment shall be permitted when such access is in compliance with the Access Control Plan, the Access Law and the applicable sections of the Access Code. 3. Accesses that were in existence in compliance with the Access Law prior to the effective date of this Agreement may continue in existence until such time as a change in the access is required by the Access Control Plan or in the course of highway reconstruction. When closure, modification, or relocation of access is necessary or required, the Agency/ies having jurisdiction shall utilize appropriate legal process to affect such action. 4. Actions taken by any Agency with regard to transportation planning and traffic operations within the areas described in the Access Control Plan shall be in conformity with this agreement provided that this Section shall not be construed to limit the police power of any of the Agencies, as provided for in 31-15-401 C.R.S. Per Section 2.12(3) of the Access Code, design waivers may be approved if agreed upon by the Agencies having jurisdiction. 5. Parcels of real property created after the effective date of this Agreement that adjoin the Segment shall not be provided with direct access to the Segment unless the location, use and design thereof conform to the provisions of this Agreement. 6. This Agreement supersedes and controls all prior written, oral agreements, and representations of the Agencies and constitutes the whole agreement between them with respect to regulating vehicular access to the Segment. No additional or different oral representation, promise or agreement shall be binding on either Agency. This Agreement may be amended or terminated only in writing executed by the Agencies with express authorization from their respective governing bodies or legally designated officials. Upon 30 days' prior written notice, any Party to this Agreement may withdraw from the Agreement in writing, without consent of any other Party. To the extent the Access Control Plan, attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement, is modified by a change, closure, relocation, consolidation or addition of an access, the Agencies may amend the attached Exhibit A so long as the amendment to the Access Control Plan is executed in writing and amended in accord with the Access Law and Access Code. The Access Control Plan Amendment Process has been included in Exhibit B. This Agreement is based upon and is intended to be consistent with the Access Law and the Access Code as now or hereafter constituted. An amendment to either the Access Law or the Access Code that becomes effective after the effective date of this Agreement and that conflicts irreconcilably with an express provision of this Agreement may be grounds for revision of this Agreement. 7. This Agreement does not create any current financial obligation for any Agency. Any future financial obligation of any Agency shall be subject to the execution of an appropriate encumbrance document, where required. Agencies involved in or affected by any particular or site -specific undertaking provided for herein will cooperate with each other to agree upon a fair and equitable allocation of the costs associated therewith; however, notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, no Agency shall be required to expend its public funds for such undertaking without the express prior approval of its governing body, director, and if required, state controller. All financial obligations of the Agencies hereunder shall be contingent upon sufficient funds therefore being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available as provided by law. 8. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this Agreement be judicially determined to be 2of5 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement, the intention being that the various provisions hereof are severable. 9. By signing this Agreement, the Agencies acknowledge and represent to one another that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed, and that the persons signing for each Agency have been duly authorized by such Agency to do so. 10. No portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a waiver, express or implied, by any Agency of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. Section 24-10-101, et seq. Nor shall any portion of this Agreement be deemed to have created a duty of care that did not previously exist with respect to any person not a party to this Agreement. 11. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the undersigned Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the undersigned Parties that any entity other than the undersigned Parties receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be an incidental beneficiary only. 12. [RESERVED] 13. Term and Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date of the last Party to sign. This Agreement shall terminate twenty-five (25) years from the Effective Date unless sooner terminated or further extended, in writing, by the Agencies. The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. 3 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 14. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agencies have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year of the last Party to sign. vurarynen cy DocuSigned by: At.,koato. Pula City of Fort Lupton, Colorado City of Fort uptaii;tolorado Attestation „._ _ n 74614 air A.1 E-Uhle r1 by: Zo Stieber, Mayor of Fort Lupton by: Mari Pena, City of Fort Lupton Clerk 1/19/2022 1/19/2022 Date Date Town of Erie, Colorado Dote Signed by: UgO oS _ DocuSigned by: b adu c,1'wood, 70[10,1- SD CIS 7r, D9 Town of Erie, Colorado Attestation by: Jennifer Carroll, Mayor of Erie by: Heidi Leatherwood, Town of Erie Clerk 1/19/2022 1/20/2022 Date Date City of Dacono, Colorado by: Adam Morehead DocuSipn ed by: La ;�rred7rf�.rna r. a oi� I,gXg{X, Mayor of Dacono r—Occuslpne6 by: 'i'Y1..ia•'�`a'. �31[70�� 11 RdLY1F City of Dacono, aZilado Attestation by: Valerie Taylor, City of Dacono Clerk 1/25/2022 1/26/2022 Date Date Town of Frederick, Colorado sEEATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE by: Tracie Crites, Mayor of Frederick Town of Frederick, Colorado Attestation by: Meghan Martinez, Town of Frederick Clerk SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE PAGE Date Date Town of Hudson, Colorado ,—Docv8.9ord uy: (Au "a Ric.6)i4 �C671' H I: 51 IA:WE L' by: Laura Hargis, Mayor of Hudson 4/5/2022 Date Town of Keenesburg, Colorado rittDocuSigned ayor arti ,c r c er'ty. 4!7i by: Ken Gfeller, Mayor of Keenesburg 4/19/2022 Date 4 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D County of Weld, Colorado Scott K. James r—DocuSIgned by: S(.eH k ,)aw,t,S by:ftextexD tOzzmomx, Weld County Board of Commissioners Chair 4/20/2022 Date County of Boulder, Colorado c--tlocu S•gnen by: tti1 � cea : c�can �c np•� by: Claire Levy, Boulder County Commissioner 5/24/2022 Date State of Colorado, Department of Transportation by: Heather Paddock, Region 4 Regional Transportation Director �Docvtlgncd by: th,a{(A,tX POak& L 55262:MAr NE4:5 Date State of Colorado, Department of Transportation �Joc u5ignco by: gum- hrt,t,SetA, by: Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer 6/2/2022 Date 5 of 5 OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-0003 9 r-- Docusiened by: f sguur f. County of Weld, Color'arfn Att-estation Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board by: Ex►bp4idopixxxINCedalgumoOdxxlx (- fG 5/18/2022 l Date r'•J—Elw.utiigned hy. County of Boulder, Colorado Attestation by: Cecilia Lacey, Commissioner's Agenda Coordinator 6/2/2022 Date Woaa -Nog Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 EXHIBIT A COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 52 (CO 52 MP 0.00 — MP 41.94) ACCESS CONTROL PLAN December 1, 2021 Town of Erie, Town of Frederick, City of Dacono, City of Fort Lupton, Town of Hudson, Town of Keenesburg, Boulder County, Weld County, and the State of Colorado Department of Transportation I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Access Control Plan (ACP) is to provide the Agencies with a comprehensive roadway access control plan for the pertinent segment of Colorado State Highway 52 between Colorado State Highway 119 (M.P. 0.00) and Colorado State Highway 79 (M.P. 41.94). II. AUTHORITY The development of this Access Control Plan was completed pursuant to the requirements of the Access Code, Section 2.12, and adopted by the attached Agreement. III. RESPONSIBILITIES It is the responsibility of each of the Agencies to this Agreement to ensure that vehicular access to the Segment shall only be in conformance with this Agreement. The cost of access improvements, closures and modifications shall be determined pursuant to Section 43-2-147(6) C.R.S., the Agreement, and this Access Control Plan. All access construction shall be consistent with the design criteria and specifications of the Access Code and local ordinances. IV. EXISTING AND FUTURE ACCESS A. The attached table provides a listing of each existing and future access point in the Segment. For each access point the following information is provided: access identification, MP location, North or South, configuration, proposed modification and notes. All access points along Colorado State Highway 52 are defined by the approximate Department reference point (in hundredths of a mile) based on CDOT Highway Segment Description Mileposts. All access points are located at the approximate centerline of the access (+/- 50 feet) unless otherwise noted in the Access Control Plan and associated tables. Exhibits graphically illustrating the Access Plan are attached for reference. In case of discrepancy, the Access Control Plan Table takes precedence. B. All highway design and construction will be based on the assumption that the Segment will have a sufficient cross section to accommodate all travel lanes and sufficient right-of-way to accommodate longitudinal installation of utilities. V. ACCESS MODIFICATION Any proposed access modification including, but not limited to an addition, must be in compliance with this Agreement and the current Access Code design standards unless the Agency or Agencies having jurisdiction approves a design waiver under the waiver subsection of the Code. Any access described in this section, which requires changes or closure as part of this Agreement or if significant public safety concerns develop, including but not limited to, when traffic operations have deteriorated, a documented accident history pattern has occurred, or when consistent complaints are received, may be closed, relocated, or consolidated, or turning movements may be restricted, or the access may be brought into conformance 1 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 with this Access Control Plan, when a formal written request documenting reasons for the change is presented by the Agency(ies) having jurisdiction, with Department concurrence, or in the opinion of the Department, with the appropriate jurisdictional agency's concurrence, any of the following conditions occur: a. The access is determined to be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare; b. the access has developed an accident history that in the opinion of the Agency(ies) having jurisdiction or the Department is correctable by restricting the access; c. the access restrictions are necessitated by a change in road or traffic conditions; d. there is an approved (by the Agency(ies) having jurisdiction) change in the use of the property that would result in a change in the type of access operation as defined by the Access Code; e. a highway reconstruction project provides the opportunity to make highway and access improvements in support of this Access Control Plan; or f. the existing development does not allow for the proposed street and road network. Access construction shall be consistent with the design and specifications of the current State Highway Access Code. The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D EXHIBIT A-1 COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 52 (CO 52 MP 0.00 - MP 41.94) ACCESS CONTROL PLAN December 1, 2021 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 0.02-N&S f Existing Condition i Future Condition Description UP Railroad Crossing Restricted Access No Change 0.17-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 0.17-S 0.17-S Full Movement Access No Change N. 71st Street 0.41-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met* 0.48-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Dry Creek Parkway. Existing full movement access to be restricted 0.48-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 0.59-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 0.82-N Full Movement Access No Change Monarch Park Place 0.82-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 0.82-N 0.94-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 0.97-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.1-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.12-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change N. 79th Street. 1.23-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.24-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.66-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.69-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 1.69-5 1.69-S Full Movement Access No Change 1.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.93-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 1.93-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 2.1-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.17-N Full Movement Access No Change Somerset Drive 2.17-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 2.17-N 2.24-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.37-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 2.37-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 2.49-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.65-N Full Movement Access No Change Legend Ridge Trail 2.65-5 Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 2.65-N 2.67-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.86-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Page 1 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 2.86-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 3.1-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed ' Removed once criteria met 3.15-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Remove immediately 3.15a-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Remove immediateiy 3.16-N&S Full Movement Access No Change N. 95th Street 3.38-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 3.38-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 3.51-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.66-N Full Movement Access No Change 3.66-5 _ - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 3.66-N 3.79-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.91-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed on both sides of highway 3.91-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed on both sides of hig_hway 3.97-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.13-N Full Movement Access No Change 4.13-5 Full Movement Access No Change 4.14-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.15-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.2-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.41-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 4.41-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 4.43-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.58-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.67-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change US 287 4.73-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.75-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.92-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 4.92-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 5.17-N Movement Access No Change 5.17-S •Full Full Movement Access No Change 5.34-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.34-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 2 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition I Future Condition Description 5.42-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.42-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.53-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 5.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 5.61-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 5.67-N Full Movement Access No Change 5.67-S Full Movement Access No Change N. 115th Street 5.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.75-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.81-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.92-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.92-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.01-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.11-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.15-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.19-N - Possible Fu I Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 6.19-S 6.19-S Full Movement Access No Change 6.3-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.31-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.44-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.44-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.65-N Full Movement Access No Change 6.65-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 6.65-N 6.68-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.7-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.72-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.92-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 6.92-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 7.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.04-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change County Line Road Page 3 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 7.22-N Existing Condition Future Condition Description Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.23-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.39-N Full Movement Access No Change 7.39-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 7.39-N 7.42-N i Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.56-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.56-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.67-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed _ Removed once criteria met 7.68-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.73-N Full Movement Access No Change 7.73-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 7.73-N 7.79-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.8-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.93-N - Possible Restricted Access restricted access allowed 7.93-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access 'New Existing full movement access to be restricted 8-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.02-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.O4 -N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.05-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.12-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.13-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.13-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.14-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.17-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access could be allowed on the north. Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 to be planned by the Local Municipality. 8.17-5 Full Movement Access No Change WCR 3 8.21-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.37-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.37-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.38-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.42-N&S Full Movement Access Restricted Access WCR 3.25/Highland Place Page 4 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 8.67-S Existing Condition ! Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change Description Full movement access allowed to align with the access on the opposite side of CO 52. Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 to be planned by the Local Municipality. 8.68-N Full Movement Access No Change Full movement access allowed to align with the access on the opposite side 8.72-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 8.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 8.79-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.81-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.91-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 8.91-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 8.99-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.99-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.14-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.15-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.16-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.19-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 5 9.47-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 9.47-S Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 9.68-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.69-N Restricted Access Full Movement Access Existing restricted access on the north could be full movement 9.69-S - Possible Fu I Movement Access New full movement access could be allowed on the south to align with 9.69- 9.92-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.93-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.98-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access could be allowed on the south 10.06-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.19-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change WCR 7/Aggregate Boulevard 10.3-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.33-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.4-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.42-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Puritan Lane. Existing full movement access to be restricted 10.42-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Page 5 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE26aC9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 10.46-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.48-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.56-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.56-S Restricted Access To Be Removed Existing restricted access may remain until such time as the property redevelops. Then access to be removed. 10.69-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to aiign with 10.69-S 10.69-S Full Movement Access No Change Glacier Way 10.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-25 Frontage Road/Puritan Way 11.08-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Southbound I-25 Entrance/Exit Ramp 11.27-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Northound I-25 Entrance/Exit Ramp 11.45-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-25 Frontage Road 11.65-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.71-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed. CDOT and Local Municipalities to 11.71-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed. CDOT and Local Municipalities to 11.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.83-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.85-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.86-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.97-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed _11.97-S 12.08-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed _ Removed once criteria met 12.1-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.17-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.19-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.2-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.23-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Silver Birch Blvd/York Street 12.34-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.55-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 12.55-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 12.71-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met. This access is to remain until such time as a suitable industrial, internal road system provides alternate access. Page 6 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 12.83-N&S Existing Condition 1. Future Condition Description Full Movement Access No Change Flying Circle/William Bailey Avenue 12.92-S Restricted Access No Change Right-in/right-out access at this location to remain - Permitted 13.08-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 13.19-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 13/Colorado Boulevard 13.41-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 13.41-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Cherry St. Existing full movement access to be restricted 13.57-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 13.58-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access could be allowed 13.58-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Forest Ave. Existing full movement access to be restricted to RI/RD 13.59-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 13.74-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Glen Creighton Drive/Frederick Way 13.77-N Restricted Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 13.86-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Rl/RD only 13.86-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted to RI/RO 14.02-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Ridgeway Boulevard 14.3-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 14.3-S Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 14.38-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.38-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.39-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met _ 14.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.49-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.62-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 14.62-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 14.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.9-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access WCR 14. Existing full movement access to be restricted 14.95-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed criteria met 14.95-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.96-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.97-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.98-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.16-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed WCR 17. Full movement access removed once new full movement access near 15.25 constructed as part of curve realignment. Page 7 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 15.25-N&5 Existing Condition Future Condition Description New full movement access allowed on both sides of highway. Exact location to be determined by CDOT and Local Municipalities with consideration of realignment of CO 52. If this location is implemented, close 15.16-N and 15.36-S. - Possible Full Movement 15.36-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed WCR 17. Full movement access removed once new full movement access near 15.25 constructed as part of curve realignment. 15.56-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.63-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.68-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.7-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.78-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.91-N _Full Movement Access No Change 15.91-5 Full Movement Access No Change 16.18-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 16.18-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 16.42-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change WCR 19 16.43-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.43-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.45-5 Full Movement Access Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.55-S _To Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.57-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.68-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 16.68-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 16.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.76-5 Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.94-N -Full - Possible Full Movement Access r New full movement access allowed to align with 16.94-5 16.94-S _ Full Movement Access No Change J 17.05-N _ Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.19-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 17.19-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 17.25-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.26-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.44-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 21 Page 8 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 17.62-N i Existing Condition l Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met Full Movement Access 17.69-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 17.69-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existinglfull movement access to be restricted 17.73-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 17.94-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 17.945 17.94-S Full Movement Access No Change 17.96-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.97-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.98-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.14-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.19-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted. 18.19-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing ull movement access to be restricted 18.42-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.44-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 23 18.62-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.68-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 18.68-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 18.77-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.79-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.85-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.86-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.88-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.88-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.93-N - Possible Fu I Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 17.945 18.93-S Full Movement Access No Change 19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.03-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.18-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement to be restricted 19.18-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement to be restricted 19.27-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.33-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 9 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 19.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.36-5 Full Movement Access r To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.42-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 19.42-5 19.42-5 Full Movement Access No Change 19.47-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.6-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.62-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.67-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.7-N Full Movement Access No Change 19.7-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 19.7-N 19.92-N&S Full Movement Access No Change US -85 Southbound Entrance/Exit Ramp 19.99-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change US -85 Northound Entrance/Exit Ramp , 20 -N Restricted Access S No Change Access restricted to Right Out Only 20.03-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Grand Avenue - RI/RO 20.03-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access South Grand Avenue - Ri/RO 20.04-N Restricted Access No Change 20.05-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.06-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.06-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.07-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.08-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.08-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.09-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.09-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Page 10 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 20.1-S Existing Condition I Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessar restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Full Movement Access 20.11-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.12-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.13-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessa restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.13-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.15-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessa restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.16-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.16-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.18-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.19-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Fulton Aveneue 20.23-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.24-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.25-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessa restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.26-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops Dr a raised median is installed. 20.29-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops Dr a raised median is installed. 20.32-N&S Full Movement Access No Change McKinley Avenue 20.35-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessa restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Page 11 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 20.35-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.39-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Park Avenue 20.42-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.42a -N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.42-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.43-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary_restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.43-S ,_necessary Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.45-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Denver Avenue 20.47-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.48-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.49-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Main Avenue 20.5-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction _ The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.52-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.53-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.53-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.55-N&S Restricted Access No Change UP Railroad Crossing 20.59-N Full Movement Access No Change Pacific Avenue 20.62-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.63-N Restricted Access No Change 20.64-N Restricted Access No Change 20.66-N Full Movement Access _ No Change Harrison Avenue - North Page 12 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID i Existing Condition Future Condition Description 20.66-S Restricted Access No Change Harrison Avenue - South 20.69-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.75-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Rollie Avenue 20.82-N Restricted Access No Change Right-in/Right Out access to remain - Permitted 20.88-N Restricted Access No Change 3/4 restricted access to remain - Permitted 20.91-S Restricted Access No Change 3/4 restricted access to remain - Permitted 20.94-N Restricted Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 20.95-S Restricted Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.07-N - Possible Full Movement Access New ful, movement access allowed to align with 21.07-S (Purman Ave) 21.07-S Full Movement Access No Change Purman Avenue 21.23-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.27-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.37-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.46-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.46-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 21.53-N Full Movement Access No Change Coyote Creek Drive 21.53-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 21.53-N 21.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 21.7-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 21.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 21.73-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.74-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 21.74-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 21.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 29.5/College Avenue 22.08-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.12-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Access at MP 22.119 and MP 22.388 to be removed. New restricted access allowed between them. Location determined by CDOT and Local Municipality. 22.21-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.21-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 13 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 22.43-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.46-N Full Movement Access No Change WCR 31 22.46-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 22.46-N w 22.47-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.47-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.49-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.5-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.52-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.6-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.71-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.71-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 22.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.91-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.96-N Full Movement Access No Change 22.96-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 22.96-N 22.98-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.07-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.21-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 23.21-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed _ 23.35-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.35-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.42-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.46-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.46-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.52-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.69-N Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 23.69-S Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 23.76-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.86-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.95-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.95-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.99-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.07-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.12-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 14 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 24.19-N Existing Condition i - Future Condition Description Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 24.19-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 24.32-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.44-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access to align with WCR 35 allowed 24.44-5 Full Movement Access No Change WCR 35 24.45-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.69-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 24.69-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 24.83-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.84-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.88-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.89-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.9-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.97-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 24.97-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 25.02-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.07-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.21-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 25.21-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 25.4-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.46-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 37 25.49-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.5-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.72-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 25.72-S Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 25.96-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 25.96-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 25.98-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.01-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.08-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.22-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Page 15 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description New restricted access allowed 26.22-5 - Possible Restricted Access 26.46-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.47-N Full Movement Access No Change 26.47-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 26.47-N 26.49-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.49-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.61-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.64-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.69-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.69-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.72-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 26.72-S Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 26.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.85-5 Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.87-S _Full Full Movement Access r To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.96-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed 1 Remove once criteria met 26.97-N Full Movement Access No Change 26.97-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 26.97-N 27.11-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.17-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.22-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 27.22-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 27.46-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 41 27.56-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.56-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.75-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 27.75-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 28.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.04-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.06-N Full Movement Access No Change 28.06-S Full Movement Access No Change 28.19-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.2-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 16 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 28.28-N i Existing Condition i - Future Condition Possible Restricted Access Description New restricted access allowed 28.28-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 28.31-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.46-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 43 28.72-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access WCR 12.5. Existing full movement access to be restricted 28.72-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 28.81-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.94-N Full Movement Access No Change I-76 Frontage Road 28.94-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 28.94-N 29.02-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 29.05-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 29.1-N Restricted Access No Change Right-in/Right Out access to remain - Permitted 29.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-76 Southbound Entrance/Exit Ramps 29.32-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-76 Northbound Entrance/Exit Ramps 29.36-5 Restricted Access No Change Completed with 2021 I-76 Interchange project 29.39-S Restricted Access No Change Completed with 2021 I-76 Interchange project 29.41-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.42-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.42-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.43-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.44-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.45-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Cedar Street/Hudson Drive 29.47-N Full Movement Access Conditiona' - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised mediar is installed. 29.49-N&S Restricted Access No Change BNSF Railroad Crossing Restricted Access No Change BNSF Railroad Crossing _29.5-N&S 29.51-N&S Restricted Access No Change BNSF Railroad Crossing Page 17 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 29.55-N Existing Condition Future Condition Description Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.57-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change Ash Street 29.6-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.61-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.64-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Beech Street 29.67-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.68-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.71-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change Cherry Street 29.74-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.74-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.78-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Date Street 29.79-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.79-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.81-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.85-S Full Movement Access No Change Evergreen Street 29.88-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.89-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.9-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.91-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Page 18 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 29.92-5 Existing Condition i Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.94-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median 's installed. 30-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction _ The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 30.01-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 30.05-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Holly Street 30.06-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Holly St-eet 30.07-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 30.14-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 30.14-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 30.19-5 Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 30.2-N Full Movement Access No Change 30.2-5 Full Movement Access No Change Sunrise Acres Street 30.5-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 30.5-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 30.6-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.62-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.63-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.76-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Oak Street/WCR 47 30.78-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.01-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.01-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.04-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.12-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.22-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.31-N Full Movement Access No Change 31.31-5 Full Movement Access No Change 31.45-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.58-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.58-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.68-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 19 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 31.71-S Existing Condition Future Condition Description Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.74-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.86-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 31.86-S 31.86-S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 49 31.88-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.17-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.24-N Full Movement Access No Change George's Road 32.24-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 32.24-N 32.29-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.36-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria mett 32.39-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.39a -N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.47-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.58-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 32.58-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 32.72-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.8-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 51 32.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.82-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.85-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.86-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.09-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 33.09-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 33.39-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.45-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 33.45-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 33.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.57-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.8-N - Possible Full Movement New full movement access allowed to align with 33.8-S 33.8-S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 53 33.82-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.83-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed _Removed once criteria met Page 20 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 33.86-S Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 33.91-N Full Movement Access No Change Banner Lakes 33.91-S Full Movement Access No Change 34.03-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 34.03-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 34.25-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 34.37-5 Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 34.42-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 34.43-5 Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 34.45-5 Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 34.61-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 34.61-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 34.85-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 55 35.03-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.13-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.13-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.3-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 35.3-S 35.3-S Full Movement Access No Change 35.31-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.54-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.54-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.77-N Full Movement Access ,No Change 35.77-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 35.77-N 35.79-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.8-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.85-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.05-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.19-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.19-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.22-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.27-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.34-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 36.34-S 36.34-S Full Movement Access No Change Page 21 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 36.4-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.62-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.63-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.64-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.66-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.66-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.81-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.86-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.89-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.92-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 59 36.99-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.09-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.2-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 37.2-S Possible Restricted Access _ New restricted access allowed 37.29-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.41-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.43-N Full Movement Access No Change 37.43-5 Full Movement Access No Change 37.66-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 37.66-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 37.91-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.92-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 61 37.97-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.18-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 38.18-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 38.27-S Full Movement Access iTo Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.44-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 38.44-S 38.44-5 Full Movement Access No Change 38.45-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.6-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.68-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 38.68-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 38.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 63 Page 22 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 39.01-N 1 Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Remcved Description Removed once criteria met 39.18-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 39.2-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 39.2-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 39.41-N Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 39.41-S Full Movement Access To Be Remcved Removed once criteria met 39.45-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 39.45-S 39.45-5 Full Movement Access No Change 39.72-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 39.72-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 39.92-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.94-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 65 40.19-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.22-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 40.22-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 40.26-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.29-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.39-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.44-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.45-N Full Movement Access No Change 40.45-S Full Movement Access No Change 40.55- S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.7-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 40.7-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 40.75-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.82-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.83-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.84-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.88-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 23 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 40.96-N&S Existing Condition Future Condition Description WCR 67 Full Movement Access No Change 41.16-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 41.16-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 41.18-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.2-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.21-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.21-S Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met _Full 41.22-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.25-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.27-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.28-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.3-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.33-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.35-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.44-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.45-N Full Movement Access No Change 41.45-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 41.45-N 41.5-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.6-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.65-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.7-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 41.7-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 41.71-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.76-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.79-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.79-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.81-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is instailed Page 24 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 1 Future Condition Description 41.82-N Full Movement Access Conditional- To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.83-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.83-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.84-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.85-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a rasied meain is installed 41.86-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessarestriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median 's installed. 41.87-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median's installed. 41.89-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 41.91-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 41.91-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.94-N&S Full Movement Access No Change CO 79/WCR 69 *"Removed once criteria met" criteria is defined as the redevelopment of the property the specified access serves or an increase in traffic utilizing the specified access by 20% or greater Page 25 of 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D EXHIBIT A-2 COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 52 (CO 52 MP 0.00 - MP 41.94) ACCESS CONTROL PLAN December 1, 2021 ACP Mapbook W Dry Creek Pkwy IBM Drive BOULDER Access Control Plan Mapbook Asp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mdeposts(1/10 mi) Existing Frei be Signal GOA Access ldenllher RI/R0 RIghhln/Right-Out gaitr- R a- sz ' --- Vii'--- - -= • - �fl - -- Approx Exlsling CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation footprint — — Parallel Irngauon Access Key • No Action- - NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restncted Access O Existing Full Movemenl Access -Conditional" _ �+ [gl►3 • O - COW d ea f Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed New Full Movement Access Page 1 of 50 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-AB6D-2CD1FE260C9D rn r z Access Control Plan Mapbook IteP CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 L,O6'9°1 Boulder aKJ e ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mg Existing Traffic Signal Access Identrtier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out CligW t;* 0o V) Os z - -- App ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corr dor P-eservation Footpnnt — — Par lel Irr gation Access key • No Action ., NO Action- . Existing Full Movemen to Restricted Access O Exis mg Full Movemen Access - Cono Penal^ 1:11x: • _ ilGiLl - - 300 600 CO O New Full Movement Access Page 2 of 50 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-ABED-2CDIFE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing 7ratlic Signal Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out 2 Approx Existing CO 52 ROW - Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Tu t1Y Access N "y • R Zafii% r•F f i J0 2.5 D4SEE S d :9 O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access I o00 Page 3 050 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-0676-466E-AB6D-2CD1 FE260c9D .: H C a CC v c m —Ur m J EMU _ .._ _- _ _ Ea@ 2330 Access Control Plan Mapbook a CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mQ Existing Traffic Signal Cam. Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out _ - ACME - - -- Appox Existing CO 52 ROW Corrdor P eservacon Footpnnt - - Para lel rnpation Access Key `3 •52 I� No Action No Action - 1� Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access ID Existing Full Movement Access-Condlncnal — _ — a:4= _ . +dli's4133— • _ MA I'S -OW! Accesses robe 6e .firma as soon as possible © Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed d 0 i., i50 .. 600 300 O NEW Full Movement Access Nan, Restncted Access Page 4 of 50 DacuSign Envelope ID: A369E6A5-D676-466EAB6D-2CD1FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook ® CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 _ 61ANJ 7.5-0 • Mileposts (-/10 r-,) Exislirg Traffic Signal OfroQ Access Identifier RVRD night-In/Right-Out - • Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor reservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation ue.ry • VoAction - Vo Action - Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access • Existing Full Movemert Access - Cordlnonah �3 © Existing 'A Movement Access to he Removed rnfain •O_ b ,_.. d 0 >5 150 344 500 1t•••• ii P00 Page 5 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D Atuff zano - Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mtleposts(1/1D mi) Existing Traffic Signal �V.4. Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-Ir./Right-Out - QQ}#1 4.$ ^= 52-' 0 Possible Park-n-Ride/Transit Stop LOCO con in be M!A r'+niief 3 later date - -- P.ppnx xsting CO 52 ROW -- Corrocr Preservation Footprint — — Para el 'rogation Access Kry • COW �aliM • i.—PgUt _ - d 0 150 300 600 100 J Page 6 of 50 DacuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-AB6D-2CD1FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook Cc)CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Mc@ Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out �RB3a - -- Adam, Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key f 5.5 �Q - Lei Ingt —� t3-+� - • - • 4UM@ Baia d .3 150 300 e00 soo Page 7 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-O676-466E-A06D-2CD1FE260C9D _. JCl _lal3t3 Access Control Plan Mapbook a pr CO 52 PEL / ACP C0119 to CO 79 -- - • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic. Signal Gr.(.; Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out - -- ApprDx x sting CO 52 Row Corrdor Preservation Fool onnt — — Para lel Irn 3at:on Access Key (D Page B of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID'. A369B6A5-D676-466EA56D-2CD1 FE260C9D • a .: =KatiArniV - - Access Control Plan Mapbook CFR CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mtleposls (1./10 ml) aExlstng l re ffic Signal Carndor Preserva[Ion roolpnnt Oda@ Access Idenhfler — — Parallel Irrigation RVRO Right-In/Right-Out —001E1- --_—_ Acces; Key — Apprax Existing CO 52 ROW 1 C BOULDER COUNTY mum V t�- .Y a' WELD COUNTY zs d 300 W Page 9 of SD DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of C052 To be planned by the Local Municipality. Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP ? I CO 119 to CO 79 Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Righl-In/Right-Out +.- - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor '.reservation Foolorint — — Paral el Irrigation .. — CI �� e tai f' 5:6p� - ,1;:j - - - - 9i130 GiN Access o NoAction - No Action - ( Existi g Full Movement o Restricteo Access CD Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional• m ce U d U0 loo 390 • auer' ,� - — �+ e. 600 O New Full Movement Access Page 10 0= 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D l063 _rea cnto_, H�h�hd p' Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Intemalroadsystem required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 To be planned by the local Municipality. B.5 e Mileposts (1/10 m) Existing fro i fic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/R!ght-Out. -` 2 i : �fl1ap •• - iii -c9 - - - Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel lrnganon 0� n. ti 43.4 Access Key. • NoAcnon- NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' ToQ W.9 j�• V I,0 Page 11 of SO U DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD-IFE260C9D Billings Ave 9119-N&S • Access Control Plan Mapbook tap CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ MIlepos's(1/10 mi) Existing Iraffle Signal WA Access Icentifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Oul aEe 1 9.5 E --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corr for Prservanon Foolprinl — — Para' elI ngatIon Access Key RI/R0 9 69-N • el 056 - CMQ ti • d ] .3 i50 300 600 .00 Page 12 0150 DocuSIgn Envelope 10: A369B8A5-D676-O66E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D WCR 7 i Aggregate Blvd 10 ErOfl Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 ml) Existing Traffic Signal IAA Access Identifier RVRO Rig htln/Right-Out frgiL7 Min two fOCEML -Cs• --O f:10flMei uip3a EaDe - - Approx Existing CO 52 ROW • Carndor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irngation Access Key. • NoAction -: x,a6,„Il •ynn,:r No: Action :::r Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' - o- 4]Ni© sz_ Irrlperml Sf O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 13 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676466E-AS6D-2CD1FE260C9D Imperial St T J a Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing l raffle Signal Access Identifier RI/RO Righ Fln/Righ[-Out t - -- Apra= Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corr Jor Pr servanon Footprint — — Para6el I ngahon Access Rey A Corridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through the 1-25 interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL Exclesion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction • 1E,VIZ] Q - o- i ISO 300 600 DO r Existing Full Mtv:r•r. • •)ccess to be Removed O Nen, Full Movement Access Existing Resire.2..••",—.s to be Removea-- Page 14 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D Silver Birch Blvd • a Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP a P. CO 119 to CO 79 O 0 One %Oil ! 12 ►� - - - SElfi OW- . ♦ Mileposts (V10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Existing Traffic Signal Corridor Preservation Footprint 4120.13 Access Identifier — — Parallel Irrigation RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Access Key taw f *-J gmkoei • •� _- Tagt e No Action , ,/' ,• No Action o,;:nuB Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional^ Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access 1,4 Existing Full': ::v - '•. c.. •o 6e..:•••••:ved Existing Res'i,;;;.;,,nco:: _ Rem:••;. (!e .: ;,ge ;!!1,!(!!!!! voluro• ,,omc rha:, 20% uto`I,y`Iut, 12,5 04K3 1 _ - • MO Page 15 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-ABED-2CD1FE260C9D Colorado Blvd Access Control Plan Mapbook eCO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ce U ♦ Mlleposts(1/l0 mi) Exishng Traffic Signal Gklarl Access IgenPrier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-00i 7 GO U an LL --- Approx Ex 3hng CO 57_ ROW -- Corr dor reservaticn Foolpnnt — — Paral el Imgason RI/R0 6'h St Access Key p v 13• Colorado Blvd D 0 300 - A00 — — 3J0 Page 16 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676466E-AB6D-2CD1 FE260C9D FREDERICK Access Control Plan Mapbook Asp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ti z d L U 7"' St 0 .13.5 Mileposts (1/10 ml) Exiseng Traffic Signal cog Access Idenhtier RI/R0 Right-In/RlgheOul IIKAtO 44111:fl 0 VaNDO-- 7 R�' Q m a DACONO - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel 'rogation • �a Glen Creighton Dr Access Key • NO Action - NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Res tncteo Access ▪ Existing Full Movement Access - Cononional^ - _. RI/R0 V2t>a RI/R0 Mac Davidson Cir '4 • d ;5 300 c 14.62 EMS 1 Ridgeway Blvd O New Full Movement Access 500 Page 17 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D a m T N 3 rn 0 o: 141 Penrose Blvd Access Control Plan . IJl,lepos[s(1/10 mo Mapbook Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier CO 52 PEL / ACP Rim 9ignt-IniR Right-In/Right-Out •T� CO 119 to CO 79 lwt0SX]ID 1 0 snosi - 3-.. -43 —_ .-. Access Key --- Aporox Existing Co 52 ROW•••••''''''• • -- Corr icr Pr servaticn Footprint -...•.-. .. — — Paral el Irrigation (Emil liffa 3 - Oak` Cl - - Corridor Preservation Footprint allows for centerline realignment of CO 52 and the realignment of WCR 17 d I50 300 f00 05MEI E4 WM f3� . Page 18 of 50 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D 49i5 / / Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP .y CO 119 to CO 79 a y.. ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing l raffle Signal Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out Corridor Preservation Footprint allows for centerline realignment of CO 52 and the realignment of WCR 77. - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key / /' / / / / / / 7 / / / / / 15.5 • No Action - NoAction- ;:r - 1 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional^ ₹7! C4.- Rr M� b • - •ae 0 75 150 300 500 Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 19 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D • 16 —!_.- — - Access Control Plan Mapbook „op CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mQ Existing Traffic Signal Cl .i,' Access ldennfler RI/RO Rlght-In/Rlghl-Out --- Apprpx Ex.sting CO 52 ROW Corriicr Preservadon Foctpnnt — — Paralel lrngalion Access Key cc U = — _- • Vale ri 4 A:tic:Em- ma - 16.5 �TMC rI*4 M Co Teiv - - ungr d 0 5 150 300 600 00 Page 20 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D cc U 3 � - +..� —. Access Control Plan Mapbook .P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mtleposts(1/lam:) Existing Iraific Signal Q,050 Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/light-Oui - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservanon Footprint — — Parallel Imgaaon Access Key • No Action - NoAction- .. Existing Full Movement to Res[ncted Access O Existing Full Movement Access-Concrlional" ... 17.44-N&S N cc U 3 175 0 75 150 oc New Full Movement Access Page 21 0150 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A66O-2CD1FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook Q CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 rm) Existing Traffic Signal Q4,, Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out E - Or ry -ter _ V C.elgagI8 28 • - --- Apprcx xsting CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Para lel Irrigation Access kay _ " . iDiata 52 _ -- _" - CC 5 ifICKEDS • V) N CC U 3 iso zoo :co Nea Full Movement Access Page 22 0150 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369fd6A5-0676-066E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D N 1BS Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic. Signal Q(;@ Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out =fa _ aw - tow x:9eac -.i Lei O C., � � 19 -.J - ate- - 0 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Kev • NOAction - NoAction -: Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional - Me ti 500 600' Page 23 of 50 DacuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-486E-AB6D-2CD1FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ M,leposts(1/10 mi) 0 Existing I['attic Signal Access Identifier RURO Right-In/Rgh FOut 0 nag --- Aggro< Existing CO 52 ROVJ -- Carrico; Preservation Footprint — — Paralbl Irrigation. _ A Corridor Preservation Footprint's not shown through the US 85 interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEN documents, or are under construction AC:e551Ccy N No Action- • No Action- . II Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Existing Full Movement ;> .... 3' St 2" St Right -Out Only RVP.Oauie �' '��1 �i� S: k� di=d�S.}� Fuvp - £&72.-11N1 ZO t - It C _ - - DCG IC: mog B5 RYRO .`i9CN Y1vJi .� kra±l0 d 1.50 00 - Q Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed %n0 Ner Full Movement Access Page 24 ul 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BEIA5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D r St 2-1St 5-4',Z t1.1 J Y1}az —L-44re£l - N-4, 44,1 MME12-4D,s CJ. C9 C -r+ C -z- a cc: a Via'- %mg Sag Access Control Plan Mapbook 9 CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/1D mi) Exwsting Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out McKinley Ave P m Y 3 3`° St a 5 z ^ se. r u� KINg ffigitn —C -: utal--Qt44.-1_6,0 —0: —in5Q�- - k x6 3 ti -O f v r N KtER42 II2 Y a a' a x a Access Key --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW a No Action -• Corridor Preservation Foolonnt NoAction- , — — Parallel Irrigation 4 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional- 20.66-S RURO • RI/R0 �a -------_rn sz_ m ar cc d 0 75 i50 100 600 ]00 Page 25 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-O676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D Coyote Creek Dr FORT LUPTON 21 MN) O •-- - • Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal @ Access Identifiei RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out • - - -g09543 Trail Blazer Rd Silverado Ln Virginia Dr Access Key --- Appiox Existing CO 52 ROW — Condor P,eservation Foolprint • rs .. — — Parallel Irrigation 4 ; C SICD,,3 — fateal 24-5 — • —O fiaE4f3 ffiff5t3 ,„4 _ s� I 4 i111104 --— • 300 000 Page 25 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID A3696BA5-D676-066E-AB6D-2CD1FE260C9D M C U SiIMa —ft� _ ▪ 1 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 A N CC U 3 ♦ Mdeposts (1/10 rn0 Existing Traffic Signal WOO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out .12035- 211Ettli -- - - Approx Existing CC 52 ROW Corndor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • M1w. ;' . No Action- . II Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional' M24�A fazga• o P♦ 22.5 " sum Mae Q M3Q Page 27 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D - Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL ; ACP F CO 119 10 CO 79 - '0- _. MCC - R aZZI _ a -_ �. - SM@ &KOCI ♦ Mileposts Dr mi) --- App x x sting CO 52 ROW aExisting Traffic Signal -- Corridor Preservation Footprint Access Identifier -- Para lel Irrigation RVRO Right-In/Right-Out ECM — ACCCGs KC}' _ • No Action - ! ❑0 No Lion- In,Lma:u 4 Existing Full Movement to Res ricted Access O Exist ng Full vementAccess -Condi lanai' C. Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed , nn ,-U�^ng rr,g,,, rr.-,rl,r, alur u,pedse olrn-rye ma,, 2Lr% Jth+r aru-ss ro roronin.,, .rrh,,weY be^ornos.vau�rle Cf ,07 P,mecr pro.) , r_ahm .. S„F_e v,. ,,, Hr. - ,-,e •flagin - - 0 Elige " _. O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access ;GUI and Loy r ,Lb,� < „nau,n IN,Im rrn. y 7- n. ,r Page 25 c 150 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D PlaMI MO t:4 - - - .23 .5 Access Control Plan Mapbook ago,, CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal GADO Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation t52 Access Kev • No Action -; No Action- ti ir,,,ii • Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional^ Egois d 24 __ _ Eircw- Ego .• Existing Full Movement Access to he Removed moo 01-1 faIEW 0 75 300 600 Q New Full Movement Access Existing Restricted Access l0 be Removed New Restricted Access ...r„ _,., r, . 00, Page 29 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A36968A5-D676366E-ABED-2CD1 FE260C9D gne Access Control Plan Mapbook asp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 We . M CC 0a A MIleposts (1/10 ni) Existing [raffle Signal Ga.@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 29.5 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corndor Pr servaticn Foolcrint — — Paral el I rigation .r Access Kev • _En __.0 1.414 - a ---- - a - - - f3g10 � EINiN Mae a — ge 300 eoo Page 30 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D n M cc U 3 Ent Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mO Existing Traffic Signal (O43 Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation M_ t:4 25-5 �3fl Access Key • NO Action Ij Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" ,a d 0 ]5 150 000 600 300 Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access ,fI, I„ Page 31 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-066E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D - a WW1 -+— O ¢...— 0- E06 E024i Access Control Plan . Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal WOO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 1 - -- Apprex Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Para El lrri ation O .._ 3' 41 - — MOO •MtAi Mak© )!ccess ;ivy _ • No Action -! zz.cl nq I Ili • Existing Full Movement . Restric ed Access • Existing Full Movement:=:.s _ Sri, Bowles Canal Rd MO MO MO rANit Page 32 of 50 DacuSign Envelope ID: A369S6A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9O op C U Signal instalation part of existing safety improvement project Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP a Y CO 119 to CO 79 ,,x7 _ EQm�a . ame- • Mileposts(1/10 m) 0 Existing Traffic Signal WOO Access Identifier RURO Right-In/Right-Out - • Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Ellega2fi t7.5 a ce U Access Key • t> ..- u, Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional. MCI fl BEV 75 :C 'e0 400 300 O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 33 of 50 DocuSign Envelope lD: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD7 FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP C? CO 119 to CO 79 12M A _ ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal GOA Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corr dor Preservation Footprint — — Perot el I ngation _ r... },.:1 vir ffi86.5 Access Key • NoAction- , . NO Action - Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access ® Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' wn tt -- -• •wLIEN —-'----- - ice' 0 7: 150 300 600 _1_-_200_ —_ Z New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 34 of 50 DocuSign Envebpe ID. A36988A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D 28.5 Access Control Plan Mapbook ® CO 52 PEL / ACP v CO 119 to CO 79 73:krdls`I A Corridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through the l-76 Interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction MIleposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal GO -0 Access Identifier lit/RO Righ tin/Right-Dut --— Approx Existing CD 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Foatpnnt — Parallel Irrigation 'CS y Acc- ess Key • NoAction - No Action - 411 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional• WCR 12 k d 0 75 150 Ind 600 f,0 - 700 O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 35 0150 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-066E-A66D-2CD1 FE260C9D A Corridor Preservation Footprint Is not shown through the 1-76 interchange area since this area is excluded from Me PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction Access Control Plan . Mileposts(MO rni) Mapbook Exist•nc Traffic Signal Me@ Access Identifier 0 CO 52 PEL / ACP RI/RD Right-In/Right-Dut CO 119 to CO 79 £Far' a T_AA O58 ›.(s3 :? N 0 U r=te. 3`^ Ave HUDSON c ✓ v virgAZIN YFS41, JT 7anZt WO 3Yu i . . itL':�k� � . iFk.bd�:'F3- � � ix,F� _ _ � • - - z�sf,J •_ - L4:- . - • — - -C - -. • -C • -- 6-• — —� •- -- • .CL- -'Lh1G�gale? 5'^ Ave 5'Ave Access Kev - -- APprox Exiling CO 57 ROW N•,c..- Corridor Preservation Foolprim �• - - Paral el lrri anon N L m N a" N r v U 4' Ave N A l] 150 eco boo Page 36 of 50 Docu5gn Envelope ID A369BBA5-D676-066E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D n a U 3 y T O 2 © mm ECM -er-- 15- 43-49- --- -t---i - - f -_ 42 -O•• lorKt UMUM N T O S Access Control Plan Mapbook r 0 I CO 52 PEL / ACP +� - CO iig t[3 CO 79 Sunrise Acres St HUDSON • Mileposts (1/10 ml) Q Existing Traffic Signal Wise Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out 521 Cook Ct - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW - Corridor Preservation Foarprint — — Parallel Irrigation 30.5 ]0.49-S Access Key • NoAction - NcAction • 1 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional• usm -w — EEOMU _ • 0 • d 0 ]5 i50 100 600 ii Page 37 01 50 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-O676+L66E-A66D-2CD1 FE260C9D - 31. -tam ►s Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO119 to CO 79 , ,3i.5 = €T = - - t - 3Q - _ __ - _ _ - - - - - - - - taw MOO - -- Appmx Exl ting CO 52 ROW Corri or reservation Footprint — — Paral el Irri ation Ac CO,s Key • No Action -1,e,eg Full No Action - r ,. -, tmd t Existi g Full Movement Restricted Access • Exist gFull Movement. riv Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed 4copv, le be re, rIOVE," ,i er,e of Ine Lelovilrg asw I LandVserl,arlge re:.Aye)rntraffic voluo, ln,re,se of wore tllari zD% Otr,.r 3cce.;, ro U'olorado He, way bepornrc valtable t: f J l Fr oleer p,o',cle, cAer , c :e• � sdfely cor,;emc arse Q Neu/ Full Movement Access New Restricted Access r 1)0T and L eat if y I. Jetar n, r.e •r-.'.I,,obUll (F.rgnl In/kiryhi-Ou; or',) Page 30 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D rn cc U 3 PEZU • e- - - Kw a R cc Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 52: € _ &MU €i/51r1 - - 0 • 0 , D t�zi ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Exisung CO 57_ ROW Existing Traffic Signal Corridor Preservation Footprint Access Identifier -- Parallel lrrgation RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Access Key to NoAction- NOActIon- .,c Exisung Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional" €oirti`f Eyl fZI Pa° M3 0:320 - C4 325 d 00" Page 39 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1 FE260C9D �44' Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 •.."cc..,r, isrea— N C U ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RURO Right-In/Right-Out — 33 _ 52 Ar�ess xey --- Approx Exi ting CO 52 ROW - Corridor Preservation Footprint -.. •�- - — Para el Irn anon MOD — © -� -33.5 .. 03a0 d ]0 ]00 500 soo Page 40 of 50 Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369BfiA5-0676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D ZEEN21 3 - Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 i 4.) ` . ` _ Eriaqi amp - • Mileposts (1/10 mi) besiiing Traffic Signal GAN? Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out M CC --- Approx Ex sling CO S7 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foolorint — — Parallel Irrigation 34 • IFR cam_ Access Key • No Action - NoAction- :. Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Pull Movement Access - Conditional" 50 J00 ;GO O New Full Movement Access Page 41 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D - Access Control Plan Mapbook Q ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW py CO 52 PEL / ACP C0119 to CO 79 Existing lrafric Signal WA Access Identifier RVRO RighEln/Right-Oui -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irri ation ?ccess Key N ce U 3 ▪ NoAction- NoAction - f t Existing Full Mo emend. o Rest Ic ed Access ® Existing Full Mo ement Access -Condi oriel" rte. ... �..., Page 42 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-066E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook p CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW — - Corridor Preserva[icn Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation tlagNa -3515— - - Access Key IMO • No Action - ! No Action - 1 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" MEIM . - • � 4 t =5�3 EdMea d 75 150 300 600 Page 43 of 50 DacuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D rn cc Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 — lei--- 9 ♦ Mtleposls (1/10 mg Existing Tra:fic Signal Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out - 13a90 - _ - „ " = - 9 — - • - -- €3 - --- App ox x sting CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservancn Foolprinl — — Para lel Irn ijaoon Access Key_ s Q 36.5 sz: —•_11..2f .� - - C4 — €]© zne-KIEN ME1HI .e am taw d 0 T 150 300 �s I cc U 3 600 Nero Full Movement Access Page 44 or 50 DacaSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-Ae6D-2CD1FE260C9O I MO ptizo a ce U 3 Access Control Plan Mapbook ® CO 52 PEL / ACP �IcongtoCO79 • Mileposts (1/10 ml) Q Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out TKO -- Access K=y -- Approx Exating CO57_ROW • NoAction- CorridorPreservatonFootprint NoActIon- Parallellrngation • Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Condmonal' i� 315 :WO 4 - MO 0 >$ 150 b ]p0 Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 45 of 5D Docu5ign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-486E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D Access Control Plan Mapbook I lezF- CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 - -,414F" - - - - -- . cc U 3 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal ClairEf Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out --- App ox x sting CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Para lel Irrigation Ar.cess fcty —� NoAction- — - -.' -_ _ ._- - -Mgt _ - t Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access (i Existing Full Movement Access-Condi tonal' • _ — — r;? 26.5 - - €DO T 150 100 300 Page 46 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BfiA5-D676-466E-Afi6D-2CD1FE260C9D M 0 U 3 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 MUM 39 '44 - - - - - ! 52-:. ♦ Mtleposts (1/10 mi) Existng Traffic Signal GTO Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preserve non Footprint -- Parallel Irrigation m s U 3 Access Key No Action- i., Existng Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' C.9 f COM Fee 0 75 150 ]00 a0V © New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access 600 Page 47 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A36958A5-D676466E-AB6D-2CD1FE260C9D I inLaiii ' - -- — - - X39:5 Ft cdf._•cim Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mtleposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal WA Access Identifier RI/RO Righbin/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corr dor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel I rigation C.* Men .40 Access Key c ., Restricted Access -- '' {t - - - -- C2143 Ma Page 4B of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BeA5-0676466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D C" . 0E3Ea C 3 C. _+_ �. C3 mG3e - 02o - Access Control Plan • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Mapbook Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier CO 52 PEL / ACP y> CO 119 to CO 79 RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out COO - CIACt - ■ TOO -'"•4305@ C3 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — parallel Irrigation Access Key • No Action r^ n NoAction- , • Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Condhional* -© Existing Full ot-�•-roved -spry Existing Res.,x^ A• •:e•s I•: s: F2,- r:m:r New Restricted Access d 300 Q New Full Movement Access -1 _ 4c rota . . er i :.aa,i CC, _ws �� c Page 49 of 50 DacuSign Envelope ID: A369B6A5-D676-466E-A66D-2CD1FE260C9D MEDI •71::..471 - . Wiz) i F>CI'L�J 74— dt�7} it at'l- �lra - 4 . _ - _0lak1Z1• ^'C 1,...1Cf — -- ...- _ _ _ _ _ . 47,N j. - - alaigl elll r L11e`5.a.. 4krr+i , _' alai ��_ `�ft� { +tj —1 — --- - Cr.—. —�43:5--_��--�+�-----CO— -..--A. -•.- --� •P-� -ca c —'- c — Q =Q �rrs,-`:4.'bi , tea___ a �•- xc.I. - .- --4-- �+ 52_ AD. Ct- C-- _--�_=-'-p -arSI .4 41%Q.. 01- i aliik i 61U71� .� U -W._ ag-D@-. age - •01I530 flat - - - efts1@5. 'Gk7}=g -1;1$3O 3l.R:g -- - .-6,1-,i? zlic` cr'ff*° 99 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP 1r CO ll9 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/111 mi) p Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- App Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corri r Preservation Footprint — — Parall Ir igation Access Key a No Action :0 • Existing Full Mo ement Restricted Access O Existing Full Mo emenI:00 c,s • Conditional" Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed O New Full Movement Access • Existing Restricted Access to be Removed New Restricted Access a t?L r rc r, r, t Co' ,r I • _rr!u, .,,,r6ni,vrn :..�rorn,�a ini��bLh Page 50 of 50 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 EXHIBIT B COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 52 (MP 0.00 - MP 41.94) ACCESS CONTROL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 1. A request for an amendment of the Access Control Plan must be initiated by one of the Agencies. The initiating Agency will be responsible for the costs associated with completing and documenting the Amendment. 2. Amendment requests must be submitted to CDOT and agreed upon by the affected jurisdictions: Department staff, Town or City staff and/or County staff of the Intergovernmental Agreement, depending on the property location. The property or properties that are directly affected by the proposed amendment must be located within an Agency's jurisdiction boundaries or within the boundaries of a legally recognized planning area, such as a Growth Management Area, for the jurisdiction to be considered an affected jurisdiction. Any affected jurisdiction of the Intergovernmental Agreement can request this supporting documentation. 3. An amendment request shall include hard copy and electronic files of the following: a) Description of changes to the Access Control Plan requested b) Justification for the Amendment c) Traffic Impact Study, to include an analysis that compares and contrasts 1) the request for amendment to 2) coincide with the PEL alternatives d) Amended Access Control Plan Table e) Amended Access Control Plan Exhibit(s)/Map(s) 4. The Agencies shall review the submittal concurrently for completeness and for consistency with the access objectives, principles, and strategies described in the Colorado State Highway 52 Access Control Plan (2021) executive summary and Appendix for this corridor and with the design criteria and permit process of the State Highway Access Code. 5. Prior to approval of an amendment, all property owners directly affected by the amendment must be notified in writing and be given thirty (30) calendar days to state any objections. If an objection is lodged, approval of the amendment must be referred to the Agencies' respective governing bodies. Depending on the magnitude of the change requested, a public meeting may be required. Any affected jurisdiction of the Intergovernmental Agreement can request a public meeting. The Agency initiating the amendment request shall be responsible for all public notification and public process, unless otherwise agreed to by the Agencies. 6. Amendments must be approved in writing by the following authorized designated officials: Regional Transportation Director for the Department, the Town or City Manager or Administrator, and the County Manager. At the authorized designated official's discretion, approval may be referred to their respective governing bodies: Chief Engineer for the Department; and local elected officials for the Towns, Cities and Counties. 7. A written amendment must include the following: 1 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 a) Declarations page defining the Parties, effective date, and details of the amendment. Refer to sample amendment attached to this Exhibit as Exhibit C. b) Signatures page for authorized designated officials. Refer to Exhibit C. c) Amended Access Control Plan table and exhibits. Table and exhibits should be replaced in their entirety. A signed amendment must be attached to the original Intergovernmental Agreement. If a minimum of 66% (six of the nine Agencies that are Parties to this Agreement) of the Agencies of the Intergovernmental Agreement do not come to agreement on a proposed amendment, the content of the original Access Control Plan remains intact. A "no response" vote from a municipality shall be deemed a "No" vote. The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 EXHIBIT C SAMPLE AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE TOWN OF ERIE, TOWN OF FREDERICK, CITY OF DACONO, CITY OF FORT LUPTON, TOWN OF HUDSON, TOWN OF KEENESBURG, THE COUNTY OF BOULDER, THE COUNTY OF WELD, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATED WHEREAS, The Town of Erie, the Town of Frederick, City of Dacono, City of Fort Lupton Town of Hudson, Town of Keenesburg, the County of Boulder, and the County of Weld (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Agencies") and the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department'), said Parties being referred to collectively herein as the "Agencies", entered into an Agreement on , 20XX to adopt an Access Control Plan dated , 20XX for the section of Colorado State Highway 52 between Colorado State Highway 119 (MP 0.00) and Colorado State Highway 79 (MP 41.94), (hereinafter referred to as the "Segment'). WHEREAS, The Agencies desire to amend this Agreement in accordance with the attached table for the Segment. NOW, THEREFORE, the Agencies do hereby agree: The Agreement and the terms and conditions therein shall remain unchanged other than those sections and exhibits listed below: The attached table and exhibits for Colorado State Highway 52 in Exhibit A shall be replaced with the table attached to this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year of the last Party to sign. City of Fort Lupton, Colorado City of Fort Lupton, Colorado Attestation by: Zo Stieber, Mayor of Fort Lupton by: Mari Pena, City of Fort Lupton Clerk Date Date Town of Erie, Colorado Town of Erie, Colorado Attestation by: Jennifer Carroll, Mayor of Erie by: Heidi Leatherwood, Town of Erie Clerk Date Date City of Dacono, Colorado City of Dacono, Colorado Attestation 1 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 by: Joe Baker, Mayor of Dacono by: Valerie Taylor, City of Dacono Clerk Date Date Town of Frederick, Colorado Town of Frederick, Colorado Attestation by: Meghan Martinez, Town of Frederick by: Tracie Crites, Mayor of Frederick Clerk Date Date Town of Hudson, Colorado by: Laura Hargis, Mayor of Hudson Date Town of Keenesburg, Colorado by: Ken Gfeller, Mayor of Keenesburg Date County of Weld, Colorado County of Weld, Colorado Attestation by: Steven Moreno, Weld County Board of Commissioners Chair by: Carly Koppes, Weld County Clerk Date Date County of Boulder, Colorado County of Boulder, Colorado Attestation by: Cecilia Lacey, Commissioner's Agenda by: Claire Levy, Boulder County Commissioner Coordinator Date Date 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369BBA5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 State of Colorado, Department of Transportation by: Heather Paddock, Region 4 Regional Transportation Director Date State of Colorado, Department of Transportation by: Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer Date 3 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: A369B8A5-D676-466E-A86D-2CD1 FE260C9D OLA#: 351001782 Routing#: 22-HA4-XE-00039 14. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agencies have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year of the last Party to sign. r�To.15:3 of Fredericklora - Oca.>,e(1-►\cLircAA. [Or P1roTt-w--+ by. Traeieff-itet-nA 4II12gzz. Date of-kederick Town of Frederick, Colorado Attestation �1 _- �- by: Me�h�}i Martinez, Towlti't lederick Clerk �1 117-022. Date Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation 2829 W Howard Place Denver, CO 80204 CCOLORAD❑ w"� '..4:::z.,.11 Depaziment Of Transportat tor. Prepared by Muller Engineering Company 777 S Wadsworth Blvd #4-100 Lakewood, CO 80226 in Partnership with HDR 1670 Broadway Denver, CO 80202 i;aMUi;LER Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 2 CO 52 PEL STUDY TEAM The following participants were instrumental in guiding and preparing the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study and Access Control Plan FHWA Stephanie O4:.,ison (Environmental Program Manager); Brian Dobling (Area Engineer). Armando Henriciuez (Area Engineer) CDOT Project Management Team Chad Hall, PE. (Project Monage.r); Heather Poadacr, PF. (Region 4 Transportation Director), Ke: _n Sheaffer (Region E Program Engineer); Richard Christy (Region 4 Resident Engineer), Lou.s Keen, P..E (Regiun G Resident Engineer); Joan E',..issen (Region " Pe,gion Planning and Environmental Manager), Troy r-ialouska (CDO1 EPB Mannino and Fnyironmental LinI( ages/NEPA); rim 8rloorar. (Region 4 Permits Manager); Allysor Young (Region 4 Assistant Access Manager), Et' yce Reeves, P.E. (Region 4 Professional Engineer), Mork Connelly (Rre,gion 4 Trof-ic ^ngineer), Daniel Morco.rz.;ci (Resident Engineer); r;atrina klober4Janz, P.E. (Region 4 Traffic Engineer), Adhana Murtic (Region 4 Civil Engineer ono ;Project Manager); ,fared Fier (Region 4 Cornn-iun:cotions Manager) Consultant Team Muller Engineering Company; HDR; RockSol Consulting Group, Inc.; CDR Associates; ARCH Professionals; Arland LLC; Goodbee Associates; Ordonez & Vogelsang LLC Technical Team Jeffrey Botts (Boulder Co.lnty), AJ E Eckert (City of Docono), .Jennifer Krieger (City, of h7c:orio); .,orlon Eichem (City of DO :onO), MaiC,aln Fleming (Town of Ene); David Pas:c (Town. or Erie,), Deborah Bachelder (Town of Erie.), Kevin Spencer (Town of Ere); Roy Vestal (City of Fort Lupton , :o St+eber (City of Tort Lupton); Monroe Peck (City of Fart Wotan). lvteghan Mortinuz (Town of=rederick), Kevin Asir (Town of Frederick). Jerin:`er Simmons ( IOVun of Frederick); Bryan Ostler (-own of P-e.0er Ck); Jason Bert (Town of l redericK), Ryan Johnson (Taws i of Fi-ede+ ick), Guy P:Jtterson ( Town of-iuciscn); ..lennefer Woods (Town cif Hudson), lvi.catt Brown (Town of Huoson): Mark Gray (City of Keeneslourg). Elizabeth Relford (Wela County): Dayvn Anderson (Weld County, Evan Prnknam (Weld County, Chad Hall, PE (ProleCt Manager); Kelm Sne.after (Region f Program Erginee.r); Consultant Teann SH 52 Coalition Commissioner Clair Levy (Boulder County), C or^rnessionef ton S;: ne (Weld Cou.nty), Mayor Joe Baker (City of IDacano), Mayor Jennifer Carroll (Towr: of Erie), Mayor Zo Stlebe.r (City of Fort Lupton), Mayor -race. Crites (Town or Frederick); Mayor Lauri) I--ICIRis (Lawn of HuOSOn); Mayor Ker (feller (Town of Keenesburg.); Rory Papsdorf (Denver Regional Counc I of Governments); Sccit James (Upaer Front_ Range-ransao!''aticn IDlann'.r•g Regan - Planning Corhrn,sslon), Goad Hall, PE. (Project tv!anager); Heatner Paddock, PE (Region <I Tronsportoticn Director); Keith Sh,eaffYr (Region 4 Progrom-I Engineer) Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Click on the appropriate section below to move directly to the page. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1.2 Access Control Plan 1.3 Project limits and Logical Termini 1.3.1 Corridor Segments 1.4 CO 52 PEL and ACP Project Communications 1.4.1 State Highway 52 Coalition 1.5 Reason & Vision 2.0 Existing Conditions Overview 2.1 Planning Context 2.2 Transportation Context 2.2.1 Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure 2.3 Environmental Context 2.4 Summary of Existing Conditions Data 3.0 Purpose 8, Need and Goals 3.1 Purpose and Need 3.2 Goals 4.0 Alternatives Development and Evaluation 4.1 Exclusion Areas 4.2 State and Regional Guidance 4.2.1 Colorado Roadmap to GHG Pollution Reduction 4.2.2 Transportation Safety & Vision Zero 4.3 Supplementing the Existing Conditions Report 4.3.1 East County Line Road/Weld County Road I Corridor Study 4.3.2 Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/ Parallel Routes Analysis 4.3.3 Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis 4.3.4 COVID-19 Adjustments 4.3.5 Telework Analysis 4.3.6 Freight Analysis 4.3.7 Transit Analysis 4.4 Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures 4.5 Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process 4.5.1 No Action Alternative 4.5.2 Alternatives Development 4.5.3 Key Geometric Features 4.5.4 Evaluation process 8 4.6 Level 1 Evaluation 10 4.6.1 Results of Level] 10 4.7 Level 2 Evaluation 12 4.7.1 Corridor Overview - Segment ypical 13 Sections 14 4.7.2 Typical Section Options 15 4.7.3 Additional Elements 15 4.7.4 Design Refinements and 16 Advanced Study Areas 16 4.7.5 Traffic Operations 17 4.8 Corridor Recommendations 18 4.9 Intersection Improvements 18 4.10 Corridor Preservation Footprint 19 5.0 Project Categorization 21 5.1 Identification of Potential Projects 21 5.2 Process of Categorization 22 5.2.1 Purpose & Need Measuremen_s 23 5.2.2 Ease of Implementation 23 5.3 Potential Projects 24 5.3.1 Potential Prioritization 6.0 Agency and Public Coordination 24 6.1 Introduction 25 6.2 Project and Agency Coordination 26 6.2.1 Project Management Team 6.2.2 Technical Team 26 6.2.3 State Highway 52 Coalition 6.2.4 Resource Agency Cooridnation 27 6.2.5 One -on -One Meetings 28 6.3 Public Involvement 29 6.3.1 General Communications 30 6.3.2 Open Houses 31 7.0 Literature Cited 31 8.0 Appendix 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 39 41 42 46 48 49 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 64 67 67 67 69 69 70 70 71 71 72 74 76 77 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 4 APPENDIX Click on the appropriate appendix below to move directly to the page. A. Letters of Support a. Copies of Letters or Approved Resolutions from each Agency B. Access Control Plan Report C. FHWA Check -in Points 1. Reason for PEL Decision Memo 2. Purpose and Need Approval 3. Approval of Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated D. PEL Questionnaire E. Existing Conditions Report F. Technical Memos 1. Logical Termini Memo 2. Project Terminology Memo 3. Purpose and Need Memo 4. State Policy Memo 5 Transit Memo 6. Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memo 7. Telework Analysis - Sensitivity Model Run Memo 8. Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Memo 9. Freight Analysis 10. Traffic Technical memorandum 11. Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo 12. Alternative Analysis Terminology memo 13. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Analysis Memo 14. Emerging Technology Opportunities Memo 15. Potential Funding Technical Memo G. Alternatives Analysis - Evaluation Matricies a. Level 1 Evaluation Matrix b. Level 2 Evaluation Matrix H. Agency Coordination and Public Engagement Report 1. 1A. Action Item and Decision Log 2. 1B Biweekly Updates 3. 1C Communications Coordination 4. 1D. Meeting Notes 5. 1E. Coalition Updates 6. 1F. Resource Agency Letters 7. 1G Public Open Houses I. Project Categorization Table ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACP ATMS BNSF CDOT CIP CMCA CO Coalitio CFR CPW CR DHV DRCOG EJ FH WA GHG GIS HazMat HOA HOV I-25 ID I GA ITS LOS LTS MP MPOs NEPA PEL PI PMT ROW STI P STS P T&E TIP TRP TT TWLTL US 287 USACE USDOT USFWS VOH WAH WCR WOTUS Access Control Plan Active Traffic Management Systems Burling on Northern Santa Fe Railway Colorado Department of Transportation Capital Improvement Program Colorado Motor Carriers Association State Highway n State Highway 52 Coalition Code of Federal Regulations Colorado Parks and Wildlife county road design hourly volume Denver Regional Council of Governments Environmental Justice Federal Highway Administration greenhouse gas Geographic Information Systems hazardous materials homeowners' association High -occupancy vehicle Interstate 25 identification intergovernmental agreement intellige� �: rransportation system Level of Service Level of Traffic Stress mile post Metropolitan Planning Organizations National Environmental Policy Act Planning and Environmental Linkages Public Involvement Project Management Team right-of-way State Transportation Improvement Program Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan Threatened and Endangered Species Transportation Improvement Plan Transportation Regional Plan Technical Team Two-way Left -turn Lane U.S Highway 287 U.S Army Corps of Engineers U.S Department of Transportation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virtual Open House Work at Home Weld County Road Waters of the US. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Regional Context Map Figure 1-2 CO 52 PEL & ACP Project Delivery Figure 1-3 CO 52 PEL & ACP Relationship Figure 1-4 Corridor Map Figure 1-5 CO 52 Segments Figure 1-6 Project Communications Figure 1-7 Reason and Vision Figure 2-1 Existing Lanes Figure 3-1 Purpose & Need Development Figure 3-2 Goals Development Figure 4-1 Exclusion Areas Figure 4-2 CO 52 Corridor - Daily Two -Way Volume Forecasts Figure 4-3 EB CO 52 from CO119 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Figure 4-4 Base Models vs. Telework Model Trip Estimations Figure 4-5 Range of Alternatives Considered Figure 4-6 Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process Figure 4-7 2 Lane Rural Typical Section Figure 4-8 4 Lane Rural Typical Section (Similar Footprint for 2 Lane with 2 HOV Managed Lanes) Figure 4-9 2 Lane Urban Typical Section (with Two-way Left - turn Lane Figure 4-10 4 Lane Urban typical Section (with Two-way Left - turn Lane Figure 4-11 6 Lane Urban Typical Section Figure 4-12 Dacono/Frederick Before and After Visualizations Figure 4-13 Hudson Before and After Visualizations Figure 4-14 Boulder County Before and After Visualizations Figure 4-15 US 287 and CO 52 Intersection Figure 4-16 Reverse Curves and Potential Weld County Road 17 Realignment Figure 4-17 WCR 59 and CO 52 Intersection Figure 4-18 Fort Lupton County Before and After Visualizations Figure 4-19 Recommended Corridor Alternatives Map Figure 4-20 Segment]: Preferred Intersection Improvements Figure 4-21 Segment 2 West Preferred Intersection Improvements Figure 4-22 Segment 2 East: Preferred Intersection Improvements Figure 4-23 Segment 3 West: Preferred Intersection Improvements Figure 4-24 Segment 3 East Preferred Intersection Improvements Figure 4-25 Segment 4: Preferred Intersection Improvements Figure 4-26 Segment 5: Preferred Intersection Improvements 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 17 21 22 23 27 28 30 35 35 38 Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 Figure 6-4 Figure 6-5 Figure 6-6 Figure 6-7 Project Communications Graphic CDOT's Project Website ACP One -Pager 2020 Postcard Frequency of Key Themes 2021 Postcard Frequency of Key Themes LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 38 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 38 38 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Summary of Existing Conditions COVID-19 Adjustment Factor Development Daily Transit Ridership - Two -Way Total PEL Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures 2045 Fiscally Constrained Projects Considered in No Action Alternative Model (STIP/TIP) Stakeholder Meeting Highlights Level 1 Eliminated Alternatives Level 2 Alternatives Considered Alternatives Carried Forward Table of Purpose & Need Measurement Scores Summary Table of Potential Projects Highest Rated Overall Need Projects Highest Rated Safety Projects Highest Rated Traffic Operations Projects Highest Rated Multimodal Projects 68 72 72 74 74 75 75 19 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 49 59 60 64 65 65 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 6 LETTERS OF SUPPORT Local agencies engaged during the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study for the State Hlghwoy (CO) 52 Corridor between CO U9 and CO 79 expressed their support through either letter or resolution (Appendix A). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CBOT) ogree that this study complies with the FHWA PEL process. The project team has submitted answers to the FHWA PEL Questionnaire to demonstrate compliance with this process The process allows for PEL recommended projects to move forward for implementation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Other resource agencies with jurisaction along the corridor were provided an opportunity for feedback and comment throughout the process and have duly expressed their willingness to provide feedback and comment on future NEPA processes associated with specific corridor projects Recommenoed projects n'oay tie impiemen ed :n the future along -he corridor as funding beccmes available. CDOVA work ccoperatively with local agencies during future project implementation to follow the NEPA process and to identify funding across multiple resources Based on the results of the PEL, it is likely that several projects can move forward under NEPA Categorical Exclusions Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 7 a i 1.0 INTRODUCTION he Colorado Depa` -I-lent of T'ranspar'otion `, DOi; prepared o Planning Gino Environmentol l_ nkades Study (PE!; anti Access Central Plan (ACP) for the Colorado State Highway (C'O) 5? cior-der CO 52 is o orricnl transportation corridor ire northeastern Ccicracic p—cviaing east -west connectivity for the -egion The PEL cravlcies on understancing o` the ronsperrtation problems ir. the corridor, ❑ od lob❑natively aevel❑ped vision fo' the future, ahe projects to implement ;hat VISIO CDOT and 'EI. partners initiated this study to explore a range of Imerovernerts for tre corridor. The study vvill support CDOT, the local agencies• stakeholcers, and the to clete+mine [mprovemen7.;s 1'r a snould be made anc i eST_IMOte a corriuor preservation fcctvrint far future arojects The ore,ec: op rroximiately 42 miles (rniledest PP] 000 ! c VIP 4l 94) along CO 52 from CO 119 in Boulder county .c CO ;9 Feast o' Pucison it Wela C.=un*y (Figure 1-1). An increase in development along CO 52 helpee local agencies and CDOT recognize the need to develop an ACP in addition to the PEL. An ACP evaluates access locations in accordance with the State Highway Access Code along a highway corridor to accommodate the anticipated increase in population and/o change in land uses. The CO 52 ACP designates future access types and locations to improve safety and mobility for the traveling public Although the PEL and ACP Shure cot," m.an corr!adr nformation and Were aeveiocie.a along [he some timeline, the ACP es a separate ciocurnen; which -equines adcp:icrii by local agencies, v,�; intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), vvhile the PEL illustrates local agercy coe-dirat:or, through letters of support ;Appendix A). Figure 1-2 ilILEstrates both the parallel processes used to develop -ne PEL and ACP arc: also :he 'overall delivery process for this st_idy Figure 1-1 I Regional Context Map 651 I f/ CO 52 PEL/ACP CORRIDOR NORTHEASTERN COLORADO CO 52 Looking Southwest near Somerset Drive Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 8 Figure 1-2 I CO 52 PEL & ACP Project Delivery j r -- PROJECT ELEMENTS Project Communications Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) (fii • Pyofect'Wianagement7Team(PMT),Technical-Teami(TiT),S.H52• Coalition, Stakeholders I' Public Erigagernent New'slettets,,Postcards;'CD0T Website: �L Sea iiSh.TrartsIa't}or;.One-oQQrte S�akesdlder•Meetings,;P.ubl 'Meeting S• — • g Hcuse «, Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process — — -- r♦ `lrr.ual C]pen House z2 Deliverables Potential Projects Project Categorization Corridor Preservation Footprint Cost Estimates Funding/Grant Opportunities Ducks at Banner Lakes State Wildlife Area Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES 1. I STUDY■�] ACCESS CONTROL PLAN (ACP) PELs area Federal Hirway Administration (FHWA) in,f:ative that were created to support transpor'a_ cn decis.or-makers when c❑nsiaer ng envirohment;al, community, and economic goals early .n the planning process. Utilizing ❑ P=L streamlines Notional Environmental Policy Act ;NEPA) orocesses for future trar..sportaLon prc.ec-s (FHWA, 2015). Early in the JCL ❑racess, stakeholders and of.her project Proponents Identify a corridor vision, purpose, and needs leading to development of re„ornmencied ;r❑nsportation alterratives that -elect the needs ona goals. CDOT signed a Partnering Agreement with FHWA and several other federal and state agencies to encourage the use of a PEL approach to expedite transportation project implementation under NEPA, while adhering to agency procedures for project reviews and comments (CDOT, 2009). FHWA Coordination There are four required check -in meetings with FHWA at the following milestones of the PEL process: For more information on these check -in points, please see Appendix C and Appendix D. An ACP is a long-range planning document that designates preferred access locations along a highway corridor in accordance with the State H ghway Access Code to improve safety and mobility for the traveling public. ACPs for state highways are binding agreements adopted by CDOT and the local authorities through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Each of the signatories of the IGA agree to abide by the ACP. ACPs are living documents that can be amended through the amendment process specified in the IGA, which allows for a change to be requested and voted on by all signatories to the IGA. Developing an ACP provides CDOT and the local authorities an opportunity to develop a single transportation plan for a section of highway that considers multiple access points as a network rather than as individual access points. Corridor -specific considerations such as other local planning documents, intersection spacing, traffic movements, circulation, land use, topography and alternative access opportunities may be considered in developing the plan. ACPs do not define capacity improvements, off -network improvements, or funding sources for access improvements. However, in combination with a PEL, these elements can be considered in conjunction with the ACP. ACP implementation is a coordinated effort between CDOT, the local agency, and the property owner. This typically occurs when there is a land use change to the property or there is a change that increases traffic volumes by more than 20%. Existing access changes are only triggered by events such a development, redevelopment, or a major highway project When this occurs, CDOT reviews the access to determine if the future change shown in the ACP should be implemented. At this point, there would be discussions with local jurisdictions and the property owner prior to implementing any change in access. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 10 3 The PEL and ACP are separate but related processes. For the CO 52 corridor, these processes are coordinated so they can share information and decisions about access for future conditions The shared components between the PEL and ACP include elements like public and stakeholder engagement, traffic operations, and partnership opportunities. Figure 1-3 below depicts the components and outcomes of the PEL and ACP. Figure 1-3 I CO 52 PEL & ACP Relationship PEL Process c Sets corridor vision a Identifies existing conditions to determine corridor needs c Establishes priorities & cost c Recommendations for future projects G Applies strategies & tools for all transportation modes c Understanding of future operational needs O Coordination with the public and stakeh-olders 0 Identify°part ersl;ips ancl'o{iporf`u:niit�ie's The ACP and ACP Report can be found in Appendix B. The ACP Report discusses: The CO 52 ACP IGA was formalized between CDOT and the agencies along the corridor in the Fall of 2021. Successful implementation of the ACP requires continued coordination and cooperation between these agencies. Planning and Environmental Linkages shared components SUPPORTING DOCUMENT: Stakeholder Letter of Support Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 11 1. 3 PROJECT LIMITS AND LOGICAL TERMINI CO 52 is located in northeastern Colorado The highway is a critical east -west regional connection for corridor users and commuters traveling to and from Boulder County to cornmunities east in Weld County. It is one of tie few east -west routes that provides a critical connection between CO119, I-25, US 85 and I-76 The project limits extend from CO 119 in Boulder County to CO 79 east of Hudson in Weld County, apprcximately 42 miles in length (from MP 0 00 to MP 41 94) (Figure 1-4). FHWA 01 On July 23, 2019, CDOT and FHWA held a pre-scoping meeting to confirm that a PEI Is the appropriate study method, and that the project logical termini should be CO 119 on the west and CO 79 on the east (Figure 1 -4) -Meeting participants dete•mined that these limits met ::,HWA guidance on criteria to frame selection of transportation improvements (23 CFR 771111N) The selected corridor connects ogical termini to address environmental matters on a broad scope, provides independent utility, and would not require additional study context. The Logical Termini memorandum can be found in Appendix F. Figure 1-4 I Corridor Map Boulder ,Longmont Traffic Signal *Erie m� Firestone • Frederick • Dacono xl Railroad Crossing =_= Oversize Vehicle Route • !Fort Lupton - Transit(Bus)Seivice Hudson Existing Bike Route School/College CC Keenesburg Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 12 1.3.1 corridor Segments In order to better analyze the 42 -mile -long corridor, the study team divided the corridor into meaningful segments. Segment divisions considered political boundaries, community characteristics, and land use similarities (Figure 1-5). Other than Segment 2, which includes the communities of Erie, Frederick, and Dacono, the other segments only include one community along the corridor allowing community and county desires to be accommodated in the context of the overall corridor vision. Segment 2 CO119 to Boulder/Weld County line Boulder/Weld County line to Weld County Road (WCW)19 (eastern Denver Regional Council of Governments planning boundary) WCR 19 to WCR 31 (East of Fort Lupton) Figure 1-5 I CO 52 Segments •Longmont 2B 0 CC • Boulder Erie olbFirestone o cn CC iii • 1 ES ▪ Frederick • Dacono s U • Fort Lupton Entrance to the Wildlife Sanctuary at WCR 53 WCR 31 to WCR 49 (East of Hudson) WCR 49 to CO 79 2 cn CC •Hudson Keenesburg Q Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 13 1 A CO 52 PEL AND ACP PROJECT ■ I COMMUNICATIONS HWA and COOL were car-mitt.ea to ving federal, stale, arcs local ogencies and the public tnrougnout the CO 52 PEL and ACP processes. The gocll of the Prcjec,t Manocen-)ert'eo� (PMT) was to reach consensus a nongst stakeholders through Ehe developmen' of t.re reason a' Cf ‘ilsion, bull linci ZOWOrCIS the accep_ance of the Figure 1-6 I Project Communications evaluation criteria and recommended alternatives on CO 52 Local Agency involvement was emphasized throughout the PEL and ACP processes and feedback was solicited from the public at key decision points to foster support for corridor recommendations. The communications structure showing the roles and responsibilities of the project participants is shown in Figure 1-6 below MEETINGS: Monthly with weekly Project Manager updates ptal; covoBLE �at. . ;:• MULLER "•••,, I�. ,tit '- *ARCH f: ARMLAND DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: The Project Management Team was responsible for making project decisions- They monitored the scope and schedule to keep the project moving in the r ght direction. The PMT reviewed a I information before it was seen by the Technical Team, SH 52 Coalition, Stakeholders and public. Technical Team (rn WHO: Local Agencies along the Corridor - Boulder and Weld Counties. Towns of Erie, Frederick, Hudson and Keenesburg, Cities of Dacono and Fort Lupton MEETING FREQUENCY: Monthly, adjusted to meet milestones/decision points DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: The TT was responsible for making project recommendations. They were supported by the r respective agencies and provided input to the PMT on critica issues. The most important responsibility of the TT was to keep the SH 52 Coalition apprised of the project. SH52 Coalition WHO: Elected Officials MEETING FREQUENCY: Quarterly DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: The Coalition was briefed quarterly by the PMT. The PMT and TT were responsible for making the e ected official aware of project decisions and outcomes- Their understanding and support for the corridor generates excitement for future projects. WHO; Aims Community College. Bicycle Colorado. BNSF Railway Company. Bustang Express Bus Service. City of Boulder, City of Broomfield. City of Longmont, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Motor Carriers Association. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Community Cycles, Cyclists 4 Community. Environmental Protection Agency, Glens Coalition, IBM. Niwo . RTD, State Historic Preservation Office, Union Pacific Railroad, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S- Fish and Wildlife Services MEETING FREQUENCY; One -one -one Meetings as needed DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: Members of the PMT met with stakeholder to understand their concerns - adjacent land development, corridor congestion, safety, and muttimodal improvements This helped define the needs and goals along the corridor and develop altematives to address safety, mobility, resiliency, access, land use, and aesthetic goals. Public Engagement _PrrrQor user_ ..r. -...ti. _-;}�, et+:4dC,• fl:y F: c.: :I_; Nr'. .e .<<. . i 5f-•ONSIrluTv .. em n = = PM- ea'r _...n„ . 3^•� ..^.03�=: -rr . • tc r'?.t r :�aw�s.",�i t _ �:7 v['_�rr r_�. I••-.r.ra• p-t�: ❑ to £•7 e'� :t^•Cc''..•, .."nc r -3n h? c t •_ tG 1C_ E 3nc: ReeE, ern .n`nrrf�+,r; r!u^JCnr' S��.", v..'e Pt -17 t",r %:C!` .3 ric • -if,J3?5 • __ :al Agenr'•r • CDO- Neti,te u;icatee • SD . „"i TI an.s'at,c,ns • ,.-I•:2•;.'�-iatt? to Erriali Dater se Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 14 1.4.1 State Highway (SH) 52 Coalition In 2018, local agencies recognized that increased growth and development along the corridor were contributing to congestion and safety issues. Realizing there was a need for coordination in addressing these concerns, these agencies formed the SH 52 Coalition. Through their work on the SH 52 Coalition, these local agencies were instrumental in identifying the need for a cohesive plan along CO 52 and a corridor preservation footprint to better communicate with developers. They were integral to the development of the PEL and ACP by providing input and feedback throughout the process. CO 52 East of 79th Street Looking West 5 REASON AND VISION Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) stIng Conditions Purpose G Need znd Goals Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process The PMT worked with local agencies and other stakeholders early in the PEL process to identify the reason for the PEL and overall vision for the corridor. Development of a corridor vision unified the PMT, local agencies, and stakeholders. The reason for the PEL and vision for the CO 52 corridor are shown in Figure 1-7. For more information regarding the development of Reason and Vision, please see Appendix F. Figure 1-7 I Reason and Vision REASON Why is this PEL being conducted? The reason for conducting this PEL is to complete a high level study of CO 52 to better understand transporta- tion issues and environmental resources along the corridor. It will support COOT, the local agencies, stakeholders, and the public to determine improvements that should be made anal estimate ROW preser- vation for future projects. This study will prioritize a list of short and long term projects that wilt benetit CO 52 in both Boulder and Weld Counties. VISION What is the vision for the CO 52 cooridor? The vision for CO 52 is to improve safety and travel time reliability along the corridor for all modes and accommodate future growth plans of the local communi- ties. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 15 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERVIEW✓ 2.l Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) Alternatives Development and cvaluat on Process The PEL process includes a review of the existing corridor conditions which has been inc uded as Appendix E: Existing Conditions Report to this PEL document. There were four main sections developed to provide vital context on the current conditions of thecorridor: 1. Introduction - Description of the Study Area and Stakeholders 2. Planning Context - Review of local agency existing planning efforts and land use data 3. Transportation Context - Describes the existing roadway characteristic:3 and conditions 4. Environmental Overview - Review of resources in the corridor end identified future design and project implications fir• rs+�rDC yS� .�f... Pedestrians along CO 52 and Aggregate Blvd PLANNING CONTEXT The project team reviewed over 20 existing plans prepared by both Boulder and Weld Counties and local agencies across the length of the corridor. This was a critical step to better understand what was important to each community and what future plans they had for the corricbr. This also helped the project team determine how potential CO 52 improvements may be compat ble with or may contradict these existing plans. Additionally, local agencies were interviewed to talk about their development plans especially related to near term growth The review of current land use indicated that agricultural land is predominant throughout the corridor. Boulder County has a significant amount of Public Lands/Open Spaces outside of incorporated cities. Future land use (Data indicated that residential and commercial development is primarily concentrated within and near incorporated towns/cities around major interchanges Some low -density residential development is typically allowable in the agricultural areas. AG COLORADO Department or nanspartaner •' ' •12 PLANNING 'LINKAGES STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS -REPORT C052 C0119 -CG 79 Plaining and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 16 2.2 TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT Roadway characteristics, traffic operations, travel demand modeling, socioeconomic projections, safety, transit, railroad crossings, freight, and structures of the corridor were evaluated in a review of the existing conditions of CO 52. A detailed mapbook can be found in Appendix E ( ) detailing 42 -miles of corridor characteristics. A brief description of the general roadway attributes is described below and shown in Figure 2-1 Existing Lanes. Project Limits - CO 119 to CO 79 Length of Study Corridor - 42 miles Modes - Includes vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and freight rail facilities Speed - The posted speed limit is generally 55 miles per hour (mph) west of WCR 19 and 65 mph east of WCR 19. The speed limit drops to 35 mph through Fort Lupton and 30 mph through Hudson. Figure 2-1 I Existing Lanes ,Longmont • Boulder • Erie U o• Firestone 3 Frederick [Iacono Number of Lanes - Generally, travel lanes throughout the study area are 12 -ft wide. CO 52 is primarily two through lanes with a double yellow centerline or a yellow dash line for passing areas_ The corridor widens to 4 lanes for roughly 3/4 -mile through the I-25 interchange as well as at major intersections west of 1-25 and through the WCR 13 intersection east of 1-25. Intersections - At many intersections, CO 52 includes auxiliary lanes for right- and left -turn movements. Specific intersection locations are described in Section 4.9 Intersection Improvements. Shoulders - Widths vary between 0 feet and 8 feet along the corridor. Shoulders greater than 4 feet are common through the western extents, but drop to 2 feet near WCR 31 and there is little to no shoulder east of Hudson_ Access Control - CO 52 is not currently a limited access highway with many uncontrolled accesses throughout the corridor. An IGA and ACP Report (Appendix B) has been developed in parallel with this PEL study. Surrounding Environment - Includes a mix of suburban development and open space in Boulder County (western limits) and a mix of suburban development and agricultural uses in Weld County (eastern limits). U 3 Fort Lupton 1E Roadway Characteristics Maps contain detailed existing roadway infOrrrid'tion throughout the corridor Hudson • 6 Keenesburg z Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 17 2, 2,1 Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Bicycle and peaest•ion facilities oria opera„ors we..ro analyzed by dividing :he corridor into V -Yee areas CO119 to County l_ ne Rood within Boulder County, County Lne Road tc WCR 37 witni^ Welo CC;L;nty, and WCR 37 to CO 79 within Weld Caumy. Bicycle analysis involved a desktop review and a Bicycle Level v= Toff c Stress aldlys s Pedestrar-) analysis included a desktop 'eview of plons, online res-eur^es, and available GIS dote from local and regional agencies Stake older input was calloctecl to gain an understanding a` local pr orities for Picycle and pedestrian moolky and heeds 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Environmental resou -ces considered in this study included: Floodplains and floodways Wetionas aril Waters of the U. Water quality Vegetation and noxious weeds Species of special concern Migratory birds and eagles Traffic noise Hazardous materials Historic resources Paleontological resources Threatened and Endangered species Parks, trails, open spaces Wildlife and waterfowl refuges Environmental justice Utilities Visual resources Prime and unique farmland Air quality These resources were assessed through desktop reviews of available data within the context of the regulatory framework. From this, NEPA scolding recommendations and project design and schedule implications were discussed for ecch resource. Even though the corridor contains diverse environmental resources. it is anticipated that identified projects can be cleared with Categorical Exclusions. In addition to the NEPA clearance process, other permitting processes were identified Separated Multiuse Path crossing under CO 52, west of 79th Street Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 18 2.4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA The Existing Conditions Report documented the roadway characteristics for the entire corridor. Data collected plus conversations with the local agencies, highlighted the roadway context changes moving from west to east Table 2.1 below documents the detailed existing conditions, specific to each of the five corridor segments. This analysis supported the identification of improvements needed to serve address mobility, safety, and multimodal concerns along the developing CO 52 corridor. Table 2.2 I Summary of Existing Conditions Segment 1: CO 119 to Boulder/ Weld County Line Segment 2: Boulder/ Weld County Line to WCR 19 (East of Dacono) ROADWAY/GEOMETRICS 2% of Eastbound shoulders are less than 4 feet wide 6% of westbound shoulders are • less than 4 feet wide Limited right-of-way (ROW) is available for additional through lanes Reverse horizontal curves & superelevation (MP 14-16) Structure within clear zone (MP 16.4) Existing pavement in poor condittin•(MP 11;3--16.4) TE''AFFrC/SAF Tv. Westbound bottleneck congestion at CO119 Eastbound bottleneck congestion at US 287 Westbound bottleneck congestion at County Line Road Unreliable travel time between CO119 and US 287 Community desire for bicycle facilities High crash location (LOSS IV) at US 287 Some local agency support for transit Bottleneck congestion at/near I-25 interchange Unreliable travel time through segment (especially westbound) Severe crash pattern at intersections in Dacono (fatal at Colorado, Cherry, Forest) (LOSS IV) Crash pattern through reverse curves, including fatal head-on crash 45-85% growth by 2045 Community desire for bicycle facilities CO 52 & CO 119 Looking West ENVIRONMENTAL/ PLANNING Water features & floodplains Bald eagle nest site Irrigation ditches Oil & gas wells Sanitary sewer Superfund historic landfill Parks, trails, open space (Section 6(f)) Historic officially eligible/supporting segments/ listed resources 24 & 30 -inch waterlines High pressure gas line Historic officially eligible/supporting segments/listed resources Mule deer crossing area Oil & gas wells Irrigation ditches Parks, trails, open space (Section 6(f)) ioblo ocnurued on -lox: ,00j e Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 19 Segment 3: East of Dacono (WCR 19) to east of Fort Lupton (WCR 31) Segment 4: East of Fort Lupton to east of Hudson (WCR 49) Segment 5: East of Hudson (WCR 49) to CO 79 ROADWAY/.GEOMETRICS Offset intersection (Grand Ave) MP ':0.05) Potgntictl vertical curve sight distOrce issue (MP 21.5) Existng pavement in poor conditions (MP 20.5 - 22) 19% of westbound shoulders are less than 4 feet wide 25% of eastbound shoulders are less than 4 feet wide i Multiple intersection improvements identified Pedestrian crossings in Hudson 83% of eastbound & westbound shoulders are less than 4 feet!wide Potential vertical sight distance issue (MP 28.7) 100°I of eastbound & westbound shot Iders are less than 4 feet'wicle• Vertical sight distance issues at 3 locations (MP 32.3, MP 33.9, MP 34.8) � I Evaluate ROW & access needs for future development at northwest corner of CO 52 & WCIR 59 TRAFFIC/SAFETY SAFETY Bottleneck/congestion at US 85 through Fort Lupton High intersection demity through Fort Lupton requires significant speed reduction Significant increase in non -intersection crashes through Fort Lupton High crash location (LOSS IV) at WCR 19 and WCR 37 intersections 60-85% growth by 2045 High speed limit increases risk at unsignalized side streets without auxiliary lanes Severe crash locotion at WCR 37 & WCR 41 intersection Higher proportion of tuck traffic High severity non -intersection crashes west of Hudson 35-75% growth by 2045 High speed limit increases risk at unsignalized side streets without auxiliary lanes Crashes at WCP. 59 ntersection under public scrutiny due to proximity to school Higher proportion of truck traffic ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING Water features and floodplains Irrigation ditches Oil and gas wells 48 -inch storm sewer Parks, trails, open space (Section 6(f)) The Fort Lupton Transportation Plan (2018) considered a bypass to lessen truck traffic through City Historic eligible elements/supporting segments/listed resources Mule deer crossing area Oil & gas wells Irrigation ditches Parks, trails, open space (Section 6(f)) Water features and floodplains Mule deer crossing areas Oil and gas wells Clandestine Drug Laboratory Facility registry system Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 20 • • 3.0 I/ PURPOSE 8, NEED AND GOALS Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) 3.1 FHWA 02 Existing Condrtlens PURPOSE 8, NEED Purpose o Need and Goals Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process The second milestone in the FHWA PEI. process :s to ioentify the Purpose & Need for future rransoortation corridor improvements. The iDurpose & Need prov+oes justification for the project and drives the development of evaluation criteria for alternatives. The reason and vision, in conjunction with the Existing Conditions Report, were the catalyst for the development of the Purpose & Need for the corridor (Figure 3-1). The Purpose & Need was informed by existing transportation conditions identified throughout the corridor as detailed in the Existing Conditions Report. Once the data in the corridor was collected, the project team developed a draft Purpose & Need statement and solicited feedback from the Technical Team before soliciting support from the SH 52 Coalition. The Purpose & Need memo is included in Appendix C. Transportation improvements are needed to: Figure 3-1 I Purpose & Need Development PURPOSE AND NEED What are the greatest transportation needs of the corridor? The purpose of the recommended transportation improvements is to increase safety, accommodate increased travel and freight demand, and support multimodal connections. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 21 3.2 GOALS Goals were developed collaboratively with the PMT and local agencies using valuable input from the SH 52 Coalition, Technicol Team, and Stakeho der One -on -One Meetings (Figure 3-2). Goals carry less emphasis in a PEL, but they serve cis dlfferentiators during the alternatives evaluation process when other performance measures are similar They also help define context sensitivity. CO 52 West of WCR 55 looking West The recommended improvements shoula: • • Figure 3-2 I Goals Development GOALS What additional items need to be addressed? The project goals should consider the natural and built environment, support local and regional planning efforts, identify estimated ROW needs, and accommodate future technology. • �.��'I.�'ni�''.l-..v.--lFi.;ti r'"i..", ',r .^=i ` ��:i il'_ �6':-i �F�Ji:I �•}r-'�a.E. ':3ri �. `: �}::: ��: �..�fC,,.'"�� il�4ry� �i-r'..cifl:e�lil* ri.' ,f;a: :I;z�i�. ;�klI�:�l�:'Ziel�iixia� aa"ig�j--_:�`:w'y�:�:T/..s�;`�rn.u��n:�^.��L�id`:�--'•v=:. l.�r.;:_�::_ti - .. .�c�:,�;;i^;�I:�',.o;;.:,,�.��cafsll.�•a;r;flSll�i:��d•nlz'a`,'�-'_r,�rc..v�e� r��:�= g �' �-2 al..�J:a sF-ti`. � -.- � _- --..-v tel: ={}. - .. �• - I'31�r.' i-+'•7�',., _3 l il�_•1 1 -s ni^; sic i_f 1�' rp �J' n�. ..� :•o•..�;..-. �•. :�iC:'�S` 1;J4'r, ",`, i_�.,.fl:�;�•��ni'.ti.' }: Fii''k+'1'"•is•�'"'. ,�y911 �� •�'�'� �ry�,�'`;F�r�7i:-.' •tJ ;al�1lA d�1L��G. -�I�� -; �r{g}�•• •ert''rf�e .:'ic 1.�.4t'ti•:r.�.•,e.vi=s�.1M.,�...:_r�'.ii�l`;�'�r-=,!�=,. ,-��ti.�1'`L-��7k,:�. E• - • II -_ J . { - _ ];�1 y;�,`i��":tal.�•tCll'3:.`ti.:�?i�� °•t_i}!..--"��_. .-.. _=J. _ _:'e-t.•a�•e ...,,if:^I�.,¢. � `e'.-] Ir;,;_:: sr.f�a'` *'�'s u=--e[i � :,�•r.�szc! 'rr.:l... f:i- r•:� _ _s. .tiG,�,.4� . u.,r�_ . ti��.. r;�i ;�;_� ! �•Cal�•��AYJ ^i3y '° ";'rr?l ; t Ln '5itY•i!S •' �7F� 7�Gi�r E. „_ --�C'_e�e <:y lls'.fi: 'l ''':r'^. .. �:i ��S� -?•-I?. ::f'�:oi�rr.&y' . ... , r .l ..,..,. F��, ai'i' _ lir p•ir.. 3., �"='I'i'I.� �y'.',i:+r.`",7.— .::',ri•' : ...... r m y" ; ,'r" r i:i c ^,r:1rc- •` • �a'.f, C'..{; ' mac': _.. ........,.'i'. . ire Nanning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 22 4.0 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) FHWA 03 Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process The following section describes the rnethoos used to develop and evaluate alternatives along the CD 52 PEL corridor. The alternatives produceci ono evaluated include a wide range o' potential improvements encompassing roadways, intersections, access paints, bicycle and pedestrian facia ties, and transit Figure 4-1 I Exclusion Areas • Soulder Vicinity •Longmont • Erie CO 52 PEL/ACP Excluded Areas CO 119 to just West of 119 71" Street o. Frres-tone s ▪ Frederick ▪ Dacono Development, evaluation, and refinement of alternatives focused on identifying alternatives that meet Purpose & Need for the corridor and that match corridor context 4.1 EXCLUSION AREAS :"here pre four areas that have been excludeo from zhs sW y, They either helve Currenstuc.•es underway, existing NEPA CaaclJments, O' are under construction. For these areas, recommendations and alternatives will be limited to the table shown in Figure 4-1. Although these areas have been excluded, it's important to note that the traffic modeling and assessment of access points have been analyzed for the entire study length. This approach allowed for a comprehensive assessment of the existing and future corridor conditions 3 . ,fo:c Lupton Previous Documents • CO 119 Multimodal Study • APEX/Connor completing traffic study • SH 119 Bikeway E Mobility projects • Keenesburg Hudson CO 52 PEL Recommendations PMT to make Segment 1 recommendations based on traffic. Alternative between CO 119 and just west of 71' Street will be left for new design teams. Southbound frontage road to Northbound frontage road • I-25 North EIS Recommendations: Frederick/Dacono Express Bus Station Widen CO 52 (6 -lanes) over I-25 Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Make corridor recommendation up to frontage roads. Check they tie into I-25 recommendations. Western on/off ramp to Eastern on/off ramp • US 85 PEL Recommendations: Pedestrian Improvements to complete sidewalk network under US 85 PMT to make corridor recommendations for CO 52 Recommended improvements are not expected to impact operations on US 85. ems WCR 43 to Dahlia St Under Construction Segment 4 recommendations up to construction limits. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 23 4.2 STATE AND REGIONAL GUIDANCE After the finalization of the Existing Conditions Report, additional regional guidance was reviewed and incorporated into the alternatives process where applicable A summary of how this study relates to recent state and regional guidance regarding reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and transportation safety is provided below 4.2.E Colorado Roadmap to GHG Pollution Reduction Recent legislation and state agency policy has set the path toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions through transportation measures These include Colorado House Bill 19-1261, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap (Roadmap) (Colorado Energy Office, 2021), and Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 Sustainability Of The Transportation System The Pollution Reduction Planning for Transportation: Briefing Update (CDOT, 2021) highlights CDOT initiatives being considered to implement the recent greenhouse gas emissions leg slation. In 2019 Colorado legislature passed Colo ado House Bill 19-1261, the _ which set ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to combat climate change. This bill enabled Colorado to establish itself as a global leader on climate policy. The Roadmap describes actions Colorado has taken to address climate change, analyzes the current trajectory for greenhouse gas emissions, and presents a suite of actions the state can pursue in the near term to make progress toward the Colorado House Bill 19- 1261 goals The goals for achieving GHG emissions reduction targets include increasing the number of electric vehicles and reducing the growth in vehicles miles traveled. To reduce vehicle miles traveled, the Roadmap suggests changing the way development decisions are made regardincl land use, housing, and infrastructure, which can enhance accessibility, cut pollution, and reduce the need to drive. The sum of emissions reductions from all of the strategies, once fully developed, is designed to meet the 2030 transportation sector reduction targets set in the Roadmap and o align with the 2050 goals adopted in Colorado House Bill 19-1261. In June 2021, Governor Polis signed Colorado Senate Bill 21-260, Sustainability Of The Transportation System, into law The bill includes an extensive transportation fee and spending measure, with more than $5 billion to be spent over the next decade. The bill emphasizes electric vehicle adoption and expansion of mass transit (Durango Herald, 2021) In response to the new legislative language in Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 and months of stakeholder discussions, CDOT proposed formal standards and rules for pollution reduction planning to the Colorado Transportation Commission This would amend the current state planning rules in order to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions levels for transportation. These GHG emission strategies will be more applicable as long-term planning projects are implements along the corridor. Transportation infrastructure planning, funding, engineering, and construction can take several years, and it is imperative that the implementation process is consistent with Colorado House Bill 19-1261, the Roadmap, and Colorado Senate Bill 21-260. The PEL recommendations for improvements are generally provided at a high level, without much detail on the design of the improvements Projects that result from the recommendations set forth in the CO 52 PEL Report will be subject to applicable federal and state air quality and GHG emissions environmental regulations and processes, including those established in Colorado House Bill 19-1261, Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap, and Colorado Senate Bill 21-260, as applicable The recommendations of this PEL do not preclude mitigation of green house gas impacts. A full review of these initiatives can be found in Appendix F. Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 also discusses consideration and incorporation of protections for Disproportionately Impacted Communities. Future projects will need to consider environmental justice analyses for individual projects during subsequent preliminary engineering and environmental processes. Environmental justice analysis is typically a subset of the social and economic resources analyses completed during NEPA In regards to this PEL, socio-economic analyses were completed during existing conditions More information about the socio-economic analyses completed for this PEL can be found in the Existing Conditions Report (Appendix E). Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 24 4.2.2 Transportation Safety & Vision Zero Transportation safety policy in Colorado focuses on Vision Zero; a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe Inlur:es, while ncreasing safe. healthy, equitable mobility for ell. Recent safety policy initiatives include the ODO 's Whale System, Whole Satety strategy (CDOT, 2019-2020) and the stole's 202O-2023 Colorado Strotogic Transportation Safety Pion (STSP) (CDOT, 2020). Whole System, Whole Safety is a CDOT strategy launched in 2019 that includes both current and planned safety efforts to help reduce traffic injuries and deaths This initiative takes a systematic, statewide aopraach to safety combining the benefits of CDOT's programs that address driving behaviors, the built enyi-onment, and the organization's operations. The goal is to improve the safety of Colorado's transportation network by reducing the rate and severity of crashes and improving the safety of all transportation modes This program supports the overall strategy for Vision Zero (Vis on Zero Network). The 2020-2023 CSTSP established a collaborative and shared vision and mission for transportation safety in Colorado The STSP identifies unique, yet achievable, strategies and goals to minimize fatalities and serious injuries statewide. It relies on the premise that every agency and jurisdiction has a role in enhancing transportation safety to the benefit of our citizens and travelers for any transportation mode and facility in Colorado through policy, planning, funding design and construction, operations, and maintenance. Recent state legislation related to safety includes Colorado Senate Bill 21-260, Sustainability of the Transportation System. This legislation establishes the Freight Mobility and Safety Branch in the Division of Transportation [Development, which is designed to plan, design, and implement programs and projects that enhance freight mobility and safety within the state. The PEI_ incorporates safety as a part of the Purpose & Need for the project and as part of the evaluation criteria for the alternatives evaluation process. The consideration and priorit lotion of safety - oriented performance mctrios oI gns future imp+.over,ents with the vision and mission set forth in the STSP, particularly the "Prioritize Safety in Transportation Planning, Facility Design, and Project Selection" strategy. A full review of these initiatives and how they are applicable to the CO 52 PEL can be found in Appendix F UP Railroad Crossing in Fort Lupton Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 25 4. SUPPLEMENTING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT W.! v..? Additional corridor evaluations were conducted to further understand the corridor conditions along CO 52. Memos were, created to document each of these additional evaluations. A brief summary of these memos is provided below and the comp ete memos can be found in Appendix F. 4.3.1 East C.aunty Line Roads Weld County Road 1 Corridor Study The final Eas . County Line Road/ Welci O'oun:y Road 1 C:errcar Moser Flan was released :ri March of 202': Same of :he `ecornrnendatians shown in :he. Corridor Master Plan differ from ,.hose snown it this Pet.. The,se cnonges are clue to differences in stuav goals ❑na operational analysis. Tnc Corr:ac• Master flan notes that :ne intersection wi:n CO 52 should coordinate. with the recommendct ons provided in this iDuring a ;.iture phase of project cleveropr'nent, further analysis snOuld t7e undertaken to determine :he final iniersection configuration. East County Line Road/ Weld County Road 1 Irrigation Ditch along CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 26 t R-7: ' St. rz� A O Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/ Parallel Routes Analysis The Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis simulated traffic volumes under existing conditions for year 2020, the 2045 No Action alternative, and four 2045 action alternatives using the CDOT travel demand model. Existing and forecasted daily traffic volumes along CO 52, and along parallel roadways at select locations, were summarized. In 2021, traffic along CO 52 from US 287 to the Dacono/Frederick area was approaching, and in some cases exceeding capacity. Under the No Action alternative, traffic volumes are expected to increase by 4C% TO 90% .n th's area by 2045. ,ender the 4 -Lone Action alternative, Figure 4-2 I CO 52 Corridor - Daily Two -Way Volume Forecasts 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 N iwot ry 0 CO 119 U5 287 Cnty Ln I-25 Frederick / Dacono volumes along CO 52 west of Dacono/Frederick are approximately 35% to 55% greater than volumes (Figure 4-2) under the No Action scenario. Despite the increase in traffic along CO 52 under the 4 -lane autior alternatives, the major h,ghways that parallel the highway, CO 119 and CO 7, exce'ierce minimal impact [o daily volJrnes The Teatest irripOC .. from the 4 -lane scenarios is that parallel roadways immediately near CC.) 52 experience °oily volumes aI,-25% lower as compared to the No Action. East of the Dacono/Frederick area, under the No Ac: -on scendr o, volumes along CO 52 generally increase 30% to 80% by 2045. under the 4 -lane scenario, volumes between Dacono/Freder'ck and Fort. Lupton increase nearly 50% while volumes east of Ft Lupton increase by less than 10% • 2020 Estimate 2045 No Action tow 2045 Full 4 -Lane 2045 West 4 -Lane 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 = • 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Rd *Not to scale *Note: Traffic Models assume 2 -Lanes except as indicated above. All build models assume 6 -lanes between WCR 7 and Silver Birch Ft Lupton US 85 I-76 CO 79 Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020; model operation and volumes post -processing by HDR Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 27 4.3.3 Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Time prope: team oreibrmed ar. Origin-Des t nation Trip Pattern Analysis for the PEI_ This o nalvsis tncluciea o review of travel patterns using the C.-0OT travel oemand model Incl„ding select link and subar-zia model runs :hat COr IslCler where trips enter and exl the CC) 52 COMCia' us well the Or gins and des: nations of trips ;along the corridor (Figure 4-3). The 2015 n`.cdel vva3 used as the taase year oria the 2G45 model was used as the horizon year. Two locations along CO 52 were selecred for the select link analysts 1} west of WC!R 7 and ) west of WCP 19 The key findings were tha: -host CC) 52 trios are relative;y short, and rhos: trigs originate and terrnin:ate ^ear CO'132. 1--25 is a mOfor connection for ;rips originating alorlg CO 52 near 1-2v, from tooth the east wand west. In 20/15, trip lengths care expec:ec1 tc decline oiest of I-1'5, while trip lengths increase east of Daconof reDer ck PM peak hou' trio ;fat`{?'ns Were foLi nd tC 0e si^illa•' in 2315 ana 2045. Generally, mos: ;rids along CO 52 exit the corridd:- at or before the next major roadway crossing including LS 287,1-25, US 85, and I -7c. For adaltioral -1g._Ires and lnfcrr^atio n regarding Orgii-.- D srinCaticr Trip Patter`: Analysis, please see Appendix F• Figure 4-3 I EB CO 52 from C0119 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution 15R. di6oulder tLongmont Ift7, Y • Erie �1 -595 • Firestone 3 • Frederick ■ Dacono +IFort Lupton <5% <5% . Percent of Total Trips Eastbound from CO 119 100 75`, 50°< 25% 5`, Driving Using Phone Navigation Where are eastbound trips cn C052, just east of C0119, exiting -he corridor? • 60% before or at US 287 • 85°/n before reaching 1-23 ttf • Hudson EN Arn'5ts F - •Veenesburg Traffic Analysis Percent of trips leaving Percent of trips dispersing Location CO 52 at a major intersection between major mteisections Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 28 rte► tr, • Ni Ar� 4,3A COVID-19 Adjustments Traffic data wras collected along the corridor, cross -streets and frontage rocatas nor the purpose of analyzinc9 traffic conditions, calibrating trnff c models, and supporting other design needs Traffic was scneduied to be collected in June of 2020, but was postponed until the Fall of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on traffic volumes At the time data was collected, many of the pandemic restrictions had been lifted, yet there were indications that traffic had not returned to normal levels. Recent pre-COVID traff c data was used to adjust the collected data to getter reflect pre-COV1D traffic volumes. The resulting comoarison and adjustment facto's are summarized in Table 4.1. Lane Drop along CO 52 East of intersection at US 287 The observed difference between the 2019 equivalent volumes and the 2020 traffic counts steadily increases between I-25 and CO119, more -so west of US 287. The difference between I-25 and US 85 was less consistent but generally low (less than 10%), going back up between Fort Lupton and Hudson. The differences observed at specific locations were generalized and applied across a wider area to balance and smooth out discrepancies in order to develop a reasonable approximation of 2020 conditions without the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 4.1 I COVID-19 Adjustment Factor Development Location 2020 Counts' Avg, 2019 Equivalent2 Factor SH 119 and 79th St 7,290 11,230 ^43% 154 i 79th St and 95th St 7,980 11,520 95th St and US 287 8,880 11,750 . -36% i 144 Applied Factor I - 28% 132 US 287 and County Line 16,450 18,830 I -13% 1.14 Aggregate and SB 1-25 Ramp I-25 Frontage and York -Silver Birch 18,840 20,650 I -9% 110 Colorado Blvd and Frederick St Frederick St and WCR 19 20,700 22,910 - 10% 111 16,460 16,300 I 1% 099 11,260 12,480 WCR 19 and US 85 12,530 12,120 3% 097 US 85 and Denver St 12,710 15,280 Denver St and WCR 31 6,520 N/A WCR 37 and Loves Access- 176 Frontage EB 176 and Beech St 1.40 i 1.25 — 1.10 - 18% 1.20 1.10 6,610 8,990 136 6,180 8,230 -28% 133 1.30 Beech St and WCR 51 3,730 5,090 1-3)% 136 WCR 51 and WCR 59 3,980 3,520 WCR 59 and WCR 69-SH 79 12% 088 3,490 2,430 i 36% 070 1.0 2020 counts adjusted with average seasonal adjustment factors 2 Average 2019 AWDT Equivalent factors based on annual and seasonal adjustment factors Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 29 4.3.5 Telework Analysis During the COVID-19 pandemic, travel patterns shifted as much of the general population adjusted to new work -from -home conditions. The shift in traffic volumes resulted in less total traffic on the roadway network, especially During traditional peak hours. The pro ect team prepared a separate analysis to look at how an increase in telework (even after stay-at-home orders were lifted) may impact the level of traffic along the CO 52 project corridor. The project team researched the CDOT State Focus travel demand model's telework assumptions, as well as other Metropolitan Planning Organizations and regional models, to identify trends in telecommuting before and after the pandemic. Based on findings in this research, the project team performed a sensitivity model run with Work: at Home (WAH) trips accounting for 20% of all work trips, up from 6%, in the year 2045 to better reflect changes to travel patterns post-COVID This analysis found that daily volumes along CO 52 declined between 1% and 2.5% west of Ft Lupton while to the east volume dec ines were somewhat greater For more information on this analysis, please see the full Telework Anclysis Memo in Appendix F. Figure 4-4 I Base Models vs. Telework Model Trip Estimations (51cii'evvicip Fs!iri'a es) non-work/other activity commuter work activity' workart ,Onit oc11vity !A: v1; 16% 1% 6% 2015 Base Model Ali 1% Work Activity r "v'1Hl�•'�. Figure 4-4 shows the distribution of Commuter vs. Non-wor:/o_her trip activity statewide- Within that activity, it shows that in the 2045 Telework Model, 20% of all Work Activity trips are estimated to be WAH, and 4% of all statewide activity is estimated to be WAH activity (compared to the 2015 Base Model and 2045 No Action Model, which has WAH as 6% of the Work Activity, and 1% of all activity) 2045 No Action Model �i 4% '1VDr 20% 2045 Telework Model Working from Home As the data shovvs, WAH trips account for a relatively small percentage of all activity in the region and overall forecasted trip totals decline only marginally when WAH trip totals are adjusted_ Planning and Environmental Linkages Study CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 30 * 4,:z!• : 4,3,6 Freight Analysis The CO 52 corridor serves as an important freight corridor for the state. Wela County is one of Colorado's leading producers of beef cattle, grain, sugar beets, and dairy products. It also prides itself en being they number one producer of oil and gas in the state, producing 86% of all crude oil and zlz% of ail natural gas production (Weld County, Depart -heat of Oil. Gas and Energy, 2020). 'as and og",cultural production require o substantial amount of heavy ana oversized vehicles for moving oroauct cnd accessing wells. The Upper Front Range 2045 Regional Transportation Plan identifies CCD :;2 as a freight corr'icior for Colorado, making an analysis of freight movement crucial for this PEL. Truck percentages fluctuate along the CO 52 corridor, ranging from 3% to 20% Accommodation of heavy trucks is vital, particularly in the rural eastern segments of CO 52 which exhibit high proportions of trucks. Segment] - Between 3% and 5% trucks Segments 2 and 3 - Between 5% and 10% trucks Segments 4 and 5 - Between 5% and 20% trucks During the Level 2 evaluation, alternatives were qualitatively evaluated for their potential to accommodate freight movement including oversized vehicles and trucks carrying hazardous materials. The performance measures evaluated the following elements: Turning Radii Shiwider Width k$afety) Vertidal: clean:Imp Passing Opportunities Roadway Grade Intersection Control Rail Crossings Visibility For more information on this analysis, including a breakdown of the percent of truck trips of the total vehicle volume along CO 52, please see the Freight Analysis Memo in Appendix F. 4.33 Transit Analysis An analysis was performed Lo explore the viability of transit options. Daily rioersnip forecasts fro^, the travel demand model in yea' 204: indicate fewer :han 200 rbers per day for a transit route along CO 52. A lack of ciense employment/population centers along the COmciO" is likely the greatest factor in the low ridership forecasts Table 4.2 shows ridership. forecasts for CO 52 and other regional routes in :he area for comparison. Through this analysis, `he protect tear,. discovered that this ccriidor is not suitable for transit at this time For more information on this analysis, please see the full Transit Analysis Memo in Appendix F. Table 4.2 I Daily Transit Ridership - Two -Way Total Provider N/A Route ID RTD CO 52 119 BRT Description Local or Regional per Scenario DAILY RIDERSHIP BY ALTERNATIVE 2045 Base BRT - Boulder to Longmont Regional - Transfort FLEX Boulder to Ft Collins Long RTD Jump (A+C) 2045 Transit #1 NA 171 2045 Transit ##2 71 2045 Transit #3 141 2632' 2836 2789 2800 1908 1915 1891 1853 Local - Boulder to Erie/ Lafayette Regional - RTD LSX/LNX Longmont to Denver Regional - Bustang Northline Ft Collins to Denver Source: CDOT StateFocus Model 2264 2169 2239 2143 1351 1199 1169 1231 283 1006 846 831 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 31 4.a -t. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Evaluation criteria, consistent with the Purpose & Need and Goals, were developed prior to beginning the alternatives evaluation process These criteria and performance measures were developed by the project team and reviewed with the Technica Team, for final approval Table 4.3 I PEL Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (n. D t3:1 Category Increase Safety 1 Accommodate Increased Travel and Freight Demand Support Multimodal Connections Consider the Natural and Build Environment O. C`3 Support Local and Regional Planning Efforts Identify Estimated ROW Needs Accommodate Future Technology Criteria I • Crash frequency • Crash severity • Pea/bike safety • Roadway geomet y • Presence of truck freight • Congestion • Corridor capacity • Travel times • Travel reliability • Quality of traffic operations Local and regional oute connectivity Non -motorized opportunities • Bicycle connectivity • Pedestrian crossings • Environmental resource constraints • Contextual function and aes- thetics of surrounding land uses Included in community land use plans for multimodal connections, mult use paths, and streetscapes • Opportunity to preserve ROW Inclusion of technology along the corridor that will counteract increases in development and traffic volumes by FHWA The Level 1 performance measures assess the ability of each alternative to meet Purpose & Need at a high level. The Level 2 performance measures incorporate additional measurement criteria and evaluate how well alternatives meet project goals. The final evaluation criteria as approved by all entities are shown in Table 4.3 Lovell Potential to improve safety (Y/rd) Potential to accommodate projected travel demand MN) Potential to increase multimodal mobility (Y/N), Not. evaluated in Level 1 Not evaluated in Level 1 Not evaluated in Level 1 Not evaluated in Level 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURE EVALUATION Level 2 • Reduce frequency and Polarity c]f crashes • Reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflict points (number) • Reduce Level of Traffic Stress • Implement geometric features that accommodote trunk freight • Decrease Travel Time Index (ratio) • Degrease travel time by minutes • Reduce Delay • Accommodates Freight Destinations (Improves/Neutral/ Limits) • Reduce barriers for N/5 pedestrian ono b cycle trowel (quolit>atiye) • Improve. continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative) • Reduce uncontrolled vehicle/pedestrian .conflict points (number) • Increase shoulder width to accommodate bicycle traffic (Y/N) - Identification of critical resources Impacted based on footprints. No quantitative impacts will be done • Qualitative measurement of context sensitive approach of land use and character along the corridor • Relative improvement spatial alignment with goals of local agency plans 1Gocid (closely aligned.), Fair (.some variotions between alternatives), Poor (sEgnifigant variations)] • Complexity of acquisition (based On presence of structures, land use type) - Relative expected. ROW cost • Accommodate present and future implementation of emerging existing and future technology Planning and Environmental Linkages Study CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 32 4.5 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS Alternatives were produced through a multi -level iterative process The process began with a large number of alternatives that led to a smaller number of more detailed alternatives, =allowing a focused evoluorion of fort. Agency coorcination and public involvement played a major role in the alternative development process 4,5,1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative anticipates future conditions of the CO 52 corridor without completing any transportation improvements developed in this PEL. The No Action Alternative does include required safety and maintenance improvements to maintain an operational ronsaortaiion system, as well os those fiscally constrained projects have committed funding sources that will be built regardless of the improvements •ecorrmend[;d in this PE'_. Funding sources for :ruse fiscally constrained projects inclucie the State Transportation improvement Program (STIP), regionai Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) fundea by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS), and local agency Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) The No Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose & Need of this PEL but is used as a baseline for comparison to the operational and safety benefits that would result from recommended transportation improvements of this PEL. Table 4.4 provides information on 2045 fiscally constrained projects that have been included in the No Action Alternative. Table 4.4 I 2045 Fiscally Constrained Projects Considered in No Action Alternative Model (STIP/TIP) Facility Project Name CO 52& CO 52 US 287 Intersection Project Description Intersection Improvements CO 52 CO 52 & I-76 Interchange Interchange improvements CO 52 & CO 52 WCR 41 Intersection I-25 MP 214-269 N 71st St Lookout Rd to CO 52 WCR7 Intersection improvements CO 52 to Erie Pkwy Congestion, safety, travel time and freight reliability improvements Realignment and widening of intersection Source Realignment and widening to 4 lanes CDOT (STIP) CDOT (STIP) CDOT (Upper Front Range, TRP) CDOT (TIP) Boulder (CIP) Erie Transportation Plan (CIP) At WCR 5 looking West along CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 33 4,5,2 Alternatives Development Tc develop a range of alternatives for consideration, the study team utilized data from the existing conditions report as well as input collected from stakeholders (Table 4.5). Team Collaborating The corridor is primarily rural with the exception of more urban areas near I-25 and Fort _upton In addition to the I-25 and Fort Lupton areas, urban sections are also being considered between WCR 7/ Aggregate Blvd and Silver Birch and through Hudson due to the more urban feel in nese locations. Rural roadway sections are also being considered in these areas, consistent with existing conditions. The rural roadway character alternatives include adding or widening a shoulder to increase safety as well as adding general purpose lanes, auxiliary lanes, and median treatments where traffic projections and access warrant. The team held several meetings that focused on individual segments to develop alternatives that had potential to meet project needs and goals while still addressing stakeholder concerns. Figure 4-5 summarizes the alternatives considered along the corridor. Table 4.5 I Stakeholder Meeting Highlights Agency Boulder County (Segment 1) 5umrcuxry of input • Relationship building • Intersections to accommodate transit, queue jump, and bypass lanes • Keep the rural feel Fiscally responsible building • Policy against widening roads between intersections • Improve safety • Desire for separate bike trail (west end) Weld County (SegfTlent 2-5) Erie (Segment 2) Corridor Preservation Footprint Work with community partners Identify future bottleneck locations Interest in widening corridor to 4 lanes • Frederick , (Segment 2) Dacono (Segment 2) Improve traffic flow North/South turn lane Improvements Congestion at WCR 7 Commercial Development at WCR 7 Improvements for bicycles Identify ROW needs Safety Improvements for I-25 Frontage Road intersection Improve North -South pedestrian connectivity Consider adequate turn lanes to improve congestion Improve roadway safety Fort Lupton (Segment 3) • Safety concerns at WCR 17 • Improve pedestrian safety at Colorado (WCR 13) • Improve pedestrian safety at Glenn Creighton • Interest in improving connections for vulnerable populations • Potential to close Grand Ave intersection • Extension of lower "in -town" speed limits • Corridor Preservation Footprint • Intel-sec:ion improvements at WCR 19 • Pedestricar crossings desired near the river (overpass or underpass) Hudson (Segment 4) Keenes- bu g (Segment 5) • Improve bike/ped movements across • Improve railroad crossings • Maintain town character • Discourage truck use along CO 52 • Corridor Preservation Footprint CO 52 • Roadway improvements for freight • Widen shoulders ▪ Corrldo7— Preservauor, �aQ"r]tlr't[ • Commer0al devvalccmant r)lon"Ed a: CO 5f / wcp • Wild animal sanctuary traffic on WCR 53 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 34 Figure 4-5 Range of Alternatives Considered multiuse path. Access control is considered during the evaluation of alternatives, median treatment, and auxiliary lane locations. N❑ Action 2 Lanes Rural 2 Lanes with Peak Period Shoulder Lane 2 Lanes with Alternating Passing Lane 2 Lanes with Reversible Lane 2 Lane Urloan 2 Lanes with 2 HOV Managed Lanes 4 Lane Urban 6 Lane Urban Rural vs Urban Treatment - For purposes of this study, the designation of "rural" with a typical section indicates full shoulder width, lack of curb and gutter, and open channel ditches running parallel to the roadway to handle storm runoff. The "urban" designation means that the typical section will have curb and gutter and potentially other urban features such as storm sewer and bike lanes Based on adjacent land use, environmental concerns, traffic and safety concerns, truck percentages, and geometric evaluation, not all alternatives were considered throughout the entire corridor. Please see the full Level 1 matrix in Appendix G for where each alternative was applied geographically. 4.5,3 Key Geometric Features For study purposes, it is assumed that travel and auxiliary lanes are 12' wide, shoulders are 10' wide, and medians are 16' wide to accommodate turning between intersections and widening out as needed at intersections. Other elements were evaluated as items that could stand alone and would not need to be part of a larger improvement project. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements and facility implementations were evaluated as a part of select alternatives as well as stand-alone elements Accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians included bikes on shoulders, sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as a separate 4.5,4 Evaluation Process A two -level evaluation process was created to evaluate alternatives developed for the PEL. Evaluation criteria were identified for each level and were used to assess alternatives relative to the Purpose & Need During the first level of evaluation, the alternatives were analyzed to determine if they met Purpose & Need and if they did, they were advanced to the next level of evaluation. Goals of the project were also considered in this process during the second level of evaluation. Figure 4-6 summarizes the alternatives development and evaluation process for the CO 52 PEL Figure 4-6 I Alternatives Development and Evaluation Process Evaluation Criteria Alternatives Development Level 2 Qualitative Quantitative Future Improvements The categories, criteria, and performance measures for both the Level land Level 2 are shown in Table 4.2 Additionally, terminology used to evaluate Alternatives in Level 1 and Level 2 was established in a memo dated January 29, 2021 This memo is located in Appendix F. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 35 4.6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION The goal of the Level 1 Evaluation was to assess a full range of alternatives based on Existing Conditions (Appendix E) to determine whether alternatives would meet Purpose & Need. The needs defined for the corridor were to improve safety, accommodate increased travel and freight demand, and support multimodal connections. Each alternative was evaluated according to the established evaluation criteria. Does this alternati✓e have the potential to mprove safety by way of crash frequency, crash severity, pe.- .:ike safety, roadway geometry, truck/oversize vehicle safety, and freight safety? Does this alternative have the potential to accommodate projected travel and freight demand by way of congestion, corridor capacity travel times, travel reliability, and quality of traffic operations? Does this alternative have the potential to increase and not preclude multimodal mobility by way of local and regio al route connectivity, non - motorized opportunities, bicycle connectivity, nd pedestrian crossings? Level 1 evaluation was limited to a simple yes or no to the questions above for alternatives to advance to Level 2. The Project Management and Technical Teams had the opportunity to review and discuss inputs to this table as well as the alternatives progressing to the next level. The full Level 1 Evaluation Matrix can be found in Appendix G. 4.6.1 Result of Level 1 Multiple alternatives were evaluated within each segment and the following language was used to document the findings: Carried Forward: meets Purpose & Need, considered reasonable and feasible, and may be considered for further evaluation in this study or subsequent NEPA and project development. Retained as Element: does not fully meet Purpose & Need, but will be evaluated as packaged element of a larger -scale alternative. Eliminated: does not meet Purpose & Need, has a fatal flaw, and/or is considered unreasonable. A project alternative that is Eliminated is removed from further consideration in the PEL. The project team conducted the evaluat on and several alternatives were considered to not meet the needs of the Study and therefore not carried to Level 2 for further evaluation. Eliminated alternatives are shown in Table 4.6 below. Table 4.6 I Level 1 Eliminated Alternatives segment Alternative 2 Lane with Alternating Passing Lanes Reason Configuration does not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment 2 Lane with Reversible Lane 2 3 3 2 Lane with 2 HOV Managed Lane Configuration does not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment Demand for HOV/Managed lane insu ficient 2 Lane Rural Minimal benefit over No Action Precluding passing reduces operational performance; limited safety benefit over No Action 2 Lane with Peak Period Shoulder Lane 3 Fort Lupton Bypass 4 2 Lane Rural 4 2 Lane with Peak Period Shoulder Lane 4 2 Lane plus Reversible Lane Precluding passing reduces operational performance; limited safety benefit over No Action Evaluation was completed based on coordination with the Fort Lupton which identified concerns with economic vitality for the City. M nimal benefit over No Action Precluding passing reduces operational performance; limited safety benefit over No Action Precluding passing reduces operational performance; limited safety benefit over No Action Configuration does not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 36 4.7 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION After assessing the full range of alternatives in Level 1 and narrowing the options to only the alternatives that meet project needs, the team moved to Level 2 During the Level 2 analysis, alternatives were evaluated based on more detailed criteria related to project needs as well as how well they met the project goals Each Alternative was evaluated according to the established evaluation criteria shown in Table 4.3. 4.7.1 Corridor Overview - Segment Typical Sections The Level 2 analysis carried forward nine alternatives to be considered by segment. The table below (Table 4.7) lists the alternatives considered by segment. Recommended typical sections from the Level 2 analysis are s` ovvn In Figures 4--7 through 4-11 on the following passes- The lull Level 2 Evaluation Uatrix carp oe viewed in Appendix G. Table 4.7 I Level 2 Alternatives Considered Segment All 1,2,4,5 Alternative No Build 2 Lane Rural 2 Lane with Peak Period Shoulder Lane 2 Lane with 2 HOV Managed Lanes 1, 2, 4 4 Lane Rural 2, 3 2 4 Lane Urban 6 Lane Urban 3, 4 2 Lane with Alternating Passing Lane 3, 4 2 Lane Urban r- . .mi• l =1,r ; %r•r 1. R'•� • �.. } .. yM On CO .52 East of 79th Street, looking West Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 37 Figure 4-7 12 Lane Rural Typical Section Increase Shoulder Width to 12' for 2 lane with Peak Period Shoulder Lane Figure 4-8 14 Lane Rural Typical Section (Similar Footprint for 2 Lane with 2 HOV Managed Lanes) ftt • • • - Yr. i 0A 174' Corridor Preservation Footprint Figure 4-9 12 Lane Urban Typical Section (with Two-way Left -turn Lane Figure 4-10 14 Lane Urban Typical Section (with Two-way Left -turn Lane) 73' Corridor Preservation Footprint 94' Corridor Preservation Footprint t v " Figure 4-11 16 Lane Urban Typical Section 145' Corridor Preservation Footprint Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 38 61170* "' �!►:l' uodt �-. 4.%2 Typical Section Options The project team recognizes that there are many features of the main typical sections described above that may need to be altered as the identified improvements move into project design. Median Treatments - For purposes of developing alternatives, a 16 -foot wide median was assumed that could be configured either as :a two-way left -turn lane or left -turn lanes with a raised or striped median. There are also locations along the corridor where a wide median was unnecessary for traffic operations and median improvements could be limited to major intersections - these areas ore noted in the Level 2 Evaluation Matrix. In the area of the reverse cui-ves (MP 15.5 - MP 15.57), additional median treatments including rJrnoile strips, cable pail, and a depressed media.) were considered. Shoulder Width - Based on roadway classification and traffic volumes, the study team selected a 10 -foot shoulder width and applied it consistently throughout the corridor except when curb and gutter is introduced in the more urban areas However, where on - street bicycles are prevalent, a 12 -foot shoulder may be considered. In 5egmeni 5, the D V drops below the threshold reouiring ❑ 10 -foot shoulder s❑ on 8 -foot shoulder would also be acceatable nwever, due to the oversize/averweigN designation of the roadway, local agencies indicated a strong preference for maintaining a I0 -foot shoulder Rumble Strips — Rumble strips along edge lines and centerline may be considered. For purposes of this study, rumble strips were evaluated at a high level against a wider (12 -foot) shoulder in Segment 1 where on -street cycling is expected Centerline rumble strips were also evaluated through the reverse curves at the east end of Segment 2 as a crash mitigation measure. Figure 4-12 Dacono/Frederick Before and After Visualizations Existing Visualization of 4 Lane Urban Alternative Two examples of level medians are shown in the Dacono/Frederik acid hlu.dson visupiizations(Figures 4-12 .& 4-13). In tide existing: p rOtion, there i$ a striped rrieditin and iri thei proposed condition, a raised-rnedi0n is inzroatjeect. The raised r dedian establishes ar more urban feel for the area, and also accommodates implementation of access control measures. In the existing condition, this access is a full movement access, but in the proposed condition the access on the left side of the photo has been converted to a right -in right -out movement and the access on the right side of the photo has been converted to a right -in, right -out and left -in movement. Implementing access control measures in the corridor improves traffic operations and safety. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 39 Figure 4-13 I Hudson Before and After Visualizations Visualization of 2 Lane Urban ,Alternative The existing, condition through Hudson (Figure -4-13) has q rural feel With gravel shoulders and open, drossy ditches along the} roadway in: the pi'apased condition, the taaiwlway has Teen widened to add a .coritir}uaus twaway left - turn lane and bike lanes. ThaShaulder liar been repideed with curb and :gutter and attached srdewci ks hov.e been. added: Tho igh: regs in the corridor with a high density of access pbintt; traffic aperationt:can be imp-Oved:through the introduction -of Cii continuous two-way left turri lane: The addition of this lone provides turning vehicles with a dedicated space for turning rather than impeding through traffic by turrlirig out of the trgvel.lone: Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 40 4.7,3 Additional Elements Multimodal Multiuse Path - A separate multiuse path was considered through much of the corridor and identified to be carried forward through most of the western portion from CO119 through For; Lupton The multiuse path is assumed to be 10 -feet wide and would generally be located on the north side of CO 52 based on review of existing planning documents. In rural areas, the path would be located just beyond the backslope of the roadside ditch and located behind the curb and gutter in urban areas In keeping with the rural nature of the corridor, a multiuse path in Segment 1 would likely be offset from the highway as shown in the visualization to the right (Figure 4-14) For more urban areas in the corridor, the multiuse path may need to be attached directly to the back of curb or detached, by offsetting from the curb with a tree - lawn in order to fit within the available ROW Enhanced Bike/Pedestrian Crossings - The study team identified several locations for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings. Possible treatments include: bike lanes through major intersections, bicycle detection, pedestrian accessibility improvements, railroad crossing treatments, and connections to other trail systems along the corridor. Additional transitions at intersections and to/from multiuse paths should be considered. TransportationDemand Management Considerations Figure 4-14 I Boulder County Before and After Visualizations Existing Visualization of Separate Multiuse Path Element As part of the alternatives analysis, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program was considered for CO 52. The intention of a TDM program is to reduce vehicular traffic by implementing strategies tailored for the corridor, such as carpooling, transit enhancements and incentives, parking management, guaranteed ride home, or promoting work -from -home, to name a few. The rural nature of the corridor and relative lack of development density along the corridor do not favor TDM program strategies and are unlikely to result in a meaningful or measurable reduction in vehicle traffic. It should be noted that interchange areas, which would be subject to the CDOT Interchange Approval Process with its associated TDM analysis, are part of the Exclusion Areas discussed in Section 4.1. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 41 Multimodal Connections The Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo (Appendix F) summarizes the PEL process as it relates to multimodal connections, documents the multimodal evaluation criteria, and provides recommendations or bicycle and pedestrian improvements, both regional (corridor -wide) and local (location specific). Technology With increasing trcffic volumes and congestion, the traditional capacity expansion solution to congestion management has proven that it cannot be the only solution. Effectively utilizing technology in conjunction with roadway capacity expansion and intersection improvements provides an opportunity to improve system wide safety, reliability, and efficiency beyond capacity expansions alone Transportation Technology (Active Traffic Management) - Active Traffic Management System, which uses dynamic message signs over each lane of traffic to close lanes that are obstructed due to crashes and then direct vehicles to adjacent lanes to move traffic more efficiently past the crash, has shown to reduce delays and secondary traffic c -ashes. Traffic Signal Optimization - Techniques such as corridor wide signal timing and commercial vehicle signal priority would have the benefit of improving the flow of traffic and mproving safety along the corridor Travel Demand Management - Adaptive traffic signals can improve the flow of traffic along the corridor by dynamically adjusting signal timing, coordination, and progression of veh Iles based on the actual traffic demand along the corridor. Wildlife Crossings During stakeholder one-on-one meetings, a potential need for a wildlife crossing near Banner Lakes was identified. A review of crash data in the corridor indicates that a wildlife crossing at this location or at any other locction within the corridor is not supported For this reason, this elemert was eliminated dur ng the Level 2 evaluation. Transit Accommodations As discussed in Section 4.3, the viability of transit options along the CO 52 corridor was considered, but this corridor is not suitable for transit at this time. Improvements should not preclude transit, but no separate accommodations have been identif ed at this time. 4.7.4 Design Refinements and Advanced Study Areas The more detailed analysis completed during Level 2 allowed the team to make some design refinements to the alternatives put forth in Level 1, mostly related to the location. For example, the team added a 6 -lane alternative between WCR 7 and Silver Birch/York St to better manage the expected traffic volumes and thereby creating a sub -segment within Segment 2. Similarly, the analysis indicated that a four -lane section wasn't required in Segment 3 east of Denver Avenue so a 2 -lane section was introduced in this area. As part of the study, a few key locations were identified for a more in-depth study These included the US 287 and CO 52 intersection in Segment], the Reverse Curves between WCR 15 and WCR 19 in Segment 2, and the WCR 59 and CO 52 intersection in Segment 5. Pedestrian Railroad Crossing in Fort Lupton Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 42 US 287 and CO 52 Potential Alternative The US 287 and CO 52 intersection is a bottleneck along the corridor, particularly for eastbound travelers during the PM peak hour. At the time of this study, this intersection is in project development to add dual left turn lanes on all legs, add bike lanes through the intersection, and reconstruct the signal with construction anticipated in 2022. While all recommendations tie into these improvements, the study team also did a more in-depth future analysis at this location to determine if additional improvements may be warranted with anticipated traffic growth into the year 2045, the design year of the study. Figure 4-15 I US 287 and CO 52 Intersection P;."•.—'34—. ig� �_., -�� ti I .�a � _ . _ I {': r ' During the analysis, the study team found that the future left turn volumes from US 287 are very high. In order to accommodate the expected 2045 volumes with a traditional intersection, triple left turns from US 287 onto CO 52 would be required. Non-traaitional intersection configurations were also explored to evaluate whether they would be better able to accommodate the future traffic. Both a Quadrant Road and Continuous Flow Intersection will handle the volume and distribution of vehicles more efficiently than a traditional intersection. For comparative purposes, a layout of the Continuous Flow Intersection is shown in Figure 4-15. With this layout, the current improvements to CO 52 planned for construction are able to remain with only minor modifications; the majority of the physical modifications would occur on US 287. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 43 Reverse Curves (MP 15.5 to MP 15.57) Figure 4-16 I Reverse Curves and Potential Weld County Road 17 Realignment i sJ_ 52 �v _- -; PAP Eris tip9COs Existing WCR 17 alignment 6% S`� � ?�4/ up64). �:: 9�j% ec4 fo 1100miq n 4/r •. �� During early outreach to stakeholders, the reverse curve area was identified as an area of concern for multiple agencies The study team completed both a cesktop and field review of existing conditions as well as an analysis of crash patterns at this location to help inform potential mitigation strategies. Three head on crashes occurred in the segment between MP 15.37 and MP 16 42, with one resulting in a fatality Geometrically, the curves appear to be spirals rather than simple curves, are superelevated at 8%, and located within a no -passing zone. Potential mitigation. strategies`or tnls section include replacing the spiral curves wilt• static radius curves, installing centerline umble strips, and introducing curves wrh larger radii to flat:en. [he superelevation. In addition to evaluating replac n9 the spiral curves with simple curves generally fallowing the existing alignme^t, the study team eval,iated two opticns for flatter•ng the suce'elevaticn -- a 6% and a 4% option. nnough the traf o orajccrions do not ndica:e a signal will be warranted at the ntersection of C❑'u2 and WCR •2 within :he foreccisted period, the. :earn "ecegr',zes that a realignment woLIO Ce a „r,a ar investment and the -efore chose to evalua:e opt ons that did not preclude)'utu-e signal installation The 8% superelevation alignment was not recommended following the Level 2 evaluation, the 4% alternative was carried forward, and the 6% alternative was recommended In order to preserve the most flexibility possible, the ROW preservation line was set to accommodate all three alternatives. Potential WCR 17 Realignment Existing WCR 17 alignment -_ 5? CO 52 'Reverse Curves' in Segment 2 Planning anal Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 44 WCR 59 and CO 52 Potential Alternative •r - The CO 52 Safety Assessment Report (Appendix E. Existing Conditions Report) indicated that this location is unlikely to qualify for a signal and recommended that the viability of a high speed roundabout be studied The Weld Central Junior High School and High School are located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection As such, peak traffic conditions are more variable than typical for CO 52 when school is in session due to pick-up/drop-off and bus traffic at the beginning and ending of the school day. The northeast and southeast quadrants have buildings near the roadway, but the northwest corner is undeveloped. To assess the viability and determine potential ROW needs, the study team developed a high-level layout of the roundabout as shown in Figure 4-17. Figure 4-17 I WCR 59 and CO 52 Intersection - u 1H _ ' r-- In order to avoid impacts to the school building, the roundabout was offset to the north and slightly to the east- A relocation on the northeast corner and structure impacts on the southeast parcel were identified. The traffic operations analysis indicates that the single lane high speed roundabout would easily accommodate future volumes If this project moves into the design phase, special attention should be given to accommodating bicycle and pedestrian movements due to the proximity of the schools. • 44:1,. Visualization of Roundabout Alternative Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 45 4.7.5 Traffics Operations Additional travel fares on CO 52 will allow more traffic onto the CO 52 corridor and intersection improvements a low traffic to flow along the CO 52 corridor. the Traffic Technical Memorandum (Appendix F) provides a detailed -evlew of the methodology used to evaluate the complex relationship between traffic; growth, roadway improvements, and operations. fne de:ailed °aerations analysis pe.-`armed for the Level 2 evaluation used T'onsModeler Software for oath Intersection Ord con -icier operations along CO 52. The operations analysis fc)cused on inte,rsection operations, se rY'en ope'c?tiers (travel time LY^d Travel Time Index (TTl)) anti travel ::me reliaoil':y. Wh;le ri,•ultimodol opera?ions are a key cons;deratlan for t,,e PEL, the Level 2 traff c operations analysis d,c1 -at specincolly address transit, pedestrian., or- tricycle tra` o :n terms o` the stated pe,=ormanae measures. Walt times at traffic signals are responsible for most of the delay e.xcerienced along CO 52 As such, improver -rents at intersection locations °rive the operational benef,ts `ar the alter natives. The Level 2 evaluo:ion considered :he impacts of additional :urn fangs, acceleration and deceleration laces, wioening to arovlae cadltianal through lanes near signal zed intersections, as weli as signal timing oatimlzation and progression throuareut the corridor. The resultinc change in intersection delay allows traffic to move more freely and improves the overall travel t: rye alone the, CO 52 corridor At s_op-controlled locations, wa t :times for irar`ic turning onto C.:O 52 fray^ sae -streets may go up signir:candy t7s otoiLo volumes norease, Congestion increases trove,' times, especially during The morning and evening peak periods. Queues apps ,aor ng signalized Inte.rse,ctlons and other disruption=; cause speeds to drop and delays to increase. This relationship aetween intersection and roadAroy segment operations was analyzed for varaus combinations cf mcicieled traffic volumes and roadway alternatives. The analysis compared ;he resul:!ng se,gme^t :ravel times for No Action dna Build soenci-,as, and also: Inoke,cl at he relationship between the average peak hour travel tirr,e and the `ree-flow, ar lovv tra `ic, gavel times Travel times provide a sense of how much t ^ne one could expect to s pe n.a on CO 52, vvhlle the T T I p•av-des a general sense of how r -)..Ch COncrest an one night expect on a daily bas's Old Highway 52 Intersection just west of WCR 5 intersection Planning) and (Environmental Linkages Study CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 46 -�-��ti The average travel times and peak hour TTI represent the balance between the bad traffic conditions experienced by some drivers and those that happen tc hi tine signals at the right time anti experience very little aelay. Broadly spea<ing, reliability oescr be.s how a roadway network handles traffic under non-ioeol conditions. On an overage day, reliability can also be desc'ibe° using the relationship betwoen Figure 4-18 I Fort Lupton Before and After Visualizations - - Existing Visualization of 4 Lane Urban Alternative trte vehicles experiencing heavy congestion (95th oercentile travel times) ana vehicles during free -flaw conditions (also referred to as the Planning -rime Index). Increases in traffic volume along a segment !-'-'.ray cause travel times to increase somewhat even with the recommended improvements, but still improve reliability To handle the increase in travel demand, additional lanes are recommended in parts of the corridor (Figure 4-18). The additional lanesare necessary to maintain efficient and safe operations. Adding additional lanes in constrained area, like Fort Lupton, will be challenging and will require extensive modifications to existing access points and parking areas. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 47 4.8 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS The following map (Figure 4-19)shows the recommended corridor alternatives. In additional to the recommended alternatives, additional alternatives were Carried Forward (Table 4.0. These are alternatives that are considered reasonable and feasible and would be expected to perform well if implemented but were not the strongest -performing alternative. Figure 4-19 I Recommended Corridor Alternatives Map Longmont • Bo▪ ulder • Erie m Firestone eI m o+9 r�i S U ▪ Frederick -� • ▪ Damn° Alternatives thot not be. evo!uateo ₹.Jr.ner i7 the study due to comporaCvely necligsble beret is and higher impacts :han. orher alternatives care shown as Not Recon-imenc.:ec While these alL ernatives ore st I! eligible fa be studied ow ng subsequent phases of the NEPA !process, it that ohy of :hese altern,c:tive.s w;ll rse rc the level of Preferred AI_ernative. 1n ra•dd: ich to the No Buila Alternatsve, which was shown as Not =!ecommended in all segmeri:s, Table 4.8 shoves :ne additional alternatives in th=s category posed on The evaluatlon. lllllllllllllllilll Fort Lupien CC Hodsen • 5, Keenesburg :y The 2 Lane with 2 HOV Managed Lanes alternative in Segment] was eliminated based on the analysis completed during Level 2. This alternative was eliminated because it would decrease reliability, introduce safety concerns, require significant investment in ITS infrastructure and was lacking local support. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 48 Table 4.8 I Alternatives Carried Forward IV! (Hudson Segment 1 Recommended Alternative 2 Lane Rural 2A 4 Lane Urban Alternatives Carried Forward 2 Lanes with Peak Period Shoulder Lane 2B 4 Lane Rural 2C 2D 4 Lane Urban 4 Lane Urban 4 Lane Rural 4 Lane Urban 4 Lane Urban 4 Lane Rural 3A 4 Lane Rural Alternatives Not Recommended 4 Lane Rural 2 Lane Rural 2 Lane Rural 3B 4 Lane Urban 2 Lane Urban 4A 2 Lane Rural 4 Lane Rural 4B ) 2 Lane Urban 4B (east of Hudson) 5 2 Lane Rural 2 Lane Rural 2 Lane Rural 2 Lane with Alternating Passing Lane 4 Lane Rural (with depressed median) 2 Lane with Alternating Passing Lane 2 Lane Rural 2 Lane Rural (8 - foot Shoulders) 4 Lane Rural 4 Lane Urban 2 Lane Urban 4 Lane Rural 4 Lane Urban 2 Lane with TWLTL 4.9 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Intersections along the CO 52 corridor were analyzed based on the 2045 traffic volumes. Although detailed design was not completed for each location, improvements to address safety and maintain mobility are included in Intersection Improvement Maps below (Figures 4-20 through 4-26) and in the Project Categorization Table (Appendix H). Intersection improvements are based on the 2045 peak hour traffic volumes forecasted for each alternative. Additional turn lanes at unsignolized locations, including vehicle storage and speed change distances, were outlined per the CDC] Access Code unless warranted by other factors such as crash experience. For signalized intersections, including locations where signals are likely warranted in the future, lane geometry was developed to meet critical traffic demands and maintain an acceptable level of service. In some cases, additional through loners were used o` intersections to improve traffic fl w during the peak periods- Duel turn lanes and right-tur^ lanes were also evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Widening along the s,de- street opprooches was also considered ,o improve operations, reduce queuing, or to allow far better signal timing along CO 52. The implementation of the changes in lane geometry also involved signal timing and corridor o,ogress'on optimization, where approonate Conventional intersection improvements and optimization should handle future traffic conditions at most intersections along the CO 52 study corridor with two exceptions: US 287 and WCR 59. At the US 287 intersection, the projected traffic growth is expected to exceed the limits of what a conventional intersection can accommodate. A partial continuous -flow intersection is one example of a non- traditional configuration that could significantly improve traffic flow through the intersection without adding capacity to either US 287 or CO 52. WCR 59 required special consideration due to the school located in the southwest corner and safety concerns at the high- speed unsignalized intersection. Though signal warrants may be met at some point in the future, the high-speed roundabout provides a potentially safer and more efficient option. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 49 Figure 4-20 I Segment l: Preferred Intersection Improvements _ 7� I — — — Path ® Ezv ring Irrlgauun C�uss�ng • • • • Irrlgatinn Casements Neeced • Hileprisi B L _amc Rural coon 0 IntE!ser.;icn In:proven:ena 4 !FM tre is EKrsiing oroiect to realign 71st to right-angle and add northbound right -turn ane Signalize intersection when warrants are met. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative N 71 ' Street pi_w_sireet Currently signalized. No required capacity improvements however, consider adding right -turn lanes as conditions warrant. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Provide bicycle crossing improvements east -west and north -south. - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative - Improve crossing for left -turning bicyclists - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative c� up_antet Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add second through lane in each direction on CD 52 (secondary through lanes terminate) Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. - Improve crossing for left -turning bicyclists. - Include b ke lanes through the intersection located left of right-turr lanes for on -shoulder alternative. 0 US Highway 287: Base Condition (Traditional Intersection Improvements): Dual left -turns on all approaches, two -through lanes, channelized right -turn lanes. (CO 52 secondary through lanes terminate in 2 -Lane alternatives) - Significant queuing, in particular due to heavy southbound left -turn movements (550 - B00 vph), result in bottleneck/gridlock conditions. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative `See page 35 far US 267 Intersection Diagram Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 50 Figure 4-21 I Segment 2 West: Preferred Intersection Improvements ERIE ERIE ERIE FREDERICK sz� R� 0 4 County Line Road: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane cross section (2 -Lanes west of intersection): - Add second through lane in each direction on CO 52 (secondary lanes to terminate on 2 -Lane approaches) - Maintain separate left and right -turn lanes- - Add dual southbound left -turns, maintain single northbound left -turn lane, add right -turn lanes. - Add seond through lane in each direction on CLR (secondary lanes terminate beyond intersection) Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. - For multiuse path alternative, provide 52 bicycle crossing improvements for eastbound bicyclists to transition from multiuse path to shoulder. 4 Weld County Road 3 Expected to remain unsignalized. - Add eastbound right -turn decel, and accel lane on eastbound CO 52 for northbound to eastbound right -turn movement - Add westbound left -turn lane Note: Lane recommendations per CDOT access code. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. 0 Weld County Road 5 Signalize intersection when warrants are met (currently unsignalized) Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes- -Add left -turn and right -turn lanes on WCR 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the sz intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. Note: Significant growth projected of this location Widening CLR provides mare bandwidth for CO 52 mavemenrs. UTrower EiFcra sections would OD! ey lead to s:yr,riraar ,•.,..=0.-;rre.et delays without pmvrding dual lai'Nuoh VrI^s a! N h2. vthich would also necessitate widening on CLR to provide receiving lanes. CI Weld County Road 7: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane cross section to west, 6 -Lane cross section to east: -Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes - Westbound right -turn lane -drop - Eastbound right -turn lane -add Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder _52.. alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative - Improve bicycle connections to the north - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 51 Figure 4-22 I Segment 2 East: Preferred Intersection Improvements IOC —� aMx. gdal 0 Silver Birch Road/ York St: Currently signalized Assuming 6 -Lane cross section to west, 4 -Lane cross section to east: - Provide eastbound dual left -turn ane (Add left -turn lane and northbound receiving ane (termirates) - Add northbound right -turn lane. - Eastboura right -turn lac?. -drop. - Westbour.oright-turn rar,e•aod. sz - Expand northbound and southbound storage to accommodate queues Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement(s) - Evaluate bicycle detection for on shoulder alternative - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them crass with pedestrians. - Install turn islands and provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection V Colorado Boulevard /WCR 13: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: - All approaches to have dual left -turn lanes, two thru lanes, and a channelized right -turn lare. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Evaluate bicycle detection for orshoulder alternative. - Include bike lanes through the i itersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. - Consider tunnel or ped/bike bridge for Old Railroad Trail St 52• GIeA C*ghtpa Dr./ Frederick Way; Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: -Add southbound left -turn lane - Extend northbound storage and modify lane designations for one left -turn, shared left-turn/thru lane, and right -turn lane (maintains split phasing) - Maintain eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes. 'edestrian/Bicycle Improvement(s) - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder al ernative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. - Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail to the north. - Provide pedest ian accessibility improvements at intersection 0 Weill CQttnty Road 15• S:grzGze ipretsecl:an when warrants are met (currently unsignalized) Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: - Secondary through lane terminates east of intersection in 2 -Lane alternatives - Add northbound left turn lane - Add southbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Maintain westbound right -turn lane Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: sz, - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection. - Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail north - Install crossing visibility improvements - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 52 Note: Proximity to WCR 15 suggests westbound right -turn auxiliary lane between intersections Figure 4-23 I Segment 3 West: Preferred Intersection Improvements FORT LUPTON .... ....17 is • is �� zo ' d15 L gx � 52 i'Z 4 r :.. 0 • ti ; FORT LUPTON A I' Weld County Road 19: Signalize intersection when warrants are met (currently unsignalized). Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lane Note: High volume for 2 -Lane facility. Consider adding auxiliary thru lane at intersection in 2 -Lane alternative. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. e Weld County Road 23: Signalize intersection when warrants are met (currently unsignalized). Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: -Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lane Note: High volume for 2 -Lane facility. Consider adding auxiliary thru lane at intersection in 2 -Lane alternative. =� Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: sa - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative US 85 Interchange: Currently Signalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Widen bridge west of interchange to 4 -Lanes to extend eastbound storage and westbound auxiliary lane. - Add westbound thru lane under bridge to allow for northbound dual -left -turn lanes. - Consider adding northbound right -turn lane on ramp. - Extend westbound left -turn lane storage through Grand Avenue intersection (Grand Avenue to RIM) Planning and Environmental Linkages Study CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 53 Figure 4-24 I Segment 3 East: Preferred Intersection Improvements FORT LUPTON I 8 a A za S ... 52_ - - - I'rolrused tlulliuso I'iill� ® if ossinq •••• IIiICJrill Uli rarA,ini',nls 0 Grand Avenue: Currently unsignalized, offset intersection within 250 -ft of US 85 ramps. :•�+$ - Restrict access to 3/4 movement (not recommended) or RIK (recommended) - Accommodating left -turns from sidestreet would require signal to be combined with US 85 signal due to proximity (not recommended). Note: Assumed Right -in, Right -out in models due to excessive delay for side -street movements. Traffic rerouted to Fulton Avenue. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements. S E. Fulton Avenue. Signalize in:eisections when warrants are met (currently unsignalized). Assuming 2 -Lane or 4 -Lane Cross Section: - Provide left -turn lanes from Fulton Street and a southbound right -turn lane to accommodate redirected traffic. Note: Location has the potential to meet signal warrants with or without traffic redirected from Grand Avenue. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements. V Weld County Road 29'1: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: -Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes - Extend eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes -Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes Note: Per CDOT Access Code sx Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 54 Figure 4-25 I Segment 4: Preferred Intersection Improvements FORT LUPTON • Weld County Road 31: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add southbound right -turn lane - Extend lanes to Access Code standards Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Multiuse path begins to the west Bicycles on shoulder to the east. - Provide bicycle crossing improvements for eastbound bicyclists to transition from multiuse path to shoulder sz • Weld County Road 37: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes Note: Per CDOT Access Code. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative Weld County Road 41: Being Signalized Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. Weld County Road 45/Beech Street: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound right -turn - Add westbound left -turn Note: Per CDOT Access Code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Provide crossing improvements. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 55 Figure 4-26 I Segment 5: Preferred Intersection Improvements a ..j 1 AW1 tl • --— P roulsed'Iultulse Pahl ® [xii;tinghi!gLitoliClosslnq •••• HI ii!rdioni_z1serwitsN e[ied • tl!IBUi':,` Rui St]ctit m + ,one R.loal:kclion Ra c 2nne Irban SFCJCn CIn!afSCCiiwements 0 Weld County Road 53: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: -Add eastbound right -turn - Add westbound left -turn - - Note: Per CD0T Access Code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative 1 4 &Id ilat Road 58: Bose Cnnrlit:-on: Sion II Ir7lled w th aasitourd Shared !e't tt:'nith.'ll lane 'f of rigl-Pturn lane. weS:Cdur.d fett•Irn lar E. westbound auCe"one Sor nauntotunn tafr-tafn r'ovemen!. Srgrobtoncn: Does nr', meet. warrant; (no'. rm;rnmendadl Linsiptiiizen: Conside'aiion'or n;rthr,,tturd ant; sottthhcort IttII• turnirr;act sight ds:ancE or crease r.oF!'lict :iii^ lurring ;fucks. Ratindobour: rs;gh-uud 8urdaQaLt wau'C ai!7;: for s'.gni!itan: irnwrivarnents wri E= a!lpsping 6^.s sle operation throughout'ne day. rsibriii;!m{Iravemms: Consider aver.head soar wire warning ssyral (mainlineyeibw, s:cestreet red) o' 7[her inferse ;on v:s 'rrorovernenrs. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: [fiS;d'I O cyc.ie: ,•ssirg treatments ft! :e't-turns onto/of.. a` CO 52 'See page 37 for WCR 59 Intersection Diagram Weld County Road 69/C0 79: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add lanes per access code pending evaluation of ROW impacts. Note: No operational deficiencies noted. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements WCR 69 _i9 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 56 4.10 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION FOOTPRINT This PEL prepared a corridor preservation footprint which is shown in t^e ACP Report (Appendix B). This footprint is considered the collective footprint of all options that have been either carried forward or recon-Imended. This common footprint of alternatives represents an estimate of the ROW that would be necessary to accommodate the aggregate of. Ultimate roadway improvements Intersection configurations Bicycle and pedestrian facilities along CO 52 This `ootorint is intended to inform decision -making at the state and local level in terms of preserving land and making lend use decisions to not preclucie future transportation improvements that have peen identified in this DEL. The footprint width generally corresponds to the recommended typical section, but expands to account far imbrovernenrs at the irate"sections. The ACP provides a detailed olternotives mapbook of the footprint, along with. parcel informat;or and future access canai_ions A package of digital f ies nos also been provided that ollow co—munities, developers, and stakeholders to view the corridor preservation footprint interactively, le formats Include. DGN - Computer aided design and drafting file KML - Google Earth° file Shapefile package - Geographic Information Systems package Existing Guardrail along CO 52, West of County Line Road Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 57 11 T 5.0 // PROJECT CATEGORIZATION Understanding that project funding for improvements would not occur for the entire corridor at once, but more likely in relatively small amounts over a Iona period of time from a variety of funding sources, the study team developed a list of potential projects for the corridor. The list briefly characterizes each project for effectiveness, provides a range of estimated cost, and categorizes each project for funding eligibility The intention of the list is to facilitate project implementation in the future. The list provides a searchable and sortable CO 52 project database, so that as funds from specific sources may become available, qualifying CO 52 projects can be identified. The complete list of potential projects is presented in Appendix H 5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS The project team reviewed alternatives from Level 2 to identify potential projects. The Potential Projects List includes carried forward and recommended alternatives, intersection and multimodal improvements, as well as recommended projects from local agencies. Likely endpoints for projects were identified for project definition purposes. 5.2 PROCESS OF CATEGORIZATION The list of potential projects describes each project with summary information regarding how well it would achieve the Purpose & Need, the ease of implementation, and general attributes of cost and funding eligibi ity 5.2.1 Purpose 8, Need Measurements Based on data analysis conducted during Level 2 evaluation each potential project was rated for its ability to meet the elements of Purpose & Need including its ability to: Increase Safety AccommodaIe Increased Travel and Freight Demand Support ivlultlmodal Con!�ections Safety scores of potential projects were assigned on a qualitative basis, with consideration for how a project might impact intersection and segment crash patterns due to elements like vehicle speeds, congestion, or intersection geometry. The introduction or removal of conflict points for potential impact to crash patterns was also considered. Projects that specifically address identified safety issues were assigned the highest score. Traffic operations improvements were rated quantitatively based on the results of the detailed traffic analysis for potential intersection improvement projects and potential roadway segment projects. Intersection projects were rated based on the projected improver, -lent of peak hour intersection level -of -service (LOS), which is based on the average delay of all vehicles through an intersection and results in a letter grade A through F. Roadway segment improvement projects were rated based on the estimated improvement in peak hour travel time. From a multimodal perspective, the potential projects were evaluated based on the design elements of the type of multimodal facilities included An increased score indicates that the project provides multimodal facilities with.greater benefits to user safety and comfort. Table 5.1 describes the specific definitions for the scores for each Purpose & Need element. The scores were given based on a scale of 1-5. Some numbers are given specific definitions. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 58 C3 4-0 cu +_i ^O O Table 5.1 I Table of Purpose & Need Measurement Scores Scores Measure Increase Safety (Qualitative Information) 1 3 5 Not expected to improve safety Expected to have a positive safety impact Improves safety by addressing an identified safety issue Improved Traffic Operations to Accommodate Increased Travel and Freight Demand (Quantitative Data) 1 2 3 Would not improve intersection LOS or segment travel time Moderate potential to improve peak hour intersection LOS 1 letter grade Moderate potential to improve peak hour intersection LOS 2 letter grades, or improves segment travel time 5 to 15% 4 Moderate potential to improve intersection LOS 3 letter grades 5 High potential to improve intersection LOS 4 letter grades; or improves segment travel time >15% Support Multimodal Connections (Qualitative Information) 1 Does not provide multimodal infrastructure or safety improvements 2 Project provides minor improvements such as widening of 3 4 5 existirg shoulders that are already four feet or greater Provides shoulders of at least 4 -foot width where no multimodal facilities already exist Provides on -street bicycle lanes or other dedicated improvements Provides separated bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, such as a multiuse path rJ 2.2 Ease of Implementation Ease of implementation summarizes potential issues that could be encountered as a project moves towards implementation. These issues typically require additional time that should be factored into the scheaule for project imple^-ientation These are comprised o' the need for additional environmental analysis ono documentation, the extent to which a project is in alignment with local plans and policies, and the need for acquisition of ROW. For each project, these concerns are briefly summarized to provide awareness as projects move into further development. Environment The Existing Conditions Report identified community and natural resources that required lengthy clearance requirements or costly investigation or mitigation requirements. These critical resources include historic resources, parks, mama:Jan ono Cpen space, noise, critical wilaiife habitat and add ticnai environmental site -specific considerations identi`ied by the team, such as and oil and gas wells During oltemc:ives development and evaluation of these critical resources were identified and categorized to inform the evaluation process and identify potential projects In Level 2B evaluation, these critical resources were identified segment by segment to inform the evaluation process and identify projects which have the potential to impact resources which may pose project risks. Findings were used to narrow the range of potential projects After Level 2 evaluation, the same resources were identified at a project level to help categorize and identify potential projects. The project team identified the number and type of critical resources associated with each site -specific alternative for consideration of the overall ease of implementation. Looking East at the Intersection of 95th St and CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 59 Local Planning Local agencies determined the level of local support for each alternative when considering consistency with local plans (e.g., Transportation Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan, etc.) Based on the interviews and input received from the community representatives on the Technical Team, the potential projects were tagged with a potential amount of additional community engagement needed to refine the potential project: Substantial, Moderate, or None Anticipated Right -of -Way Ease of implementation for ROW is subjec=ive based on corridor knowledge, engineering judgement, and experience with similar projects In addition to identifying likely structure acquisitions, the team also identified where corridor preservation lines lie close to structures, where underlying easements or realignments may complicate the process, and where a significant number of commercial access and parking modifications would be required for implementation F Table 5.2 I Summary Table of Potential Projects 5.3 POTENTIAL PROJECTS Table 5.2 prowdes a summary of the pelential projects for tine CC 52 corridor, in arbitrary order from west !:; eas.. It is ,Mportan: rc note _ha. 7`,e projects form ci future IS ^r 'or the corridor and n -}ay rnG�;;re many years 'Lc implemer:t Annual identification of €unsling resources will be necessary on o project--by-projec bas's. Some prolects may be Bundled o" packaaed together depending on fund"-ig opportuni_Ies. cunTher.Uc'ojecf definition and develoarr.en: 's required including aodit.[anal envlrenrne.ntol analysis cis well Os Ureliminrry and rir a! design A Projec. ID is assigned o eocn projec for cross-refe'ences ourpOses only. Appendix H provides the complete detailed table with ease of implementation information on each project Location' Improvement Type 1 CO119 to County Line Rd 2 CO119 to Monarch Rd 3 71st Ave 4 79th Ave 5 Hover St/95th Ave 6 US 287- option] 7 US 287 - option 2 Table continued on nex-page 2-lane Resurfacing Shoulder Widening Multiuse Trail Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements (Traditional Configuration) Intersection Improvements (Non -Traditional Configuration) Overall Purpose d Need Rating. 11 Cost Estimate — Low $41,200,000 9 $2,200,000 9 $4,500,000 7 $9,000,000 8 $8,300,000 7 $11,800,000 11 $21,100,000 Cost Estimate - High $50,300,000 $2,700,000 $5,500,000 $10,900,000 $10,100,000 $14,400,000 $25,800,000 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 60 F dentification Segment 2 Project ]O 8 9 Location Improvement Type County Line Rd Intersection Improvements WCR 3 Intersection Improvements Overall Purpose & Need Rating Cost Estimate Cost Estimate — Low - High 9 $23,100,000 $28,300,000 13 $10,300,000 1 $12,500,000 10 WCR 5 Intersection Improvements 11 County Line Rd to WCR 7 12 WCR 7 13 4 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening Intersection Improvements WCR 7 to I-25 SB FR 6 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening 10 10 $8,900,000 $10,800,000 $30,400,000 $37,100,000 11 $10,300,000 $12,500,000 10 $24,900,000 $30,500,000 14 15 I-25 NB FR to Silver Birch (York) 6 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening Silver Birch Rd (York) Intersection Improvements 16 8 $28,100,000 $34,300,000 8 $14,300,000 Colorado Boulevard Intersection Improvements 17 Glen Creighton/Frederick Way Intersection Improvements 18 WCR 15 Intersection Improvements 19 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 8 11 $10,000,000 $10,200,000 $17,500,000 $12,200,000 $12,500,000 9 $5,700,000 $6,900,000 4 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening 12 $19,800,000 $24,200,000 20 Reverse Curves - Option 1 Realignment (4% Superelevation) 21 Reverse Curves - Option 2 6 $26,000,000 $31,700,000 Realignment (6% Superelevation) 22 WCR 15 to WCR 19 6 $26,500,000 $32,400,000 2 -Lane Resurfacing Shoulder Widening (Interim) 6 $19,200,000 $23,400,000 Table continued on next page Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 61 7k7-_ 52 - Location , r...•••,7.; • r X11" J r�r— I: • I' h^� • +, lmprovemant Type emu• — �_= I I I � _� _ — _ 11 -- --' I r — .. — -='?rr�....., ;.�-.-�. Y. ;•- t-=;- r Err 1, — }�1� ----'- 1 _-,E "� I I:i, _'r'^.-- I II _ 3�:. - .— 1.�:� - J-' . • mil' L ._[y,• I _.I -- --.1 - - --fl - -� - + -I --• 4 ICI' 1ir31Sj3� _--� .. _ = L >;; a' _ — _. �,:,; , ti F' ;,_•-; • ,..s... -'•`'.-• '.', — III — — — II r,^,� ,: `o .I ., !! —{�I �'' -. 14..'••- Ire1 Jl • .:2.7•. 1 I I'.II"Il ,71 II, �.fa "III I :='. - �.-.. rv-.�a' J -�—` _":t•,,.xaca� t _ Y{- _ rYr�y_ L -.w :`-;•.e.�''t R:.i i h S..J ry.. C•M1'7 �:;1 S' IS Table continued on next page —I�_ L !'i'•41 ? _ :� = _6w2p •i :@:J- 3:':Y:S_"".S �{°F T4•, ti' "lI rs-+. • _ - yYz.-ate iI .r. �l I' • S,•'••r' G:v�5. .il! r.��fi"4: 4i6i.i—I Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 62 Project ID 40 41 44 4.'. 4� 47 48 49 50 52 ' Location WCR 31 to WCR 43 WCR 31 to WCR 43; Holly'to WCR 49 Through Hudson WCR 37 WCR 41 VVCR 45 Railroad Pedestrian Crossing _ WCR 49 to CO 79 WCR 53 WCR 59 - Option] WCR 59 - Option 2 CO 79 52 Bridge at NIP 32,825 1 ��o--mss-•- =_f� .-v Improvement Type 4 -Lane Widening (Future) .Shoulder Widening 2 -Lone Resurfacing Shoulder Widening 2 -lane Widening Urban Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements (In Progress.) Intersection Improvements Multimodal Ped Connections 2 -Lane Resurfacing Shoulder Widening Intersection Improvements Intersecton Improvements (Traditional Configuration) Intersection Improvements (Roundabout) Intersection Improvements (Note: ROW Crud Irrigation Issues) Structure Replacement Overall Purpose S. Need Rating 7 7 8 10 10 8 31 7 8 8 it 5 3 7I CostEstimate — Low $45;1.fD0;00:0 $71,900,000 $10,000,000 57,400,000 58,200,000 51,300,000 $700,000 5107,000,000 57,300,000 S4,90=:,0 0 $'0.000,000 $5,000:000 Cost Estimate - High $56.300,000 $87,800,000 512,200,000 59,000,000 510,100,000 $1,600,000 $900,000 $130.700,000 S3,900,000 56,000,000 2,000,000 $6,20n,•C,r-C $4,100,000 S5,000,000 *Costs estimated in 2021 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 63 • O 5.3.1 Potential Prioritization Potential prioritizaticn can be identified by those projects that rank highest for meeting overall Purpose & Need. It is important to note that project cost has no bearing on prioritization ranking. Table 5.3 lists the top 15 projects that address overall Purpose & Need Table 5.3 I Highest Rated Overall Need Projects Project ID 33 3 34 3 30 3 9 2 26 3 27 19 3 2 US 85 Interchange Grand Ave WCR 19 Improvement Intersection Improvements Operational Improvements Rating 5 Intersection Improvements 5 Intersection Improvements Multimodal Traveler Safety and Overall P&N Safety Rating Infrastructure Rating Rating 5 5 5 5 WCR 3 Intersection Improvements 4 5 WCR 19 to Grand; Denver to west of WCR 31 4 -lane Urban Denver to west of WCR 31 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 5 15 5 15 4 14 4 13 5 3 5 13 4 -lane 5 3 5 13 4 -lane 5 3 4 12 36 3 Fulton Street Intersection Improvements 4 3 5 12 1 1 CO119 to west of County Line Rd 2 -lane resurfacing (10' shoulder widening v. th resurfacing) 7 1 US 287 - option 2 12 2 3 3 Intersection Improvements - Non-traditional 3 3 WCR 7 Intersection Improvements 4 3 17 2 Glen Creighton/Frederick Way Intersection Improvements 4 3 37 3 5 11 5 11 4 11 Grand to Denver Multimodal Ped connections 1 5 48 4 Railroad Pedestrian Cross ng Multimodal Ped connections 1 5 52 5 WCR 59 - option 2 Roundabout 3 5 4 11 5 11 5 11 3 11 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 64 on of Potent The top ranked projects ratings for the three individual elements of Purpose & Need (Safety, Traffic Operations, and Multimodal) are presented in Tables 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6 respectively These projects each received the top score of 5, for the respective categories. The order within the top ranking is inconsequential; the projects are arbitrarily listed from west to east Table 5.4 I Highest Rated Safety Projects Project Segment ID Location Improvement 9 2 31 3 WCR 3 WCR 19 Intersection Improvements 34 3 US 85 Interchange 35 3 37 3 46 4 48 4 52 5 Grand Ave Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Grand to Denver Multimodal Ped connections WCR 41 Railroad Pedestrian Crossing WCR 59 - option 2 Being signalized Multimodal Ped connections Roundabout Table 5.5 I Highest Rated Traffic Operations Projects Project Segment ID 10 11 2 Location WCR 5 Intersection Improvements 2 County Line Rd to WCR 7 19 2 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 23 26 27 31 3 3 3 3 Grand to Denver WCR 19 to Grand; Denver to west of WCR 31 Denver to west of WCR 31 WCR 19 34 3 US 85 Interchange 35 3 Grand Ave Improvement 4 -lane 4 -lane 4 -lane 4 -lane urban 4 -lane Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Damaged Culvert at WCR 13 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 65 I • O ^L Table 5.6 I Highest Rated Multimodal Projects Project Segment ID 1 Location Improvement CO119 to west of County Line Rd 3 4 5 71st 2 -lane resurfacing (10' snoulaer widening with resurfac:^g) Intersection Improvements Boulder County Road 79 Intersection Improvements Hover/95th Intersection Improvements 6 1 7 8 25 1 2 3 26 3 US 287 - option 1 US 287 - option 2 County Line Rd Traditional Intersection Configuration Non-traditional Configuration WCR 19 to Grand; Denver to west of WCR 31 WCR 19 to Grand; Denver to west of WCR 31 27 28 33 34 35 36 3 Denver to west of WCR 31 3 Denver to west of WCR 31 3 Pedestrian underpass near US 85 3 US 85 Interchange 3 3 Grand Ave 37 38 48 • 3 Fulton Street Grand to Denver WCR 29.5 Intersection Improvements 2 -lane urban (interim) 4 -lane urban 4 -lane 2 -lane w/shoulders (interim) Multimodal Ped connections Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements 4 Railroad Pedestr an Crossing Multimodal Ped connections Intersection Improvements Multimodal Ped connections Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 66 6.0 6.1 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION INTRODUCTION The PEL agency and public coordination process was created to obtain input from and provide information to the Project Management Team, stakeholders, and the public This included engaging a coalition of elected officials; creating a Technical Team of agency stakeholders; gathering public input; and ensuring community involvement, education, and outreach. Participation in Virtual Meeting 6. 2 PROJECT AND AGENCY COORDINATION The Agency and Public communication strategies were evaluated and updated throughout the PEL to improve outreach to and input from stakeholders and the public. The purpose of these outreach efforts were to accomplish the following: Increase public and stakeholder awareness of issues concerning the CO 52 corridor Develop a plan that balances and integrates competing needs Generate informed consent between the local agencies along the corridor (Boulder County, Weld County, Dacono, Erie, Fort Lupton, Frederick, Keenesburg, Hudson and CDOT) Listen to stakeholders and get support for potential corridor improvements Establish public confidence in CDOT and the PEL process - Identify critical issues and problems as early as possible Determine the proper level and means of public involvement for the PEL The comprehensive Agency Coordination and Public Engagement report includes meeting notes, communication packets, and meeting advertisements and is included in Appendix I Figure 6-1 shows the roles and responsibilities of the PMT and stakeholders engaged in the project. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 67 Figure 6-1 I Project Communications Graphic PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS MOT, FHWA, Project Team Project Management Team [PMT] GOODBEE Technical Team (TT) Local Agencies along the Corridcr - Boulder and Weld Counties, Towns of4. Erie, Frederick, Hudson, and Keenesburg, Cities of Dacono and Fort Lupton ruti Or' .ir.,^ah. ;-64MULLER �tit�clt�31 ARrLAND Project Stakeholders SH 52 Coalition Elected Officials ARCH Aims Community College, B cycle Colorado. BNSF Railway Company. Bustang Express Bus Service. Colorado Motor Carriers Association, City of Boulder, City of Broomfield, City of Longmont, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Community Cycles, Cyclists 4 Community, Environmental Protection Agency, Glens Coalition, IBM, Niwot, RTD, State Historic Prese-vation Office, Union Pacific Railroad, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Public Engagement Public, Corridor Users Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 68 6.2.1 Project Management Team (PMT) The PMT, composed of CDOT, FHWA, and the consultant team, we responsible for making project decisions. They frequently reviewed the scope, schedule, and budget to make sure the project was moving forward. The PMT met monthly on the third Thursday of the month to discuss topics such as public involvement, traffic, environmental, engineering, and planning, in order to develop strategies and make decisions on technical questions and communication strategies. 6,2,2 Technical Team (TT) The TT, comprised of local agency representatives, provided the study and PMT with technical input. The TT identified relevant materials that could be helpful to the Study teams, supported development of the corridor vision, coordinated with and informed the State Highway 52 Coalition of project status and helped articulate problems and evaluate solutions for the corridor. The TT included representatives from: Dacono rfRED;ERlCHI Ei 1 Boulder County itU DS0•1 gliZAMM The TT provided guidance in developing study deliverables including: Purpose & Need Statement Evaluation Criteria Range of AltematRes Alternatives Evaluation Recommended Alternatives Stakeholder Engagement Approach The TT met fourteen times throughout the project on these dates: May 20, 2020 July 23, 2020 August 20, 2020 October 29, 2020 December 3, 2020 January 28, 2021 February 22, 2021 NrugUir,--.4g6ft April 22, 2021 June 24, 2021 July 22; 2021 August 31; 2021 September 16, 2021 October 18, 2021 November 11, 2021 CO 52 Access Yaps i• •.77� Y• • J, Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 69 4-J 6,2,3 State Highway 52 Coalition T^e 52 Coalition c:ss:sted the PmT ^. 'esolving issues, r-aking decisidns on policy 'ssues, and providing eedboi:k the status of study activities and decis:oils. In pcidit ar, they helped guide local involvement in the FE'. Tne team provided n-ionthly updates to :no, SH 52 Coolition and presented to the Si E 52 Coalition ct prolec- milestones. The Coal was mode up of eleo:ed of c,als of the local agencies along the CO 52 conidar and polity -level representatives o` CDOT. 6,2,4 Resource Agency Coordination Agency contacts below "eceived a let.e- via email an July 31, 2020, detailing the :scope o' the protect At the cornple.tior of the Existing Conditions Report, they were semi a ca,,^y for review and comment. Each of trio agencies were a so sent a final version of Iris PEL. document. try further comments from the agencies will be addressed during EPA. CDOT/CDPHE Liaison CDPHE EPS Oil and Sas Liaison CDPHE Hazardous vlaterials CDPHE Solid Waste CDPHE Water Qua, ty Control Division CDPHE Water Qual ty Control Division (Permits Section Colorado Parks & Wildlife State Historic Preservation Officer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S Fish and Wildlife Service EPA NEPA Transpor ation Sector Comments from CPW were received in September 2020 and focused on potential locations for wildlife crossings and recommendations specific to Banner Lakes State Wildlife Area. These comments were incorporated into the Alternatives Development process The letters sent and additional details can be found in Appendix Banner Lakes State Wildlife Area Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 70 O +J • O O U U • 6.2.5 One -on -One Meetings Stakeholder One -on -One Meetings To fully understand the needs along the CO 52 corridor, it was critical for members of the PMT to meet individually with each of the local agencies. At the start of the project, interviews were conducted with these stakeholders to understand their respective interests, goals, issues, and desired outcomes for the study. This provided an opportunity to build trusted relationships and understand their perspectives as alternatives were developed and evaluated. Boulder County (June 8/.2020) Dacono (May 22, 2020) Erie (June 22, 2020) Fort Lupton (May 13, 2020) Frederick (June 5, 2020) Hudson (May 14, 2020) Keenesburg (June 23, 2020) Weld County (May 20, 2020) Fort Lupton Recreation/Community Center Additional One -on -One Meetings In addition to meeting with the local agency stakeholders during the onset of the project, the PMT continued to meet with other organizations and groups throughout :he PEL/ACP process to hear speci€ic concerns, answer cues ions and provide project updates. These additional organizations and groups inclucieo. CDOT Rail (July 28, 2020) Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA) (July 24, 2020) Colorado Parks. and Wildlife (CPW) (August 26, 2020) IBM (August 5, 2020) Transit Organizations (May 12, 2021) Boulder County Cycling Meeting (July 20, 2021) with Bicycle Ccgorddo, Boulder COurrty, CDOT. CO,119 Bif ewgy, CO 1199 Mobility, CO 52 P_EL f .ACP, Community Cycles, Cyclists 4 Community, RTD Glen's Coalition (July 8, 2021) Aims Community College (August 18, 2020) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement included individuals and corridor users. In addition to connecting with the general public, the PMT also connected with local schools, community groups, HOAs, etc Two public open houses were held over the duration of the project in addition to ongoing coordination and communication Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 71 6,3,1 General Communications Website Throughout the PEL process, project -relevant content was produced and managed on the �_: (Figure 6-2). The website was launched on May 20, 2020 and received 4,878 hits over the next 17 months. The website content fulfilled it's purpose to: Explain and illustrate the PEL process and Purpose & C'Jeed 1 • 1- - - Proviae opportunities for stakjeholcler input through t O e website comment farm, project email, project ph ne number, the interacitive Social Pinpoint map and comment baarcl,l and tr�e Public meetings in August 2020 and Audusr 2021 : Inform stakeholders oon schedule, public invcolvement, and update findings Provide jnswers to fregUently•cjrsd questions Link to relevar1 t documents, related Figure 6-2 I CDOT's Project Website prh jects and stuldies SOLOfiAdd .. � otp,nwaad 3t�wN••� Projects Re Co 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) coma❑ us & Access Control Plan (ACP) it -- - 0 • iroG. r' Slay Informed i One -Pagers The project team prepared and distributed the Project One -Pager, ACP One -Pager (Figure 6-3), and e -blasts to stakeholders and local residents who signed up to stay informed about the project. This information was also translated into Spanish and was made available on the project website. Figure 6-3 I ACP One -Pager Access Control Plan O CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 An Access Control Plan designates preferred access locations in accordance with the State Access Code along a highway corridor that will improve safety and mobility for the traveling public. Safety Improvements: The consolidation and location of accesses can eliminate and/or greatly reduce the number of conflict points on a roadway. Congestion Reduction: Consolidating access locations causes side road traffic to concentrate at a single location to enter and exit the highway, reducing congestion and improving mobility. Property owners are affected if there are changes to the property which generate an increase in traffic volumes by more than 29. COOT wilt look at the access to determine if the change shown in the ACP can be made. Each situation is individually reviewed and discussed with the local municipality and property owner. This typically occurs when a rand use change to the property ❑[curs. Shouid a private property owner request a change to access, it must be supported by the appropr ate local agency to be considered- Business property owners are treated the same as a private graperty owner. Usually development or redevelopment of a property is the trigger for review of an existing access, which may trigger consideration of the ACP recommendation. A roadway project on the highway may also create the need to review existing accesses and associated ACP recommendations. Property owners will be involved should there be a proposed change to their access. At no time will a property be not accessible. In 1981, the State of Colorado became the first state in the nation to implement an Access Code (State of Colorado State Highway Access Code) _ The Cod• governs the location of all accesses along all state highways and Interstates. Upon completion of the ACP, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be signed by all of the local municipalities along the impacted corridor and CDOT Each municipality will have a designated representative. Each of the signers of the IGA agree to abide by the ACP. Sometimes a change is necessary and the plan needs to be modified. An amendment process is part of the IGA which allows for a change to be requested and voted on by all local municipalities along the project corridor. Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 72 Email Distribution List & E -Blasts The email distribution list was developed throughout the PEL process. The study ended with 400 email addresses on the distribution list Email blasts included: Quarterly Newsletter #1: July 23, 2020 About the ACP Public Meeting Information Quarterly Newsletter #2: November 23, 2020 Existing Conditions Report August Public Engagement.Report What's Next (Alternatives_ Level l) Quarterly Newsletter #3: March 25, 2021 Project Status Update (Level], Level 2) ACP FAQ Website Update Quarterly Newsletter #4: August 26, 2021 Project Status Update (Level], Level 2) n ACP FAQ Website Update 1 Emails & Voicemail Comments The study provided sta:eenolders multiple ways tc provlsie comment ono ase questions (beyond during prese.n:ar.ions, meetings, and the survey), including vio phone, email, and o webs to comment form. In total, comments were received from stakeholders - r+ } 61,16. -jet . -j t• SIgnage at Harrison Ave in Fort Lupton Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 73 6,3,2 Open Houses Open House #1 - August 2020 Due to COVID-19, the project team, along with CDOT, made the decision to host a virtual open house for the public in lieu of an in -person event. The open house was hosted on a website platform - separate from the general project website The open house was live from August 24 through September 17, providing opportunity for as many stakeholders as possible to interact with the materials on their own schedule and time. The open house had various goals and success metrics. Figure 6-4 12020 Postcard �/ 15'coLorlaoo Colorado State Highway 52 Planing & Environmental Linkages Study and Access Control Plan Wkar Online Public Enga ement Opportu ity �(lk : CO Hwy 52 Users Wk n: August 24" through September 7" Hew. Online at .. With the goal to provide the same level of engagement as would have been expected during an in -person meeting, the website included a number of interactive opportunities for the public to provide input including: Two topic -specific surveys Social Pinpcint Interactive Map Social Pinpoint Interact ve Comment Wall Opportunity to send the project team, e:mails or call the project hotline The open house was the first broad introduction of the project to the public and was translated into Spanish. Over 800 individuals viewed the site, and 126 new contacts were collected during the online pub- lic event. The project team identified eight major key themes that 52 arose from public input during the event: Environment & Aesthetics; Roadway Use; Bike/Pedestrian/Multimodal; Safety; Planning; Access Control; Stakeholder Engagement; Land Use (Figure 6-5). arou NI. ,M m.eon ,� v�mo .a,v,l �. a .� .;� y,% .03rN The key goals were: Inform stakeh olders of the project's goals and activities Receive input fromIstakerlders on their interests and corer _. _.. Establish relarnships and'liries of cc'on,�munication with stakeholders for on _going interaction i— The two key success metrics were: Through inclusive access,' receive high levels of participolori I Jentify site -specific locations Figure 6-5 I Frequency of Key Themes Land Use Stakeholders 3.4% 3.4% Planning Access 2.3%} Control 9.2% Safety 35.6% Environment & Aesthetics 3.4% Roadway Use 36.8% ▪ Roadway Use ▪ Bike/Ped/Multimodal ▪ Safety '4 Planning Access Control Stakeholders Land Use Environment & Aesthetics Bike/Ped/Multimodal 5.7% Planning and Environmental Linkages study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 74 O �J . tatatata L O O U U . tatatata 774 ow) U W Q Open House #2 - August 2021 The second open house event focused on updating the public on progress made in both the PEL and ACP, as well as presenting the proposed alternatives evaluated to date. The event was held from August 30 - September 20. The content of the meeting focused on educating the public on existing conditions data that was evaluated since the last public meeting, as well as detailing the alternatives evaluated in each segment of the corridor. Half of this virtual meeting website was dedicated to describing the process, purpose and draft of the ACP. The website allowed for the public to review the ACP and provide comments on individual access recommendations In preparations for this event, 3,200 postcards were mailed directly to adjacent property owners along the corridor. Figure 6-6 I 2021 Postcard COLORADO AGP Dr. .rmwr w Tramnw. Colorado State Highway 52: and Access Control Plan (ACP) August 30'" through September 20'" Online at nups:((wws, co57pel tomiPubli cmoanng The PEL•_S1udY 111n plate Nq dab and tudic a ittm Dtgln talesnooped moss! a Ks"... rs b'adorts'atelq aM ` .grRsriStam3Ti7pbwaane nan tawatainfonfnittaLin prorb The key goals were: ACPNotification: 'Jahn cur Moe CPtn Matt itatn abaft an aerrala rei ntn re: a DaeM4 CD pro mint •naw d tea ram.: noire' coyell n H eA amps petHts+innp CO Q Core aw bato rte abfn can booed:ear Win: ,1 nom m.41+1, pop-. ,11,, ,_og Provide access to previous open house information and materials Inform stakeholders and the public about progress on the PEL & ACP Share the results of previous open house event and input received to date Provide property owners along the corridor with the updated access recommendations from the ACP Display results of the Alternatives Evaluation Collect additional public feedback and input.: per segment The two key success metrics were: Through inclusive access, receive high levels of participation Receive comments on segment specific alternatives With the goal to provide the same level of engagement as would have been expected during an in -person meeting, the website included a number of interactive opportunities for the public to provide input including: A survey to better understand user interests Interactive ACP maps Interactive Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Map _ J Ability to comment on segment -specific alternatives Opportunity to send the project team emails or call the project hotline Figure 6-7 I Frequency of Key Themes Technology Improvements 3.4% Clarifying Questions 9.2% Access Control 13.2% Maintenance 2.9% - ` General Corridor Safety 1.5% Reduce Congestion 7.4% rr • 1Rittd•tdrii &. • n.6„4: A,t. Separated Path 30:9% Intersection Safety 4.4% L Reduce Congestion Add Lanes Bike -Red Safety Separated Path Intersection Safety General Corridor Safety Maintenance Access Control Clarifying Questions Technology Improvements Bike-Ped Safety 1.5% Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79 75 7.0 // LITERATURE CITED CDOT, 2019-2020 Whole System, Whole Safety Fact Sheet Retrieved November 16, 2021: CDOT, 2020. 2020-2023 Colorado Strategic ransportation Safety Plan. April- Retrieved November 16, 2021: CDOT 2021 June Transportation Commission Materials. June Retrieved September 23, 2021: Colorado Senate, 2021. SB 21-260 Sustainability Of The Transportation System June 17- Retrieved September 23, 2021: CDOT Staff, Transportation Commission Meeting 2021 Pollution Reduction Planning for Transportation: Briefing Update CDOT State Focus, 2021. Travel Demand Model Telework assumptions Colorado Energy Office, 2021 Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap January 14. Retrieved November 16, 2021 Colorado House of Representatives, 2019 HB 19-1261 Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution. May 30 Retrieved November 16, 2021: The Durango Herald, 2021. Colorado Legislature Sends Transportation Bill to Governor. June 3. Retrieved November 16, 2021: FHWA,1993. NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: The Development of Logical Project Termini. November 5. Retrieved May 2015: FHWA, 2015. PEL Benefits REPORT: Planning and Environment Linkages: Environmental REVIEW TOOLKIT. October. Retrieved September 23, 2021: httds://w\A • PTV Vision, 2012.VISS M 5.40 -User Manua Vision Zero Network, 2020 What s Vision Zero? Retrieved November 16, 2021: Weld County, Department of Oil, Gas, and Energy, 2020. Weld County Oil and Gas Production Report. February 5 Retrieved November 16, 2021: Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 76 8.0 H APPENDIX Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 77 Appendix A: Letters of Support Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN REPORT C❑ 52: CO 119 to CO 79 November 2021 Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 Colorado Department of Transportation 10601 W 10th St Greeley, CO 80634 Prepared by: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team CDOT Subaccount #: 21656 Muller Project Number: 20-010.01 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Access Control Plan 1 1.2 State Highway 52 Coalition and PEL/ACP Development 2 1.3 Access Control Plan Limits 2 2 POLICY AND PURPOSE 3 2.1 Purpose 3 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 3.1 Existing Access Condition 4 3.2 Existing Road Network 6 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes 7 3.4 Existing Speed Limits 8 3.5 Existing Traffic Operations 8 4 FORECASTED CONDITIONS 11 4.1 Traffic Volume Forecast 11 4.2 2045 Level of Service (LOS) Evaluation 12 5 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION 13 5.1 Agency Coordination Engagement and Findings 13 5.2 Public Coordination and Engagement Findings 15 6 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 20 6.1 Implementation Strategy 20 6.2 Access Control Methods 21 6.3 Access Recommendations 23 7 AMENDMENT PROCESS 25 8 LITERATURE CITED 26 List of Figures FIGURE 1-1-1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP 2 FIGURE 3-1. FULL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 4 FIGURE 3-2. 3/4 MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 4 FIGURE 3-3. RIGHT -IN RIGHT -OUT INTERSECTION 5 FIGURE 3-4. ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION 5 FIGURE 3-5. GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION 5 FIGURE 5-1. PROJECT COMMUNICATION 13 FIGURE 5-2. VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE #1 POSTCARD 15 FIGURE 5-3. VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE #2 POSTCARD 17 FIGURE 6-1 ACP PROCESS 20 FIGURE 6-2. ACP PROCEDURE 21 FIGURE 6-3. ACCESS CONSOLIDATION: AFTER 21 FIGURE 6-4. ACCESS CONSOLIDATION: BEFORE 21 FIGURE 6-5. ACCESS CONVERSION: BEFORE 22 FIGURE 6-6. ACCESS CONVERSION: AFTER 22 FIGURE 6-7. ACCESS ELIMINATION: BEFORE 22 FIGURE 6-8. ACCESS ELIMINATION: AFTER 22 FIGURE 6-9. ACCESS RELOCATION: AFTER 23 FIGURE 6-10. ACCESS RELOCATION: BEFORE 23 FIGURE 6-11. PARALLEL ACCESS ROUTE: BEFORE 23 FIGURE 6-12. PARALLEL ACCESS ROUTE: AFTER 23 List of Tables TABLE 3-1 EXISTING AND 2045 NO ACTION DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SELECT LOCATIONS 8 TABLE 3-2. EXISTING (YEAR 2019) AND 2045 NO ACTION TRAVEL TIMES 9 TABLE 4-1: EXISTING COUNTS AND 2045 DAILY VOLUME FORECAST it TABLE 4-2. 2020 AND 2045 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) 12 Appendices APPENDIX A. CO 52 ACCESS INVENTORY TABLE 0 APPENDIX B. ACCESS CONTROL PLAN MAPBOOK 0 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Access Control Plan An Access Control Plan (ACP) is a long-range planning document that designates preferred access locations in accordance with the State of Colorado Highway Access Code (State of Colorado, 2002) along a highway corridor that will improve safety and mobility for the traveling public. The consolidation and location of accesses can eliminate and/or greatly reduce the number of conflict points on a roadway, improving corridor safety. Congestion reduction can be achieved by consolidating access locations which causes side road traffic to concentrate at a single location to enter and exit the highway, reducing congestion and improving mobility. ACPs for state highways are binding agreements adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the local authorities through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Access along Colorado State Highways, such as Colorado State Highway 52 (CO 52), is typically administered by CDOT on a case -by -case basis, as prescribed by the State Highway Access Code. The State Highway Access Code prescribes that CDOT or a local authority may develop an ACP for a segment of highway that defines access locations, level of access, and traffic control for future conditions. An ACP provides CDOT and the local authorities with the opportunity to develop a single transportation plan that considers multiple access points along a segment of highway as a network rather than as individual access points. Corridor -specific issues such as intersection spacing, traffic movements, circulation, land use, topography, alternative access opportunities and other local planning documents, may be considered in developing the plan. ACPs do not define capacity improvements, off -network improvements, or funding sources for access improvements. However, in combination with a Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL), these elements can be considered in conjunction with the ACP. Each of the signers of the IGA agree to abide by the ACP. ACPs are living documents that can be amended in the future through the amendment process prescribed in the IGA. The CO 52 ACP is being completed from Milepost (MP) 0.00 (at the intersection of CO 52 and CO 119) to MP 41.94 (at the intersection of CO 52 and CO 79). This process is concurrent with the CO 52 PEL. PELs are a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiative that were created to support transportation decision -makers to consider environmental, community, and economic goals early in the transportation planning process so that projects can be implemented in the future under the NEPA process in a streamlined manner (FHWA, 2015). Through the PEL process, stakeholders can identify a corridor vision, define the purpose and need for the PEL process, and recommend future transportation improvements that reflect the needs and goals developed of the corridor. CDOT signed a Partnering Agreement with FHWA and several other federal and state agencies to encourage the use of a PEL approach in an effort to expedite transportation project implementation under NEPA, while adhering to agency procedures for project reviews and comments (CDOT, 2009). The PEL and ACP processes shared the following components in their development: • Understanding of existing corridor conditions ■ Understanding of future operational needs • Coordination with stakeholders ■ Identification of partnerships and opportunities Additionally, public engagement was conducted together for the PEL and ACP, allowing the public to learn about, submit comments, or ask questions about either process at the same time. 1.2 State Highway 52 Coalition and PEL/ACP Development The State Highway 52 Coalition (SH 52 Coalition) formed in 2018 when local agencies along the corridor recognized the need to coordinate along this stretch of CO 52 where growth and development is leading to increased congestion and safety issues. Local agencies along the corridor include Boulder and Weld Counties, Erie, Frederick, Dacono, Fort Lupton, Hudson, and Keenesburg. These local agencies were integral to the PEL/ACP, providing input and feedback throughout the project process. This PEL/ACP provides an understanding of transportation problems along the corridor, a collaboratively developed vision for the future corridor, and potential projects to implement that vision. 1.3 Access Control Plan Limits The ACP is focused along 42 miles of the CO 52 corridor between CO 119 north of Boulder in Boulder County and CO 79 east of the Town of Hudson in Weld County (Figure 1-1). CO 52 interchanges with I-25, US 85, and I-75 in Weld County. CO 52 is a major east -west connection corridor for the region, which is experiencing an increase in residential and commercial development. The corridor provides critical access from residential and rural areas to business centers, as well as commercial freight from industrial centers along the corridor. •1.:.,:�� L f a." Ri-rD-0':r 1i"n-0 gip:-. ■ +Il. ri lou'.i _ {- --- 66,1.O.r Figure 1-1-1. Project Location Map 2 POLICY AND PURPOSE 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the ACP is to identify the location, type, and movements for future access points along the corridor in order to provide reasonable access to adjacent properties while maintaining safe and efficient movement for all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians). The proposed future access points should accommodate developing technologies and strive to complement adjacent community context. According to the State Highway Access Code, CDOT is required to provide reasonable access when alternative access to the public street system does not exist and is not obtainable. The State Highway Access Code also allows CDOT to modify existing access points by restricting access movements in order to improve safety and traffic operations. Changes in access are discussed in Section 2.6: 'Changes in Land Use and Access Use' of the State Highway Access Code: "The Department or issuing authority may, when necessary for the improved safety and operation of the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or relocate any access, or redesign the highway including any auxiliary lane and allowable turning movement. The permittee and or current property owner will be notified of the change." (State of Colorado, 2002) 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Data derived from the CO 52 PEL Existing Conditions Report provided a vital understanding of existing conditions along the corridor. The ACP used the information collected to evaluate existing and future traffic conditions along with local agency growth and development plans to recommend future access conditions. 3.1 Existing Access Condition More than 700 access points between MP 0 and MP 42 were identified and mapped using Google Earth. Each access point was labeled by the hundredth mile and an "N" (north) or "S" (south) designation denoting the direction of the access. In addition to the location, the intersection configuration was documented as either Full Movement Access, 3 Movement, Right-in/Right-out (RI/R0), Roundabout or Grade Separated. The project team visited and verified access types and locations in August 2020. Figure 3-1. Full Movement Intersection C Figure 3 2.3/4 Movement Intersection ' C( Figure 3-3. Right -in Right -out Intersection Figure 3-4. Roundabout Intersection �Cr Figure 3-5. Grade Separated Intersection 3.2 Existing Road Network All access points identified within the study area are either a Public Way or Private Driveway. Per Section 1.5 of the State Highway Access Code, 'Public Way' is defined as "a highway, street, or road, open for use by the general public and under the control or jurisdiction of the appropriate local authority of Department and includes private roads open to the public"; while 'Private Driveway' is defined as "an access that is not a public street, road, or highway." Additionally, the State Highway Access Code recognizes that all sections of the study area are classified as one of the following: Regional Highway (R -A), Rural Highway (R -B), Non -Rural Principal Highway (NR -A) or Non -Rural Arterial (NR -B). According to the State Highway Access Code, Regional Highways (R -A) are governed by the following characteristics: • Capacity to handle medium to high travel speeds and relatively medium to high traffic volumes in a safe and efficient manner. • Provides interregional, intra-regional, and intercity travel needs. • Prioritizes providing service to through traffic movements over providing direct access to adjacent properties. • This category is normally assigned to National Highway System routes, significant regional routes in rural areas, and other routes of regional or state significance. Rural Highways (R -B) are governed by the following characteristics: • Capacity for moderate to high travel speeds and low traffic volumes • Provides for local rural travel needs • This category may be assigned to low volume minor arterials, secondary collectors and local highway sections that do not normally provide for significant regional, state or interstate travel demands. • These highways typically provide for rural transportation needs including, farm to market, farm to farm, and may include high speed rural frontage roads. Non -Rural Principal Highways (NR -A) are governed by the following characteristics: • Capacity for medium to high travel speeds and medium to high traffic volumes over long distances in a safe and efficient manner. • Provides for interregional, intra-regional, intercity, and intra-city travel needs in suburban and urban areas. • Provides service to through traffic movements rather than direct access to abutting properties. • Typically assigned to National Highway System routes, and other routes of regional or state sign ifica n ce. Non -Rural Arterial(NR-B) are governed by the following characteristics: • Capacity for moderate travel speeds and moderate to high traffic volumes • Provides service over short to medium travel distances for intercity, intracity and intercommunity travel needs • Appropriate for short sections of regional highways passing through rural communities • Typically assigned to short sections of regional highways that pass through rural communities • Allows for more direct access to properties along a highway For most access points that meet the established signal warrant criteria, the ACP maps note that the point has the potential to become a full -movement intersection, which may warrant signalization. According to the State Highway Access Code, signalized intersections along NR -A and R -A highways should be spaced 0.5 mile from each other. Due to preferred spacing requirement not all access points that meet the signal warrant criteria are appropriate locations for future traffic signals. 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes in 2019 typically ranged from 12,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day in the western portion of the CO 52 corridor. East of I-25, traffic approaches 25,000 vehicles per day. Near Fort Lupton, there are approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. East of I-76, daily traffic ranges from nearly 2,000 vehicles to about 4,000 vehicles per day near CO 79. Overall daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on CO 52 between SH 119 and CO 79 was about 308,000 VMT in 2015. In 2045, the daily VMT on CO 52 is projected to increase to about 534,000 VMT, a growth of 74 percent over 2015 VMT. In terms of growth in traffic volumes by general location, CO 52 in Boulder County is expected to carry about 18,000 to 30,000 daily vehicles —a projected growth of about 40 to 55 percent over 2015 conditions. The most dramatic growth is projected in Weld County between Colorado Boulevard and US 85, where traffic is projected to increase by over 90 percent in some sections. In the eastern -most section, the traffic west of I-76 is projected to grow substantially over current levels, generally by 6,000 or 7,000 vehicles per day. East of I-76, volumes are projected to increase by 1,500 vehicles per day or less. Based on the projections of increasing traffic volumes, it is apparent that access points will need to be modified to accommodate corridor growth. Existing and 2045 No Action daily traffic volumes at select locations are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Existing and 2045 No Action Daily Traffic Volumes at Select Locations F amp. 2020 Est. Count 2045 No Action ° 1 ' } _ ' �� CO 119 to 95th Street 12,400 18,200 5,800 47% 95th Street to US 287 13,000 18,000 5,000 38% US 287 to County Line Road 19,000 26,700 7,700 41% County Line Road to I-25 19,600 29,900 10,300 5.3% I-25 to Colorado Boulevard 25,200 36,900 11,700 46% Colorado Boulevard to Ridgeway Blvd 15,800 29,600 13,800 87% Ridgeway Boulevard to WCR 19* 11,800 18,900 7,100 60% WCR 19 to US 85 11,600 21,600 10,000 86% US 85 to Rollie Ave 11,500 18,400 6,900 60% Rollie Ave to WCR 31* 11,500 18,700 7,200 63% WCR 31 to WCR 37* 10,300 16,600 6,300 61% WCR 37 to I-76 9,200 15,900 6,700 73% f I-76 to WCR 49 4,000 5,400 1,400 35% WCR 49 to WCR 59 3,100 4,100 1,000 32% WCR 59 to CO 79 2,000 2,800 800 40% *No count in this section, estimated based on upstream and downstream counts. Sources: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020: HDR, 2021 (2020 observed traffic count),(future volume) 3.4 Existing Speed Limits The posted speed is generally 55 miles per hour (mph) west of WCR 19 and 65 mph east of WCR 19. As CO 52 crosses urban areas such as Dacono, Frederick, Fort Lupton and Hudson, the posted speed limit ranges from 25 mph to 40 mph. 3.5 Existing Traffic Operations 3.5.1 Travel Times Existing traffic volumes are creating areas of congestion along the CO 52 corridor. Lack of adequate capacity at major intersections controlled by traffic signals is a major contributor to the congestion issues. The result is delay to the traveling public with lengthy queues at multiple locations along the corridor. With growth in future traffir vnlumes by year 2045 ranging from 30 percent to nearly 90 percent along the highway, travel times are projected to increase throughout the corridor under No Action conditions, especially along its western half. Existing and future travel times and travel time indices along the corridor are illustrated in Table 3-2. A travel time index measures the actual travel time compared to free -flow travel time with a value at or just above 1.0 indicating free -flow or near free -flow conditions while higher values indicate greater congestion. Table 3-2. Existing (Year 2019) and 2045 No Action Travel Times Location Length/ Free Flow Travel Time 4. I =-!': • = IT#ave Time iiUt�s (Trav I Ttme' n.ei _ :!.: .i �. 7 ii L '.'rrr_I' ._ St - 1L - -'.� is- f r - Al91141 r` . • � Pl'M'Pe3 .. � ' ,.`� i 4• ' ' � � • u ■ --i r ' iti �. - .' '- iii .L - `ExistiTf�i ;6%ar 4 p -�• ' ii-5-•-ib li i �i_ - --- - _ `+- i � 'il rExistin� ' i:� c -= '. li.}a45(Vo!1 Vii, n,- y �(�ii p l ic4i% i - 1- `- li-- '-iii i 1-- � I i Y,f;Ctiabgg - Eastbound CO 119 to County Line Road 7.2 mi/8.6 min 9.2 (1.1) 9.8 (1.1) 7% 10.7(1.2) 15.1(1.2) 16.6 (1.9) 25.7(2.1) 56% 71% County Line Road to WCR 19 9.2 mi/12.4 min 14.0 (1.1) 23.0(1.9) 65% WCR 19 to WCR 31 6.0 mi/ 12.1 min 13.7 (1.1) 16.5 (1.4) 21% 13.3(1.1) 14.8(1.2) 12% WCR 31 to WCR 49 9.2 mi/13.0 min 13.5 (1.0) 13.5 (1.0) 0% 13.2(1.0) 13.2 (1.0) 0% WCR 49 to CO 79 10.0 mi/7.2 min 7.5 (1.0) 7.5(1.0) 0% 7.4 (1.0) 7.4 (1.0) .. 0% 11ELZs ; - Il i��'.t��I` r ��r-=', -g L : , f ' v_ . i . es*i iti I2),!s, pilo, ii --4te.'.�''�iG-i� Westbound CO 119 to County Line Road 7.2 mi/8.6 min 11.2(1.3) 18.3(2.1) 64% 9.7(1.1) 11.3(1.3) 16% County Line Road to WCR 19 9.2 mi/12.4 min 16.3(1.3) 26.6(2.1) 63% 13.5(1.1) 22.3(1.8) 66% WCR 19 to WCR 31 6.0 mi/ 12.1 min 13.4(1.1) 14.8(1.2) 10% 13.2(1.1) 15.8(1.3) 20% WCR 31 to WCR 49 9.2 mi/12.7 min 13.3(1.0) 13.3(1.0) 0% 13.3(1.0) 13.3(1.0) 0% WCR 49 to CO 79 10.0 mi/7.3 min 7.5(1.0) 7.5(1.0) 0% 7.5(1.0) 7.7(1.1) 2% ii?-- II[ - _' i^ -r - ilk 2141 P�r r.l i' gTVI I � II ): 1 k r �i1��4 r Sources: INRIX, 2020: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1,4, 2020: HDR, 2021 Overall free -flow travel time along the 41.6 -mile project corridor is just over 53 minutes in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Existing (year 2019) travel times during the AM and PM peak hours are 57.8 and 59.5 minutes in the eastbound direction and 61.7 and 57.1 minutes in the westbound direction, respectively. Current travel time indices range from 1.1 to 1.3 in the western portion of the corridor, and 1.0 east of WCR 31. In the year 2045 No Action scenario, travel times for the entire corridor are expected to increase by 22 percent to 31 percent during peak hours. The western half of CO 52 is expected to experience increases in travel times of up to 71 percent during the peak hours. Travel times between WCR 19 and WCR 31 are expected to increase 10 percent to 21 percent in both directions during the peak hours. Travel times east of WCR 31 are expected to experience minimal increases in travel times at 2 percent or less in both directions during the peak hours. 3.5.2 Accident Analysis In order to appropriately assess the current safety conditions of the corridor, a Safety Assessment Report was developed to identify, evaluate, and plan safety improvements on public roads. The report is based on the analysis of five years of crash history, a review of aerial imagery, and video log reviews. Intersections and roadway segments were analyzed to identify patterns related to crash type, severity, direction of travel, road conditions, distributions, time of day, and behavioral attributes. The pattern of crashes fell under three leading categories: rear end collisions, broadside collisions, and approach turn collisions. These patterns were identified due to the diagnostic analysis indicating a greater than 90% significance when compared to similar facilities statewide. The study identified that all three collision patterns occurred predominantly at intersection or intersection -related locations. In total, there were 553 rear end collisions, 191 broadside collisions, and 172 approach turn collisions within the five-year study period. The most broadside collisions involved northbound and southbound vehicles on CO 52 compared to the most approach turn collisions involving westbound and eastbound vehicles on CO 52 with the cause being misuse of current intersection design and technology. The Safety Assessment also studied the project corridor under five divided segments. The segments were evaluated under intersection vs non -intersection crashes and the crash type distribution. The outcome of the diagnostics are as follows: • Segment 1: CO 119 to County Line Road with a total of 342 crashes. • Segment 2: County Line Road to WCR 19 with a total of 812 crashes. • Segment 3: WCR 19 to WCR 31 with a total of 260 crashes. • Segment 4: WCR 31 to WCR 49 with a total of 141 crashes. • Segment 5: WCR 49 to CO 79 with a total of 48 crashes. 4 FORECASTED CONDITIONS 4.1 Traffic Volume Forecast Existing traffic (2020) was modeled in the future condition (2045) for the corridor under No Action and Build conditions with the recommended alternative. Future traffic volumes are shown below in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Existing Counts and 2045 Daily Volume Forecast - -.Z.-- F'— f — - - :m 2 4: ! _ �y � t �: - �� T Da' rTr�affc.L" — r e4(2-j1Lay) I 2020 -- ,11 Es rrrmate r _-' + 2 45' � I No Action 1yt id a 4- ane CO 119 to US 287 CO 119 71St St 12,200 17,200 18,100 71St St Monarch Park PI 11,400 16,300 17,200 79th St Somerset Dr 12,400 18,100 19,000 95th St US 287 13,000 18,700 19,600 US 287 to 1-25 US 287 115th St 19,000 26,500 28,700 CR 5 CR 7 19,600 29,300 42,500 CR 7 W125 Frontage 19,800 34,300 46,500 I-25 to US 85 E 1-25 Frontage CR 11 (York St) 25,100 36,200 50,300 Colorado Blvd Glen Creighton Dr 15,800 30,800 41,700 Glen Creighton Dr CR 15 12,600 23,800 33,500 CR 15 (Ridgeway) CR 14 11,800 18,900 26,600 CR 19 CR 21 12,000 20,900 30,600 CR 23 US 85 SB Ramps 11,600 21,300 30,000 US 85 to I-76 US 85 NB Ramps Grand Ave 13,600 19,300 22,600 Grand Ave Fulton Ave 12,500 17,300 19,000 Park Ave Denver Ave 11,400 18,400 19,400 Denver Ave Main St 10,500 17,500 18,500 Harrison Ave Rollie Ave 13,700 16,900 17,600 Rollie Ave CR 29.5 11,500 18,800 19,900 CR 35 CR 37 10,300 17,100 17,900 CR 12.5 W1-76 Frontage 9,200 16,200 16,700 1-76 1-76 NB Dahlia 7,000 9,200 9,300 Cedar/Hudson RR Xing 6,600 8,800 8,900 Beech St Cherry St 4,000 5,400 5,400 to CR 49 _ CR 51 3,100 4,100 4,100 CO 79 CR 59 CR 61 2,000 2,600 2,600 CR 67 CO 79 2,000 2,800 2,800 CO 79 East of CO 79 1,300 1,800 1,800 1Red text indicates segments with 4 -Lane cross sections (all others 2 -Lane) 4.2 2045 Level of Service (LOS) Evaluation Level of service (LOS) is a mechanism used to determine how well a transportation facility is operating from a traveler's perspective. Typically, six levels of service are defined, and each is assigned a letter designation from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F the worst. Table 4-2 2020 and 2045 Level of Service (LOS) below summarizes the results of the LOS for alternatives considered in the PEL. For a full summary of how the alternatives were developed and evaluated, please see Section 4 of the PEL. Table 4-2.2020 and 2045 Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) _ _ + I I S' al eed T � -IntqrsectiorP,1 - t - - -....-'6..1 - _ - j r iii- - 1 • 2045 No A ti • n .4._ 1f— • , I • ,Z �• 1 t" • _ , ri t L'n - i ,!! 4d '.- r - 2020 ' ' Estimate i�N L • g - I Ni - • FLAY f " rarra I _ �_ ?l SH119 F / C 100 (30) E / F 60 (400) D / F 40 (90) 79TH ST B / B 10 (10) C / C 20 (20) C / C 30 (20) HOVER/95TH C / D 30 (40) D / F 50 (320) D / D 40 (40) US 287 F / F 140 (120) D / F 50 (380) D/ C 40 (30) COUNTY LINE RD E / E 70 (80) F / F 380 (650) C / E 20 (60) WCR7 B / C 20 (30) F / F 210 (280) C / C 30 (30) W I-25 FRONTAGE B / B 10 (10) E / E 70 (60) D / F 40 (80) D / E 50 (60) C / D 20 (50) _ SB I-25 B / B 20 (20) NB I-25 C / B 20 (20) D / F 50 (80) E / D 60 (50) E I-25 FRONTAGE B / B 10 (70) D / F 50 (80) E / E 80 (60) YORK/SILVER BIRCH B / B 10 (10) F/ F 80 (110) D / D 40 (40) FLYING CIRCLE A/ B 10 (10) E / F 70 (100) B / C 20 (30) COLORADO AVE D / D 40 (40) F / F 260 (400) D / D 40 (40) GLEN CREIGHTON/FREDERICK C / C 30 (20) F / F 110 (130) D / C 50 (30) SB US 85 B / B 20 (10) D / B 50 (10) C / C 30 (30) NB US 85 B / E 20 (70) F / F 90 (90) B / C 20 (20) MCKINLEY AVE A/ A 0 (10) D/ E 40 (60) A/ C 0 (30) US 85 BUS/DENVER B / C 10 (30) F / F 110 (130) C / E 20 (60) ROLLIE AVE B / B 10 (20) F / F 190 (190) B / D 20 (40) 5 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION The CO 52 ACP Public Involvement strategy followed the CO 52 PEL Agency and Public Coordination process which included engaging the SH 52 Coalition, the CO 52 PEL/ACP Technical Team, stakeholders and community members. The communication process used for the CO 52 PEL/ACP is shown below in Figure 5-1. PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS Project Management Team (PMT) 1lo.• _ GrJGDBEE• TechniC,41 Tea m (r -r} CDOT. FHWA, Project Team M IA.T ® ARre:LAND Local Agencies along the Corridor - Boulder and Weld Counties, Towns of Erie, Fredenck, Hudson, and Keenesburg, Cities of Dacono and Fort Lupton Project Stakeholders SH 52 Coalition L!:•L {.,ti7 /ill e.:3 Aims Community College. Bicycle Colorado, BNSF Railway Company, Bustang Express Bus Service. Colorado Motor Carriers Association, City of Boulder, City of Broomfield, City of Longmont, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Community Cycles, Cyclists 4 Community, Environmental Protection Agency, Glens Coalition, IBM, Niwot, RTD, State Historic Preservation Office. Union Pacific Railroad. US, Army Corps of Engineers, U S. Fish and Wildlife Services t'uk�liG Engagement Public. Corridor Users Figure 5-1. Project Communication 5.1 Agency Coordination Engagement and Findings 5.1.1 Agency Involvement The Technical Team (TT), composed of local agency representatives, provided technical input to the project team. The TT identified relevant materials that could be helpful to the Project Team, and supported development of the corridor vision. The TT was also responsible for coordinating with their respective agency's CO 52 Coalition member to inform them of the project status, help articulate problems, and evaluate solutions for the corridor. The TT included representatives from: • Boulder County • Weld County • The City of Dacono • The Town of Erie • The City of Fort Lupton • The Town of Frederick • The Town of Hudson • The Town of Keenesburg • CDOT The project team met with the TT on 14 separate occasions to discuss project updates for both the ACP and PEL study. The dates of these meetings are listed below: • May 28, 2020 • July 23, 2020 • August 20, 2020 • October 29, 2020 • December 3, 2020 • January 28, 2021 • February 22, 2021 • April 22, 2021 • June 24, 2021 ■ July 22, 2021 • August 31, 2021 • September 16, 2021 • October 18, 2021 ■ November 11, 2021 In addition to meeting with stakeholders and agency representatives during the full -group TT meetings, the project team met with representatives from each local agency throughout the process to discuss existing access points and the future conditions of each location. The local agency meetings and dates are listed below: • Fort Lupton: May 13, 2020; August 4, 2020; February 23, 2021; April 1, 2021 ■ Hudson: May 14, 2020; March 17, 2021 • Weld County: May 20, 2020; November 6, 2020 • Dacono: May 22, 2020; April 20, 2021 ■ Frederick: June 5, 2020 ■ Erie: June 22, 2020 • Keenesburg: June 23, 2020 • CDOT: July 28, 2020; August 13, 2020 • Boulder County: June 8, 2020; June 8, 2021; April 19, 2021; May 12, 2021; July 12, 2021 5.1.2 Additional Stakeholder Meetings Public involvement included individuals and corridor users. In addition to connecting with the general public, the project team also connected with local schools, community groups, HOAs, businesses, and more. A list of individual meetings with those groups can be found below: • Glen's Coalition HOA: July 8, 2021 • Coordinated access concerns discussion with Dacono, Erie & Frederick: July 27, 2021 • Boulder Cycling Organizations: July 20, 2021 • IBM Technology: August 5, 2020 • Aims Community College: August 19, 2020 • BNSF (Railroad Company): July 2, 2020; September 9, 2020 • CMCA (Colorado Motor Carriers Association): July 24, 2020 • Colorado Parks and Wildlife: August 26, 2020 5.2 Public Coordination and Engagement Findings The project team used several tools to engage with the public throughout the course of the project which included one-on-one meetings, virtual public meetings, email blasts, newsletters, postcards, and more to provide the public with the most current information. 5.2.1 Public Events and Information Project Website: CDOT hosted a public facing website throughout the course of the study, which provided status updates on the study's progress, information on how the public could submit comments or get involved with the study, informational materials, completed reports and study documents, and answers to frequently asked questions. The website is available at www.codot.gov/projects/co52-pel-acp. Virtual Public Meetings and Open Houses: The project team hosted two virtual public open houses over the duration of the project. Due to COVID- 19, the project team made the decision to host virtual engagement activities for the public in lieu of in - person events. The virtual open houses were hosted on a website platform separate from the general project website. In order to get the word out to all relevant populations along the corridor, informational postcards with an invite to the virtual open house were mailed to adjacent property owners before each event. Details of the events were also given to members of the Coalition and Technical Teams so that they could decide within their agency how they could best get the event information out to their communities. Links and details of the events were also posted on the project's main website. Public Meeting #1 - August 2020 The first virtual public meeting was posted online between August 24 and September 17, 2020. This provided ample opportunity for as many stakeholders as possible to interact with the materials on their own schedule and time. The event had various goals and success metrics. COLORADO Department of Transportation Colorado State Highway 52: Planning & Environmental Linkages Study and Access Control Plan Voi/ee jHtilted/ l•4 52 Vietuat Puhlrc Egagerne►7tf What: Online Public Engagement Opportunity Who: CO Hwy 52 Users When: August 24'" through September 17'" How: Online at wwwco52pelcom/publicmeeting If you have any questions about the project or the upcoming virtual public engagement, please contact us at 720-336-0187 Figure 5-2. Virtual Open House #1 Postcard The key goals were: • Inform stakeholders of the project's goals and activities • Receive input from stakeholders on their interests and concerns • Establish relationships and lines of communication with stakeholders for on -going interaction The two key success metrics were: • Through inclusive access, receive high levels of participation • Identify site -specific locations With the goal to provide the same level of engagement as would have been expected during an in -person meeting, the website included a number of interactive opportunities for the public to provide input including: • Two topic -specific surveys • Social Pinpoint Interactive Map • Social Pinpoint Interactive Comment Wall • Opportunity to send the project team emails or call the project hotline The open house was the first broad introduction of the project to the public and was translated into Spanish. Over 800 individuals viewed the site, and 126 new contacts were collected during the online public event. Public Meeting #2 - August 2021 The second open house focused on updating the public on progress made in both the PEL and ACP, as well as presenting the proposed alternatives evaluated to date. The event was online between August 30 and September 20, 2021. The content of the meeting focused on educating the public on existing conditions data that was evaluated since the last public meeting, as well as detailing the alternatives evaluated in each segment of the corridor. Half of this virtual meeting website was dedicated to describing the process, purpose and draft of the ACP. The website allowed for the public to review the access plan and provide comments on individual access recommendations. In preparations for this event, 3,200 postcards were mailed directly to adjacent property owners along the corridor. AS COLORADO Department of Transportation Colorado State Highway 52: Planning & Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study and Access Control Plan (ACP) August 30th through September 20th Online at https://www.co52pel.com/publicmeeting the f'EL Study: After gathering data:andsplibllc Input,the project ,.team;.:has developed; potential I lmrirovelrlents tir'addfe:sssafety and • congestion on CO.52.-Jain:dur Onlln;e.Open; House,to Niewhour. progress 'and '.provide c:ommehts.. ACP 'Nlo.tification;:, Join.our Online Open Hbuse toilearn about an I Access Control`Plan Chow ft•benefits.MM2,, and review reaps 'of the;: proposed .futtlre= .c.ondltions of.all access piling along CO, 52.. , Comesee" ho•wthe iplan can benefit your I 'community! If you need assistance accessing the public meeting materials, please call 720-336-0187 Version en espanol disponible en el sitio web Figure 5-3. Virtual Open House #2 Postcard The key goals were: ■ Provide access to previous Public Open House information and materials • Inform stakeholders and the public about progress on the PEL & ACP • Share the input from the previous open house event and additional input received to date • Provide property owners along the corridor with the updated access recommendations from the ACP • Display results of the Alternatives Evaluation • Collect additional public feedback and input per segment The two key success metrics were: • Through inclusive access, receive high levels of participation • Receive a high number of unique visitors to the site, visiting multiple pages of the site With the goal to provide the same level of engagement as would have been expected during an in -person meeting, the website included a number of interactive opportunities for the public to provide input including: • A survey to better understand user interests ■ Interactive proposed access map • Interactive Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Map • Ability to comment on section -specific alternatives • Opportunity to send the project team emails or call the project hotline The open house was translated into Spanish. Over 1,000 individuals viewed the site, with 57 of those completing a sign -in form. The open house received 237 survey responses, 9 comments on the ACP materials, and 12 phone calls. Per individual requests, 5 sets of hard copy materials were mailed to participants. Organization Updates & Communications Packets In March of 2021, the project team distributed communications packets to 23 identified organizations along the corridor to provide updates about the project and offer an opportunity for organizations to provide input. Organizations were identified with the assistance of local agencies. Many organizations responded with appreciation of the information, some requested additional information, and one organization (Glens Coalition) requested an in -person meeting with the project team to provide an update and hear the group's interest. Organizations that received communications packets included: • Aims Community College • Apple Farm HOA • Arnusch Farms • Boulder Chamber of Commerce • Colorado Motor Carriers Association • Community Cycles • Coyote Creek Subdivision HOA (for Century Communities Portion) • Cyclists for Community • Erie Chamber of Commerce • Fort Lupton Chamber • Fort Lupton Parks • Fort Lupton Recreation Center • FRICO • Glens Coalition • Henrylyn • IBM/CU • Keenesburg Chamber • Latino Coalition • Legend Ridge HOA • Boulder County Oil & Gas • Boulder County Parks & Open Space • Venus Bike Club • Vesta Email Distribution List & E -Blasts The email distribution list was developed throughout the PEL process. The study ended with 482 email addresses on the distribution list. Email blasts included: Quarterly Newsletter #1: July 23, 2020 ■ About the ACP • Public Meeting Info Quarterly Newsletter #2: November 23, 2020 ■ Existing Conditions Report • August Public Engagement Report • What's Next (Alternatives, Level 1) Quarterly Newsletter #3: March 25, 2021 • Project Status Update (Level 1, Level 2) • Access Control Plan FAQ • Website Update Quarterly Newsletter #4: August 26, 2021 ■ Online Open House Information for PEL and ACP • Importance of the PEL Emails & Voicemail Comments The study provided stakeholders multiple ways to provide comment and ask questions (beyond during presentations, meetings, and the survey), including via phone, email, and a website comment form. In total, 53 comments were received from stakeholders. 6 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 6.1 Implementation Strategy Beginning in May of 2020, the project team started meeting with stakeholders to identify access needs and concerns for their areas of the corridor. In August of 2020, the project team then held their first virtual open house to collect additional feedback on the existing conditions of the corridor. Figure 6-1 below outlines the ACP process the project team used and identified the timing of the open house events. CU 52 Access Control Plan (ACP) Process Project Begins e -- Public Engagement; e-NeWsletters, Postcards. COOT Website, Spanish Translation, One -on -One Stakeholder Meetings, Public Meetings J (g•.1 Virtual Open `'-41 House #1 `gC86q'pts'ciOMIlrisv ri s Stakdi DIP5q.' 'Koury 7 Pk.E Virtual Open House #2 P;ccess.plan'arid Intergovernmental rI iAgreements OGAAlevelopment- 0 Deliverable MAR MAY JULY SFPT NOV JAN MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV 2020 2021 Figure 6-1 ACP Process The ACP process also includes the development of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for all agencies along the corridor. The ACP was reviewed and approved by all the local agencies and CDOT before being signed and completed in the Fall of 2021. The steps taken to complete the ACP and IGA are shown below in Figure 6-2. Access Control Plan (ACP) Procedure Develop draft ACP based on PEL recommendations, input from local agencies, and CDOT Present draft ACP to public at 1st Virtual Open House Revise ACP recommendations based on public input and final PEL recommendations .., • Figure 6-2. ACP Procedure 6.2 Access Control Methods Once access locations were identified, each access point was either shown as 'No Action', or given an access control method based on the future condition of the corridor: Access Consolidation Before After ■I NONNI ■ ; �.� II. Figure 6-4. Access Consolidation: Before • Consolidate adjacent access points into one location • The number of conflict points are reduced ■ f Figure 6-3. Access Consolidation: After Access Conversion with Median Treatment Before it• Figure 6-5. Access Conversion: Before • Restrict some or all turning movements • Reduce the number of conflicts between left turning vehicles and through vehicles on the highway After I. IM 1 Access Elimination Before l mma 1'11 w. Figure 6-7. Access Elimination: Before Figure 6-6. Access Conversion: After After Figure 6-8. Access Elimination: After • Access to local properties through secondary roads • Consolidate number of access locations where vehicles may enter or exit the highway • Reduce the number of conflict points Access Relocation Before Figure 6-10. Access Relocation: Before After ,: 1 Figure 6-9. Access Relocation: After • Access to local properties through secondary roads • Consolidate number of access locations where vehicles may enter or exit the highway • Reduce the number of conflict points Parallel Access Route Before _ Figure 6-11. Parallel Access Route: Before After Figure 6-12. Parallel Access Route: After • Provide access to properties via a new access road (such as a frontage road) • Reduces the number of access points along the highway 6.3 Access Recommendations The ACP is a long-range plan for this corridor. Implementation will occur over the long term and may be phased dependent on if/when the following actions occur: • A safety need is identified • New development or redevelopment occurs • Funding becomes available • Traffic needs arise If an access point is identified with safety or operational concerns, local agencies and CDOT will work together to develop an access improvement. Types of access improvements may include turn movement restrictions, relocation, or removal of access for an access point. The most common triggers for ACP implementation are redevelopment or new development at an access point, or a traffic volume increase of more than 20%. In any of these instances, a new CDOT access permit is required per the State Highway Access Code. The local municipality and CDOT would need to work with the property owner or developer to update the access point to the access recommendation shown in the ACP table (Appendix A) and map (Appendix B). It is important to note that there may instances where the recommendation shown in the plan cannot be implemented due circumstances beyond the property owner or developer's control. In that scenario, the property should not be developed in any way that would prohibit implementation of the recommended access change shown in the map and table. An example of this would be dedication of right-of-way for the construction of a cross access. Interim access to a property must be maintained until the ultimate access configuration can be achieved. A publicly funded project by any combination of Towns, Cities, Counties, and/or CDOT is another way that implementation of the ACP is possible. Any future public project along the corridor shall include the access changes shown in the ACP, as long as those changes can be built within the fiscal constraints of the project. In this scenario, costs incurred in order to complete the access recommendations will be borne by the project and not the property owner. At no time can or will CDOT and the local municipality land lock a property. Reasonable access must be maintained and/or provided for a property if no other access is available. A right-in/right-out access would be considered reasonable. CO 52 has numerous accesses that serve agricultural ditches. The ACP shows these accesses as being removed. It is important to note that such removal will only occur with the support and agreement of the appropriate ditch company. Coordination among the property owner/developer, the appropriate local municipality and CDOT is critical to the success of the plan. Partnering of the local municipality and CDOT will ensure all projects (both public and private) are designed to not preclude the ultimate implementation of the plan. Throughout the development of this project, the message has been consistent. If nothing changes, then nothing changes. The second part of the message is, when change is proposed, the property owner will be included in those discussions. As stated before, at no time will CDOT remove access to a property to the effect that a parcel would be landlocked without access. Reasonable access will be provided directly or indirectly to CO 52. 7 AMENDMENT PROCESS If there is a need or desire to change the recommended access for any access point along CO 52, one of the participating municipalities of the IGA must submit a request to CDOT for an amendment. Any costs associated with completing and documenting the amendment will be the responsibility of the initiating agency. The amendment request must be agreed upon by all affected agencies (of the IGA). The property or properties that are considered to be 'directly affected' must be located within an Agency's jurisdictional boundaries or within the boundaries of a legally recognized planning area, such as a Growth Management Area. In order for an amendment to be considered approved, six of the nine agencies that are parties to the IGA must vote to approve the amendment proposed. More information on this application and approval process, such as the documentation required for submittal of an amendment request and the public noticing requirements, may be found in Exhibit B of the IGA. 8 LITERATURE CITED CDOT. (2009, June). Planning and Environmental Linkages Partnering Agreement. Retrieved from Planning and Environmental Linkages Handbook: https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/planning-env-link-program/pel-handbook- january-2016/view HDR. (2021, October). Traffic Forecasting & Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memo. FHWA. (2015, October). PEL Benefits: Measuring the Benefits of Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). Retrieved from Environmental Review Toolkit: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_initiatives/pel/PEL_Benefits_report.aspx INRIX (2020, March). INRIX 2020 Global Traffic Scorecard.Available at: https://www.boston.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/03/2020 INRIX Scorecard-6046893ec91f4.pdf Muller Engineering Company. (2020, December). PEL Safety Assessment Report. PTV Vision. (2012). VISSIM 5.40 - User Manual. State of Colorado. (2002). 1998 State Highway Access Code, Complete with March 2002 Revisions. Retreived from CDOT referneces website: httns://www.codot.govibusiness/nerrnits/accessoermits/references/601 J. accesscode march 2002 .pdf Appendix A. CO 52 Access Inventory Table CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 0.02-N&S Existing Condition Restricted Access Future Condition No Change Description) UP Railroad Crossing 0.17-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 0.17-S 0.17-5 Full Movement Access No Change N. 71st Street 0.41-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met* 0.48-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Dry Creek Parkway. Existing full movement access to be restricted 0.48-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 0.59-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 0.82-N Full Movement Access No Change Monarch Park Place 0.82-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 0.82-N 0.94-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 0.97-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.1-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.12-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change N. 79th Street. 1.23-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.24-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.66-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.69-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 1.69-S 1.69-5 Full Movement Access No Change 1.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 1.93-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 1.93-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 2.1-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.17-N Full Movement Access No Change Somerset Drive 2.17-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 2.17-N 2.24-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.37-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 2.37-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 2.49-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.65-N Full Movement Access No Change Legend Ridge Trail 2.65-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 2.65-N 2.67-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 2.86-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Page 1 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 2.86-S Full Movement Access 3.1-N Full Movement Access 3.15-S Full Movement Access 3.15a -S Full Movement Access 3.16-N&S Full Movement Access 3.38-N 3.38-S 3.51-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 3.55-S Full Movement Access 3.66-N Full Movement Access 3.66-S 3.79-N Full Movement Access 3.91-N 3.91-S 3.97-N Full Movement Access 4.13-N 4.13-S 4.14-S 4.15-N 4.2-S 4.41-N 4.41-S 4.43-N 4.58-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 4.67-N86 Full Movement Access 4.73-S Full Movement Access 4.75-S Full Movement Access 4.92-N 4.92-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 5.17-N Full Movement Access 5.17-S Full Movement Access Future Condition Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Restricted Access No Change No Change Description Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Remove immediately Remove immediately N. 95th Street Existing full movement access to be restricted _ New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 3.66-N Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed on both sides of highway New restricted access allowed on both sides of highway Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met US 287 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 5.34-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.34-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 2 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Possible Restricted Access Description New restricted access allowed 5.42-N 5.42-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.53-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.61-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.67-N Full Movement Access No Change 5.67-5 Full Movement Access No Change N. 115th Street 5.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.75-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.81-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.92-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.92-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.01-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.11-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.15-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.19-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 6.19-S 6.19-5 Full Movement Access No Change 6.3-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.31-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.44-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.44-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.65-N Full Movement Access No Change 6.65-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 6.65-N 6.68-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.7-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.72-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.92-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 6.92-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 7.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.04-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change County Line Road Page 3 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 7.22-N 7.23-N 7.39-N 7.39-S 7.42-N 7.56-N 7.56-5 7.67-N 7.68-S 7.73-N 7.73-5 7.79-S 7.8-N 7.81-N 7.93-N 7.93-S 8-N 8.02-N 8.04-N 8.05-S 8.12-S 8.13-N 8.13-5 8.14-N 8.17-N 8.17-S 8.21-S 8.37-N 8.37-5 8.38-5 8.42-N&S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 7.39-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 7.73-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access could be allowed on the north. Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 to be planned by the Local Municipality. WCR 3 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met WCR 3.25/Highland Place Page 4 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 8.67-5 Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change Description Full movement access allowed to align with the access on the opposite side of CO 52. Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 to be planned by the Local Municipality. 8.68-N Full Movement Access No Change Full movement access allowed to align with the access on the opposite side 8.72-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.79-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.81-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.91-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 8.91-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 8.99-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.99-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.14-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.15-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.16-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.19 -NM Full Movement Access No Change WCR 5 9.47-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 9.47-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 9.68-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.69-N Restricted Access Full Movement Access Existing restricted access on the north could be full movement 9.69-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access could be allowed on the south to align with 9.69- 9.92-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.93-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 9.98-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access could be allowed on the south 10.06-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.19 -NM Full Movement Access No Change WCR 7/Aggregate Boulevard 10.3-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.33-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.4-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.42-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Puritan Lane. Existing full movement access to be restricted 10.42-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Page 5 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 10.46-S 10.48-S 10.56-N 10.56-S 10.69-N 10.69-S 10.95-N&S 11.08-N&S 11.27-N&S 11.45-N&S 11.65-S 11.71-N 11.71-S 11.81-N 11.83-S 11.85-N 11.86-S 11.97-N 11.97-S 12.08-N 12.1-S 12.17-N 12.19-N 12.19-S 12.2-S 12.23-N&S 12.34-S 12.55-N 12.55-S 12.71-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing restricted access may remain until such time as the property redevelops. Then access to be removed. New full movement access allowed to align with 10.69-S Glacier Way I-25 Frontage Road/Puritan Way Southbound I-25 Entrance/Exit Ramp Northound I-25 Entrance/Exit Ramp I-25 Frontage Road Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed. CDOT and Local Municipalities to New full movement access allowed. CDOT and Local Municipalities to Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Silver Birch Blvd/York Street Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met. This access is to remain until such time as a suitable industrial, internal road system provides alternate access. Page 6 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition No Change Description Flying Circle/William Bailey Avenue Full Movement Access 12.92-5 Restricted Access No Change Right-in/right-out access at this location to remain - Permitted Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Full Movement Access No Change WCR 13/Colorado Boulevard Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Full Movement Access Restricted Access Cherry St. Existing full movement access to be restricted Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access could be allowed 13.58-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Forest Ave. Existing full movement access to be restricted to RI/RO Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Full Movement Access No Change Glen Creighton Drive/Frederick Way Restricted Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed RI/RO only 13.86-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access ExistinE full movement access to be restricted to RI/RO 14.02-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Ridgeway Boulevard Possible Restricted Access New restricted. 14.3-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access be restricted 14.38-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed once criteria met 14.38-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.39-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.39-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.49-5 Full Movement Access To: Removed Removed once criteria met 14.62-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 14.62-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 14.77-N Full Movement Access To Be• • Removed once criteria met 14.9-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access WCR 14. Existing full movement access to be restricted 14.95-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed criteria met 14.95-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.96-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.97-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 14.98-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.16-N Full Movement Access To: - Removed WCR 17. Full movement access removed once new full movement access near 15.25 constructed as part of curve realignment. Page 7 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 15.25-N&S 15.36-S 15.56-S 15.63-S 15.68-N 15.7-S 15.78-S 15.91-N 15.91-S 16.18-N 16.18-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition Possible Full Movement To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access Description New full movement access allowed on both sides of highway. Exact location to be determined by CDOT and Local Municipalities with consideration of realignment of CO 52. If this location is implemented, close 15.16-N and 15.36-S. WCR 17. Full movement access removed once new full movement access near 15.25 constructed as part of curve realignment. Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed 16.42-N&S 16.43-N 16.43-S 16.45-S 16.55-S 16.57-N 16.68-N 16.68-S 16.73-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed WCR 19 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met 16.76-S 16.94-N 16.94-S 17.05-N 17.19-N 17.19-S 17.25-N 17.26-S 17.44-N&S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 16.94-S Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met WCR 21 Page 8 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 17.62-N Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 17.69-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 17.69-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 17.73-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.94-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 17.945 17.94-S Full Movement Access No Change 17.96-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.97-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.98-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.14-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.19-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted. 18.19-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 18.42-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.44-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 23 18.62-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.68-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 18.68-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 18.77-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.79-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.85-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.86-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.88-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.88-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 18.93-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 17.945 18.93-S Full Movement Access No Change 19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.03-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.18-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement to be restricted 19.18-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement to be restricted 19.27-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.33-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 9 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 19.36-N Full Movement Access 19.36-S Full Movement Access 19.39-S Full Movement Access 19.42-N 19.42-S Full Movement Access 19.47-S Full Movement Access 19.6-S Full Movement Access 19.62-N Full Movement Access 19.67-S Full Movement Access 19.7-N Full Movement Access 19.7-S 19.92-N&S Full Movement Access 19.99-N&S Full Movement Access 20-N Restricted Access 20.03-N Full Movement Access 20.03-S Full Movement Access 20.04-N Restricted Access 20.05-N Full Movement Access 20.06-N Full Movement Access 20.06-S Full Movement Access 20.07-N Full Movement Access 20.08-S Full Movement Access 20.08-N Full Movement Access 20.09-N Full Movement Access 20.09-S Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access No Change No Change No Change Restricted Access Restricted Access No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 19.42-5 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 19.7-N US -85 Southbound Entrance/Exit Ramp US -85 Northound Entrance/Exit Ramp Access restricted to Right Out Only Grand Avenue - ROO South Grand Avenue - RI/RO The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised Page 10 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.1-5 20.11-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.12-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.13-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.13-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.15-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.16-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.16-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.18-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.19-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Fulton Aveneue 20.23-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.24-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.25-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.26-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.29-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.32-N&S Full Movement Access No Change McKinley Avenue 20.35-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Page 11 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 20.35-S 20.39-N&S 20.42-N 20.42a -N 20.42-S 20.43-N 20.43-S 20.45-N&S 20.47-N 20.48-N 20.49-N&S 20.5-S 20.52-N 20.53-N 20.53-S 20.55-N&S 20.59-N 20.62-N 20.63-N 20.64-N 20.66-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction •No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional -To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change No Change No Change The access to remain until median is installed. Park Avenue The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Denver Avenue The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Main Avenue The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. UP Railroad Crossing Pacific Avenue Description such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Harrison Avenue - North Page 12 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 20.66-S Existing Condition Restricted Access Future Condition No Change I Description i Harrison Avenue - South 20.69-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.75-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Rollie Avenue 20.82-N Restricted Access No Change Right-in/Right Out access to remain - Permitted 20.88-N Restricted Access No Change 3/4 restricted access to remain - Permitted 20.91-S Restricted Access No Change 3/4 restricted access to remain - Permitted 20.94-N Restricted Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 20.95-S Restricted Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.07-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 21.07-S (Purman Ave) 21.07-S Full Movement Access No Change Purman Avenue 21.23-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.27-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.37-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.46-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.46-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.53-N Full Movement Access No Change Coyote Creek Drive 21.53-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 21.53-N 21.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.7-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.73-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 21.74-N r - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 21.74-S Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 21.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 29.5/College Avenue 22.08-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.12-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Access at MP 22.119 and MP 22.388 to be removed. New restricted access allowed between them. Location determined by CDOT and Local Municipality. 22.21-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.21-S Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 13 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 22.43-5 Full Movement Access 22.46-N Full Movement Access 22.46-S 22.47-N Full Movement Access 22.47-5 Full Movement Access 22.49-S Full Movement Access 22.5-N Full Movement Access 22.52-N _ Full Movement Access 22.6-5 Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met WCR 31 New full movement access allowed to align with 22.46-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met 22.71-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.71-S Full Movement Access 22.87-N Full Movement Access 22.91-N Full Movement Access 22.96-N Full Movement Access 22.96-S 22.98-5 Full Movement Access 23.07-N Full Movement Access 23.21-N 23.21-5 23.35-N Full Movement Access 23.35-5 Full Movement Access 23.42-N Full Movement Access 23.46-N 23.46-5 23.52-5 Full Movement Access 23.69-N Full Movement Access 23.69-5 Full Movement Access 23.76-5 Full Movement Access 23.86-5 Full Movement Access 23.95-N 23.95-S 23.99-5 Full Movement Access 24.07-5 Full Movement Access 24.12-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed _Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed Restricted Restricted To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 22.96-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Removed once criteria met _ Existing full movement access to be restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Page 14 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 24.19-N Existing Condition - Future Condition Possible Restricted Access Description 1 New restricted access allowed 24.19-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 24.32-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.44-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access to align with WCR 35 allowed 24.44-S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 35 24.45-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.69-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 24.69-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 24.83-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.84-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.88-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.89-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.9-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.97-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 24.97-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 25.02-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.07-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.21-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 25.21-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 25.4-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.46-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 37 25.49-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.5-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 25.72-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 25.72-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 25.96-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 25.96-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 25.98-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.01-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.08-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.22-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Page 15 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 26.22-5 26.46-5 26.47-N 26.47-5 26.49-N 26.49-S 26.61-5 26.64-S 26.69-N 26.69-5 Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Description New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 26.47-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met 26.72-N 26.72-S 26.73-N 26.85-S 26.87-S 26.96-S 26.97-N 26.97-S 27.11-5 27.17-5 27.22-N 27.22-S 27.46-N&S 27.56-N 27.56-S 27.75-N 27.75-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Possible Restricted Access Restricted To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Remove once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 26.97-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed WCR 41 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed 28.04-N 28.04-5 28.06-N 28.06-S 28.19-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met 28.2-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 16 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) 28.28-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access E:<isting full movement access to be restricted 28.31-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.46-N&5 Full Movement Access Change WCR 43 28.72-N JNo Full Movement Access Restricted Access WCR 12.5. Existing full movement access to be restricted 28.72-5 Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 28.81-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.94-N Full Movement Access No Change I-76 Frontage Road 28.94-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 28.94-N 29.02-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 29.05-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 29.1-N Restricted Access No Change Right-in/Right Out access to remain - Permitted 29.2-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-76 Southbound Entrance/Exit Ramps 29.32-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change I-76 Northbound Entrance/Exit Ramps 29.36-5 Restricted Access No Change Completed with 2021 I-76 Interchange project 29.39-S Restricted Access No Change Completed with 2021 I-76 Interchange project 29.41-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.42-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.42-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.43-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.44-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.45-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Cedar Street/Hudson Drive 29.47-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.49-N&S Restricted Access No Change BNSF Railroad Crossing 29.5-N&S Restricted Access No Change BNSF Railroad Crossing DM= rill oAk IL HiLii Aril II::ii g Page 17 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 29.55-N 29.57-N&S 29.6-N 29.61-S 29.64-N&S 29.67-N 29.68-5 29.71-N&S 29.74-N 29.74-5 29.78-N&5 29.79-N 29.79-5 29.81-5 29.85-5 29.88-N 29.89-N 29.9-5 29.91-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Full Movement Access No Change Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until median is installed. Ash Street The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Beech Street The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Cherry Street The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Date Street The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Evergreen Street The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. Description such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised Page 18 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 29.92-5 Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised is installed. 29.94-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction _median The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 30-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 30.01-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 30.05-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Holly Street 30.06-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Holly Street 30.07-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.14-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.14-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.2-N Full Movement Access No Change 30.2-5 Full Movement Access No Change Sunrise Acres Street 30.5-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 30.5-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 30.6-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.62-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.63-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 30.76-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Oak Street/WCR 47 30.78-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.01-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.01-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.04-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.12-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.22-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.31-N Full Movement Access No Change 31.31-5 Full Movement Access No Change 31.45-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.58-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.58-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 31.68-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 19 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 31.71-S 31.74-S 31.86-N 31.86-S 31.88-N 32.17-N 32.24-N 32.24-S 32.29-N 32.36-N 32.36-S 32.39-N 32.39a -N 32.47-N 32.58-N 32.58-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access Description Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 31.86-S WCR 49 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met George's Road New full movement access allowed to align with 32.24-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria mett Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed 32.72-S 32.8-N&S 32.81-N 32.82-S 32.85-N 32.86-N 33.09-N 33.09-S 33.39-S 33.45-N 33.45-S 33.55-S 33.57-N 33.8-N 33.8-S 33.82-S 33.83-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access Removed once criteria met WCR 51 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met rWCR 53 New full movement access allowed to align with 33.8-S Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Page 20 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 33.86-5 Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Description To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.91-N Full Movement Access No Change Banner Lakes 33.91-S Full Movement Access No Change 34.03-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 34.03-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 34.25-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 34.37-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 34.42-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 34.43-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 34.45-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 34.61-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 34.61-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 34.85-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 55 35.03-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.13-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.13-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.3-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 35.3-5 35.3-S Full Movement Access No Change 35.31-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.54-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.54-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 35.77-N Full Movement Access No Change 35.77-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 35.77-N 35.79-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.8-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 35.85-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.05-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.19-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.19-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.22-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.27-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.34-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 36.34-5 36.34-5 Full Movement Access No Change Page 21 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 36.4-N 36.62-N 36.63-5 36.64-5 36.66-N 36.66-S 36.81-5 36.86-5 36.89-5 36.92-N&S 36.99-S 37.09-5 37.2-N 37.2-5 37.29-5 37.41-N 37.43-N 37.43-5 37.66-N 37.66-S 37.91-5 37.92-N&5 37.97-N 38.18-N 38.18-5 38.27-S 38.44-N 38.44-5 38.45-N 38.6-S 38.68-N 38.68-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 38.95-N&5 Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access No Change Description Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met WCR 59 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met WCR 61 Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 38.44-S Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted WCR 63 Page 22 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 39.01-N Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 39.18-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.2-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 39.2-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 39.41-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.41-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.45-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 39.45-5 39.45-5 Full Movement Access No Change 39.72-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 39.72-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 39.92-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.94-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 39.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 65 40.19-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.22-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 40.22-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 40.26-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.29-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.39-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.44-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.45-N Full Movement Access No Change 40.45-S Full Movement Access No Change 40.55- S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.7-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 40.7-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 40.75-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.82-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.83-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.84-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 40.88-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 23 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 40.96-N&S Full Movement Access 41.16-N 41.16-S 41.18-N Full Movement Access 41.19-S Full Movement Access 41.2-N •Full Movement Access 41.21-N Full Movement Access 41.21-S Full Movement Access 41.22-S Full Movement Access 41.25-N Full Movement Access 41.27-N Full Movement Access 41.28-S Full Movement Access 41.3-S Full Movement Access 41.33-S Full Movement Access 41.35-S Full Movement Access 41.44-N Full Movement Access 41.45-N Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access WCR 67 New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once Removed once Removed once Removed once Removed once criteria met criteria met criteria met criteria met criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once Removed once Removed once Removed once Removed once criteria met criteria met criteria met criteria met criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Description 41.45-S 41.5-S 41.6-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 41.65-N Full Movement Access 41.7-N 41.7-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 41.71-S Full Movement Access 41.76-S Full Movement Access 41.77-N Full Movement Access 41.79-N Full Movement Access 41.79-S Full Movement Access 41.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Restricted Access • To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction New full movement access allowed to align with 41.45-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met FRemoved once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed Page 24 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property median is installed redevelops or a raised 41.82-N 41.83-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.83-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.84-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.85-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a rasied meain is installed 41.86-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 41.87-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 41.89-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 41.91-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 41.91-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.94-N&S Full Movement Access No Change CO 79/WCR 69 ."Removed once criteria met" criteria is defined as the redevelopment of the property the specified access serves or an increase in traffic utilizing the specified access by 20% or greater Page 25 of 25 Appendix B. Access Control Plan Mapbook 119 W Dry Creek Pkwy IBM Drive BOULDER Access Control Plan Mapbook • CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 cau a•. • ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing fraj fic Sgnal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out --- Aporox Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Focicnnt — — Pa allel Irrge^.on — I 0.5 COO Access Key_ • No Action - NoAction - Exisung Full Movement to ResiM,tec Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Cond tional^ "CFA Ceel- - • 10 — COW d 300 e0J CO O New Full Movement Access Pagel of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook a 0 CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 tat'Lef t 1114111,Bould¢r • Mileposts (1/10 mg Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out e.�a_ - Is N or f` Z Access Kev - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW No Action - , Corridor Preservation Foolonnt No Action- — — Parallel Irrigation Ex,snng Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' 1.5 iCe • x... -r. . ,... r:..... -e 0 d JOC d00 0C Page 2 of 50 Somerset Dr Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 . _ — ___ - -=Z- _ - _ 4 . - ES ♦ M leposts (1,/10 mi) 6isting Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Rghl-In/Right-Oul - -- Approx Existing CO 52 Row -- Corridor Press vation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation — — �- - - 9 SfiN Access Key r >5 50 d 100 2.5 Page 3 of 50 A F m rn a -o a c d m J —2:5Saa - gam - - - -- sago,--- Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 A M:leposts (1/10 MI) Existing Traffic Signal Me@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out MEE _ - -- Approx Existing CO 57_ ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access KC, • NOAClIen No Action - 4 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access it: Existing Full Movement Access - Cono,tional* - _ _ " _ _ - -- Accesses to be Minn.., as soon as possible N En co Z d 50 Jo0 600 100 New Full Movement Access Page 4 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP w j CO 119 to CO 79 3. • Mi eposts (1 /10 mi) Ex sting Traffic Signal Mc@ Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out _ _ egg _- - i�- - 5P 4030 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • NO Action- •No Action Existing Full Movement to Res lri led Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional* €1£0421 - - EtEk43 - e %5 I50 .... e)0 em I Page 5 0: 55 :�4M :SliEg-- l- — EDO ` Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Mileposts (1/10 ml) Existing Traffic Signal (.Q Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 0 - - 52. - + 4M -S3 Prso6rs Park.n•rR1dc/lran crt SroP Lucarlcn m[r. Yor{Nrymra al a ram Jain - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation �• Access Key ` No Action-; out d, NoAction -: 1 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' Co Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed • r; ; ACC.. i,, t;Y - - - - --- -_ ==s� 4M — O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access PO: r.,r; Page 6 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • _-•- OW -. • M leposts (1/10 mi) 6isling Traffic Signal (KW Access loenttfier RI/R0 Rght-In/RighFOui �} � 52 - - - - --- Ppprox Existing CO 52 ROW Comcor Preservallon Foo print — — Para lel Irnganon Access key 5.5 • 0__ ..— in Z _= C,- - d ly0 300 000 SGU New Full Movement Access Page 7 of 50 ... _..-.eiagi • Ia- _- ._ - . - — Access Control Plan Mapbook CP CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mdeposts(1/1D mi) Ex,sting Traffic Signal G3043 Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out ._ate - ;.- _- - ,- 52. --- A.pprox Existing CO 57_ ROW Corndcr Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key tl 300 New Full Movement Access 4 woo 600 Page 8 of 50 UL _ ___ _ ---rota-. 130141e6{3 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) ExEsting Traffic Signal Q Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW — Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Hey r rj _-- _—i _ ----- __-Me=�3C11 -- 7.5 0.:4-1M0-- BOULDER COUNTY �•. v m c J T C J O U WELD COUNTY 'Me. D 75 150 d AO) © E xisting Full Movement Access to be Removed i4D New Full Movement Access Page 9 of 50 Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5north of CO 52 To be planned by the Local Municipality. Access Control Plan . Mileposts (1/10 , Mapbook Existing TrarEc Signal GOO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 4 CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Cornea Preservation Foolonnt — — Parallel Irrigation Access Kev t U � rG a �o Ci .lee 600 soc Page 10 or 5D ongeR • - 0 000 _ H�• g'kip/ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 To be planned by the Local Municipality. ♦ Mileposts (l/1'Jmp Fxist:ng Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out { M - -GoKL _ •er� - - •s:e• - Access Key. - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW •,, t: MEd - _=Boa • 9 -i�343•-- - _ _ - -- Corridor Preservanpn Footprint v:.ti• :. — — Parallel Irngauon 'or x'••• a ,! :n 1+ :::c 1110•:rss SOO c : _:- s 3 ' 75 150 _- 005 O New Full Movemenl Access Page 11 0150 .Billings Ave "Opp '6 asTiLi&i r ea • . -L+— — CC 3 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP t•-•' •,; CO 119 to CO 79 • Mdeposts(1/1D m) Exisnng Traffic&pal QVIkB Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out t+ 9.5 --- Approx Fxisti.^.g CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservaacn Foetprin: Parallel Irngaoon Access Key_ RI/R0 irr — -003R Ow - a - 02 40 — 9.96-S d X00 00 Page 12 of 50 'NCR 7/Aggregate 9ivd . -- 40C3II , Access Control Plan Mapbook asp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ee? n v • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Qm Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out 01m7 tcod yam _ 0 0 E 10.5 --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corrido Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key - 5M1 - - - 0- - * NoAction - A No Action - Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" Impenal St ID, Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Q New Full Movement Access Existing Restricted Access to be Removed ,O. A 1,10r...., 20", c..u(:mr-,�r New Restricted Access "In ff,fr Page Id c1 5P T L a Imperial st Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP r CO 119 to CO 79 11 3 :• • Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Existing Traffic Signal Corridor Preservation Footprint cociA Access Identifier — — Parallel Irrigation RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out !. rg,-ncor Pro.errat101, Foprp4r1: ri01 aLown rlusaJgh the 1.35 m.axharye art++ mce thrc are., es nxc+uQed tram Ow P9 fi 11rF�om hreaE ham currvm sardies uaderw.*:.0a_tmg NEPA dae mlenxe. 'RIf14( cvnaSru�. o-yn Rp • Access Key NoAction - r/ ,f ri ,, ,.1 NoAction -ryl Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access p Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional* 21.5 Existing Full • Access E: n• ?_ -,ed Existing to be _. �e LL;n lgen YYnya - ,clun�� „-- oY',ore �r,.,nm N rr•�r, a •c_ rc t:o;ri. r,n,14;),w�Y :Y -fir, tic -wads Dlr •o;cc .,;rlF. r,rnw �, r WOO a -oalgo 10100. O New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access r_-tX l ,rld ,, Page 14 of 50 Sinter Birch Blvd mEgfa Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 p ►;i MOW VOLOgf WIZ 12 _ .spa - — alAO • Mtleposts (1/10 mi) --- Ap fox Existing CO 52 ROW Ewsting Traffic Signal Corndor Preservation Foo print QOA Access Identifier — — Parallel Irngation RVRO Right-In/Right-Out 64(6 _ 1 �.• owev h Y T MCC SGT • No Action - No Action - 6ni [ Existing Ed Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Fill Movement Access - Conditional" 52 125 • - -- - -- - iMrE =, Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access CU!11 ,ndl o, r bb:,i „e hyi,,c. w.,o Page 15 of 50 Colorado Blvd Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP 4rµ .• CO 119 to CO 79 cc U 3 • Mtleposts (1/10 Eng Existing Traffic signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out • Flying Cir Blvd - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foolpdnt — — Parallel Irrigation - Vie@ - RI/RO Access Key 6'" St 33 mem- 0•: Colorado Blvd d 0 15 1513 eoo 9 > Q s m a Page 16 of 50 Q N a a Q L 2 m Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 N Z d U 13:5 7th St • Mileposts (1/1D m1) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out 203421 WO RURO Frederick Way FREDERICK RYRO _ — _ -_ __ WOO_gigaMer sz 0 ) 4 DACONO Access Key. - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW •,...- . Corridor Preservation Foolpnni , - - - — Parallel Irrigation 1[ - Glen Creighton Dr MAO - Mac Davidson Cir 19.02-N&S co 3 m m a o: Pagel] of 50 Ridgeway Blvd F3 ■ r - Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP a}i-4 CO 119 to CO 79 Penrose Blvd • • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Exsting Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 57_ ROW -- Camdor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key 14.5 ' sz • Corridor Preservation Footprint allows for centerline realignment of CO 52 and the realignment of WCR 17 9�1 1 �ut�cs� r irag • 150 J00 I I� �l0 New Full Movement Access Page 10 of 50 ti '>o•�r4, ry SZOO �-gMi5 stk,30 C Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (M10 mi) Ew≤ ting iraffic Signal Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out 4aLAZ nrnd, Reeservnr.: Fpptpnnr arecws,Or unIIerr+nr+rahy4thcoi v cn 5?.:.1 enr • Ralrarircren: n• W[h' ' --- Appr x xisting CO 52 Row -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Para lel Irrigation Access Key • _. 15.5 4OGI Page 19:! 50 cc 3 • 16 Mate-` -- - - 165 IE ` Access Control Plan Mapbook pCO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mtleposls (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal qlairQ Access Identifier RI/R0 .Right-In/Right Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key cc U 3 WFT�I - f•••4 Tat.. . ..MOB- 0 75 HO 300 600 WO' Page 20 of 50 cc U 3 �,r apt"er 9 Bt Ma- - voia Access Control Plan Mapbook ,„„, CO 52 PEL / ACP g CO 119 to CO 79 tra7— 7 ©- • • Mileposts (1/10 ml) Ex sling traffic. Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out -- - - - rJ � 52j --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint -- Parallel Irrigation Access Key - - • N cc U 3 17:5 d 360 6CO �0J Page21 of 50 -MOM .. C+ C4 MEW :'MU Access Control Plan Mapbook ASP CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal GOO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 4 C4 1e • � - --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • '�.lam C.4 _ ._. 52 © Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed —cc U �i — 4345m33- • Cs _ - _ CO N C U 3 i• 00 ?aJ New Full Movement Access Page 22 0150 N C U Access Control Plan Mapbook p. CO 52 PEL / ACP y CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mi eposls(1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Ac=ess Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out _MLR _ - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation A[CC iS %C� 9 o 75 ,150 300 wimm L 300 Page 23 of 50 . -- - - 29.5 Wgkig logo .11W IM43 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing lraffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Our kti.41 . _ _ +ice _a _ - �—. �'� �� - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key A Corridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through the US 95 interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction 3'd St 2'^ St Rrgnr•Otr; Only RIlRo FIIIMI i . FPM] a ffi4 GI' �-:.. O2 0 5��47 i�--_ -.-. 1 QQG C' -O F,fart, WOO. .. I d o uo rre New Full Movemenl Access Page 24 of 50 3'a St 3r" St m d ]F 7 2n" St a> Y a 2" St m a m c cc Harrison Ave Ma-alf' gi,-4 i gi.4gal 7x'E it tToli.,u ;J 19014 ] RI/R0 _)kkie.._!3:JC3 iiL'itJ rilst3Ty;_#t"; 71kr'7L". i3]3L'1 �> >` 'i'o `11 sty:. -Flaysj' --iii la , MFsG1 s�1,7 F� k�� - � r • - -4— -- ` - — —_— _ 1.] — zz rf14, - - : C=-4:- _ =4 - :7---' "G -G--�= -_ = zo ,.4 4 _ - -O - - a:=vim _ �g--'• s__---_ ■ •. �� • .— — - --- — �— — — C o _a -0- o_�p o o - 3 = cF� t - ==_—___ --_ •�� ----- -_ ---- _�;�___ 7�qQ T'd9 mole �, 20.66-S .�rxr LkF1ti 2I f•i.6YkF7 YTSSkG7. :� � 3 ,�e']i�XJd � YTL'if: Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP �- CO 119 to CO 79 -FORT ,LUPTON- • Mileposts D/lO miJ Existing Traffic Signal Ga.@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-n/Right-Out McKinley Ave - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Paralle Irrigation a a RI/R0 Harrison Ave Access Kev a No Action - No Action -; Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access 0 Existing Full Movement Access-Condnional^ d 5 td 100 600 300 0 New Fu I Movement Access Page 25c, 50 Coyote Creek Dr &OM 21 FORT LUPTON Access Control Plan Mapbook coCO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 O •.. _ . • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing lr ffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Virginia Dr - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foolonnt — — Parallel Irrigation Trail Blazer Rd Silverado Ln Access Key • s 131[31^1 gBEKB 21.5 •' • - - 0- fEilMa ulya-- Ei}Eda F`dro h �••.,ch 52! - &NO EaTil0 ae EOM ! MOO j.. -_ - d �5 150 300 600 00 New Full Movement Access Page 26 of 50 m C U 3 • 60m 01 - __— Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • 'C rn N C U 3 ♦ MIleposts(1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Q(;@ Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out -ffigpfa- - ffiCi - Efiffifl - yA� -- - - - - - - -- Appmx Existing CO 52 ROW -- C rndor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Ksy. aim) MOM Riin • 22.5 Fai . d 0 ,5 150 300 t00 100 Page 27 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/RighrOut - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation + . Q ..{ to tamio Access Kev - MOO • No Action 1q I!;/, q. n,rrr NoAction -I,:,,:ary lrr:5irC r Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" _ sz 0- f Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Q New Full Movement Access Existing Restricted Access to be Removed la be r,novc:: ,l crre,f 1:1n fndoerrn9 o.no cr,nnue r�suN1�n at!, Glut �e m�rra;,: r,fir:ore n,,r, 20"1 Or?, 0. ,. ,g, r access ro Cmorado H101,av<il beCON ar,.,111.301= L0,1 ,ace i-n, - New Restricted Access CI,Y;I,,dl r, deranol, ��. ,,uwo rnrrrlru�q^ OW or �. Page 25 cI 57 --EEO - Salta) • ZOO - Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 ire) Ex sting Traffic Signal GTO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out ---—Q---'-•s•z• --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Cor Igor Preservation Foe print — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key ' CV 24 -wigog EEG*. — — Eavo -ooraw ---------------- Jr -- - — - — - — d 75 do 300 nC0 Page 29 of 50 • e_ _ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 MOO T M CC • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Gas@ Access Ieenlifier RI/R0 Righl-In/Night-Out 29.5 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key alMO ₹ am Ewa . ₹ ' 1U) fflale t.Dis • _ - Fri - L!- - £ Fd13Met - -- VOW MEW II1M d 300 500 Page 30 of 50 n U 3 -CM _ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP c w CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Q�fJ¢j Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- App ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Pa allel Irrigation a 40_ _ 75.5 _ Access Xcv ti•. -....• - MEAD 0- _0 . EOM 0 150 e]0 Page 31 0150 Pam - p �- 26 • `- Elm- woo Access Control Plan Mapbook PCO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) a Existing Traffic Signal LIMO Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access rIey - km ow • C; 25.5 --�-..� hoe Eta Elam -Elm • No Action-!Fal;ny / I P. dnsl, No Action -I csnny Gtr :Rn:^. c Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" _MO -EMU ffla,V1 EFL . Bowles Canal Rd C.• Ex -; Full V...; ,rer •.o-:.•• _ n.,.... Ex. -!..I Res'. 7•-c A:c••:s!i. i, ••,;,r:- • -lc t,_ I rr Ync talus;, lm,rzr::se ofr core rhar; 20'% 2 Otr,, 0,5,i[;uolor.,dU b,corn,av�lbbl[' ei New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access CC)CI x,J Page 32 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook a 0_ CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 26:96-S ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal M.@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation r• - mom-- Efifa - Acces; Ilcy C Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' Signal instalation part of existing safety improvement project finfirla 7.6 I s ____ -! -- w- ra d 150 300 600 Page 33 cf 50 Beebe i anal Access Control Plan Mapbook asp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation ° . • Access Key • No Action- ., No Action-, .,x..,. t Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' smei - saw gr:rg2 — - •�. EIEW infada O ➢5 150 -- 600 leer Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 34 of 50 to tx U 3 A Corridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through :he. 1.76 ,nxrchangr area .i c• rose Arr. a rrelwlyd Prom roe PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction a U 3 28.5 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal (DO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out --- A.pprox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foe print — — Parallel Irrigation WCR 12 Y. .� Eacks . Access Key_ • No Action-; No Action- f Existin Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional* d-- 0 75 150 300 600 Page 35 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook oCO 52 PEL / ACP _ CO 119 to CO 79 r • Mileposts (1/1Omi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/RO Righeln/Right-Out A Corridor Preservation Footpnnt is not shown through the I-76 interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL E. clesieg•� Areal haW :J WM srud-e: underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction 5'" Ave y m L - titP•'ri. - C7) m U • ��a/ y` C4.l...Q - -- Approx Existing CO 57 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Er Ave KgCKI •. g L 'm N N t r N y Q m Access Key_ ▪ NoAnon- , No Action - Existing Full Movement to Restruted Access O Existing Full Movement Access-CondnionsV HUDSON 5'" Ave d V 4" Ave S E£a:ilk3 Nrrrs Cana! �An O "f..'` G •- 19- C- - wym th d 75 150 500 a0 Page 36 of 50 cc U 3 g0C30 EXINI MOM MO ..... .. :r.- -- --- a-•— -- ---- 52. x?J4}E3 - - 3EIV2 MSC rn a Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 HUDSON • Mileposts (1/1D mi) Existing lretfie Signal (DO Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Cook Ct - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROVv -- Corridor reservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation • Access Key •. ffi=1 30.5 also -- — O08 m@ -;� n v rr U 3 0 75 150 "^.r: - — —I d 600 © Existing Full Movemeni Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed Pao Page 37 of 50 31. €u£3sac r Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 4 s - - - - - . - -�fb- -_ —-- —_. ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal (OA Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • No Action - !x; 4!;np F!;p ;, ;,-nnorfr NoAction -r osurulR• • rucfnri II Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" - -n 5 Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed • n6r F�no.eC:f or:?of I, foi'o.n;I,ry 0,, r ,�;r Laedus: charge rsar d6nu ;u frail; iclun::. war,se o! lore rhad 202 Jrh-races r) Cmoreda Hr�h way Locorna; dvarl3r�le :;JDr Pm;ecr P�'r'nrlFs otlmi e(nr• r 3,1,4 e, ;O., Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access cool and Lo�,al 4�Urogpa hl/ Io:IPIr4�Jr✓e Page 3B of 50 cc U 3 ctv — -DEM -DIM C 11-.- afnEt cc U 3 Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 :32 M leposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Me@ Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprin — — Para lel Irrigation Access !Sty "yp-A-cva IDED a_ papts. �3. —. foakT �{ 3L5 Cl n -tom - d 0 `5 150 300 .. r� Page 35 of 50 mom tmo Frf'Ib - ! l.iP - . .1 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mtleposts(1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal CalsQ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/RighrOut ` 33 4 --- A.pprox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foolprinl — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • No Action NoAction- .. '- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional" 1 335 Ito•- me d o )5 t50 300 600 :00 Page 40 of 50 -gagA9-- - - — E� Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Banner taaea Stele Wil0Inc Area O - 0'- ..� .. -- - O. --eif g. • MA ggna MO - grala ♦ Mileposts (1/10 m!) Exist,g Traffic Signal IAA Access Idenllfter RURO Rlgnt-In/Right-Out K U 3 --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corr dor Preservation Footpnn: — — Parallel Irrigation Access #ey 34 C:.L' ll11 — Q _ _52 • NOActlon- NOAction- Existing Full Move rent to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Move rent Access -Conditional' ac0 O New Full Movement Access Page 4" al 50 _ . _ 34:5- - €M@ g Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP 5 CO 119 to CO 79 • Mtleposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal QAS@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - RIB@ --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Ac0E55 KL N V7 0 U 3 • No Action- v,):! .i No Action Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' .43C — 35--e} D 600 300 Page 42 of 50 I Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Exi=ting Traffic Signal GUI@ Access Icentifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out r= - -- Aoprox xisting CO 52 ROW Corrioor Preservation Footpnn — — Parallel Irrigation X35.5— — — Access Hey r♦ NO Action - NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional" Ma MO - . C� Fa -- 43 ' _ _VW ZISfl MOM • 60C 300' Page 43 of 50 cc U 3 36 !;7 - FAIV3 • Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal laQ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out EiEN3 ILIEA - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation 9 _e_ Arcess Key 36.5 — - ._ --- - - — - — • --€ - -.. • -• •- --•- • gym '}teac3e moo d 300 00 r .,-._.-s O NEW Full Movement Access P u7 ce U '500 Page 44 of 50 L rn CC U Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 A Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing [raffle Signal IAA Access Identifier RI/R0 Rghr-In/Right-Out - - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corr dor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation •fillDt . Access Key •.5? - ' -• • No Action - NOAction - 1 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access-Conddional' 37.5 - i _ - =..4 d )5 150 300 600 "500 Page 45 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 - gRf3 3 ... 38 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Qrjl.z@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out • 52 - - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key Ix -:1 =:.11 .13.'^i •1!.-.:•:55 . - t.* _. C4' — .38.5 d 0 JS 150 duo 300 500 Page 46 of sa m ce U Access Control Plan Mapbook ,o CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • M leposts D/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal COM Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out --- A.pprox Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Para lel Irrigation m ce U 3 Access KQy !—• i -4 ILEMEENII Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Res noted Access to be Remove d 0 75 150 300 600 1 ' - 300 Page 47 of 50 unzi _ ... gaij glom Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 € OR • Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Existing Traffic Signal -- Corridor Preservation Footprint (123Q Access Identifier — — Parallel Irrigation RVRO Right-In/Right-Out 52: _ _ ).. -- -clime 40 Access Ref • NoAction- , No Action - C, Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" —. — - .- New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 48 of 50 r` U ---0r------ _!. f4 C.4 — — - -r-- - —. - 3 433 - ongg - c3. Access Control Plan Mapbook g) CO 52 PEL / ACP �� CO 119 to CO 79 • Wens's (1/10 mi) Exis: ng Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-n/Right-Out _.s2 - -- -• WO doo CPO C136 • - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Paralle Irrigation Access Koy NoAction- a .i No Action -r..,, ,_,.. • Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" © Existing Full Movement Access to be Remo•ed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed .un:.,r :, _volt,; .0 wt limn�rerrx,r,: �im�6Fr o,t� ., �� ., t��or D Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access r;l:':I „ail rrr; mitt.,,a Page 49 0' 50 U -i-k-vo=mz-&_aaki I- Glaz Mal -W- -_ - _. - -- - giikK =a,tarr= .--_ - _.. .: - -- 0503,; a arogi - -ortfit Access Control Plan Mapbook a ti CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 A Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW d Existing Traffic Signal (62(143 Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation _— Recess Key_ • No Action x:=r nr; l i0':�: NoAction -::-'Fmrff, ,rrm:+rn Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access C Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional* - roc,.. _aka . -... ; f-P.`W7 _txw.. mM.�n ••-•- — — -- C= C -—� e hR3 —��? (1 Sri -rte—�-i" 0301 {1kim - Qw• r'F Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed ..lobe-, ._., ol,e,f ircGro::rny on. ur .r ,I,Lnge re,ufeec Ni f,ilic eche', alre:ere Yuri ?uY'r 0tr,cr.-s, ro ,-vae4L,le 3 CIiUTPiolecrp,o,40 ,urhe �<a--•,:. v 3u(ety cc,kews ,n_.c © New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access COOT,L1l:. e.:r,r.lr�r rlcgn! rr. k t. ,r .. Page 50 of Ss Appendix C: FHWA Check -In Points 1. Check -in Point #l: Reason for Study 2. Check -in Point #2: Review of Purpose & Need Statements 3. Check -in Point #3: Review of Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix C-1 Check -in Point #l: Reason for St Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Project: State Highway (CO) 52 PEL/ACP Study (21656) To: Brian Dobling - Federal Highway Administration, Project Manager From: Chad Hall, PE — CDOT R4, Project Manager Date: May 13, 2020 Subject: PEL Study for State Highway (CO) 52 Corridor between CO 119 and CO 79 — FHWA Check -In #1 CDOT, in agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has determined that a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study and Access Control Plan (ACP) is the correct study approach for the State Highway (CO) 52 corridor between CO 119 north of Boulder in Boulder County to CO 79 east of Hudson in Weld County. The PEL/ACP provides a preliminary step to a National Environmental Protect Act (NEPA) review of specific transportation improvement projects that will be developed during the PEL/ACP process. The PEL documentation includes a FHWA PEL Questionnaire which may be used during NEPA environmental permitting and approval. On July 23, 2019, CDOT and FHWA held a pre-scoping meeting to determine the appropriate approach for the CO 52 corridor that would identify a vision to inform alternative transportation improvement projects. Participants of the meeting concluded that a PEL/ACP is an appropriate method to study the CO 52 corridor since rapid expansion along the corridor community is anticipated. As such, the PEL/ACP will fulfill a need to understand future demand and develop a list of transportation improvement alternatives. CDOT determined the scope of work for the PEL Study should include the development of purpose and need which will provide a basis for future NEPA work. The report should also summarize research and define the existing and future transportation systems as well as a comprehensive environmental evaluation. The study will also include a range of feasible alternatives. The PEL Study will encourage communication among the local agencies along the corridor with a defined goal and vision for CO 52. Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to reach out through email, chod.hall@state.co,us or 970-350-2227. CDOT R4 10601 W 10t Street Greeley, CO 80634 t `cye • iN 1 Appendix C-2 Check -in Point #2: Review of Purpose & Need Statements Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 October 30, 2020 Troy Halouska CDOT Environmental Programs Branch 2829 W Howard Place Denver CO, 80204 Subject: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study — Final Purpose and Need Memo Dear Mr. Halouska: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has revised the Purpose and Need Memo to address FHWA comments for CO 52 PEL Study (CO 119 to CO 79). Please submit to Stephanie Gibson, Environmental Program Manager and Brian Dobling, FHWA Area Engineering, as acknowledgement and completion of this second FHWA Coordination Point as a part of the Planning and Environmental Linkages process. Should you have any additional questions or comments please do not hesitate to reach out through email, charl.hall@state.cn.u.s or 970-350-7777. Sincerely, Chad Hall Project Manager Attachment: CO 52 PEL Final Purpose and Need Memo 10601 W 10' Street, Greeley, CO 80634, P 303-546-5649 www.codot.8oy •'Si Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) / Access Control Plan (ACP) TO: Brian Dobling, FHWA; Stephanie Gibson, FHWA From: Chad Hall, CDOT R4; Troy Halouska, CDOT HQ Date: October 28, 2020 Subject: CO 52 PEL Purpose and Need Memo CDOT initiated this PEL Study to identify and assess potential transportation solutions along the CO 52 corridor in Weld and Boulder Counties. The Purpose and Need statement was developed in coordination with stakeholders, including the state and local jurisdictions located along the corridor and those represented in the CO 52 Coalition PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The purpose of the recommended transportation improvements is to increase safety, accommodate increased travel and freight demand, and support multi -modal connections. NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS This section summarizes the transportation needs for the CO 52 corridor with a more detailed description that supports of each of the needs from the Existing Conditions Report. In summary, transportation improvements are needed to: • Increase Safety — Increased highway access from continued development, high percentages of truck traffic, poor pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and geometric issues have resulted in safety concerns along the corridor. • Accommodate increased travel and freight demand — Traffic congestion from additional commuter and freight traffic has decreased travel time reliability. Increased corridor use requires roadway improvements to accommodate the movement of people, goods, and services. • Support multimodal connections — Stakeholder input and prior planning efforts identified the need to improve north -south pedestrian mobility and support enhanced parallel connectivity. INCREASE SAFETY The need for corridor improvements to support the increases in development has resulted in safety concerns at intersections and other locations along the CO 52 corridor. Crash Data A review of CDOT's statewide crash history between July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019 indicates that 1,603 crashes were reported on CO 52 in the study corridor. Of the total crashes, 1,095 were property damage only (PDO), 495 resulted in injuries, and 13 crashes resulted in 15 fatalities ( �G Figure 1). Rear -end crashes accounted for 50 percent of all crashes, primarily occurring near intersections and urban areas with concentrated access points. Overall, the frequency and severity of crashes at intersection locations were about average when compared to similar facilities. The next most common crash types were broadside and approach turn at 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively. These crashes were focused at intersections, both signalized and stop -controlled side street approaches, where gaps in traffic are less frequent for motorists attempting to turn onto or cross CO 52. Of the total crashes, 69 percent were classified as intersection or intersection -related crashes. Most crashes occurred in the western half of the corridor and tend to be clustered near major intersections and adjacent development. As development continues, there is concern that crashes will continue to rise near major intersections and adjacent to developments. Figure 1 CO 52 Crash Distribution Breakdown CRASH TYPE DISTRIBUTION CO 52A - ALL CRASHES (MP 0.00 - MP 42.00) 1,603 TOTAL CRASHES s rear end (796) 50% RI broadside (200) 12% approach turn (177) 11% W sideswipe (same direction) (132) 8% fixed objects (117) 7% all other types (<5% each) (181) 11% Property Damage Only (1095) Injuries (495) Fatilities (13) I 11/1/2000 12/31/2orr) overturning 40 sideswipe (opposite dir) 39 wild animal overtaking turn head on 22 21 18 domestic animal 10 vehicle debris or cargo 9 parked motor vehicle 9 other non -collision 5 involving other object 3 pedestrian (all other) 2 railway vehicle/light rail 1 large rocks/boulder 1 bicycle 1 CDOT's Safety Performance Function (SPF) analysis procedure revealed 17 intersections that exhibited high crash frequency and have a high potential for crash reduction. Two intersections were rated with a level of service safety (LOSS) III but were the location of a fatal crash occurrence and could be considered at an equal priority level for improvement recommendations as intersections with a LOSS IV (Table 1). Table 1 Intersections with High Potential for Crash Reduction I_ 4.67 8.17 10.39 10.95 11.08 US 287 WCR 3 Puritan Way 11.21 11.45 12.81 13.19 13.45 13 64 13.9 16.42 2546 27.46 29.07 36 92 37.92 41.94 West Frontage Road (I-25) SB I-25 Ramps NB 1-25 Ramps East Frontage Road (I-25) Flying Circle Boulevard Colorado Ave (W CR 13) Cherry Street Forest Street Mac Davidson Drive WCR 19 WCR 37 WCR 41 West Frontage Road (I-76) WCR 59 WCR 61 CO 79 (WCR 69) 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No 1— ' _i. 47 59 1 107 12 0 15 28 7 0 35 26 17 43 28 6 0 34 IV 99 23 0 122 IV ?9 29 0 108 IV 20 11 0 31 N 40 15 1 56 Ii 1 8 10 _2 0 12 IV 5 3 IV 20 5 0 25 IV 4 7 12 IV 5 r. 14 IV 11 0 12 IV 3 2 IV 3 0 4 IV 4 0 4 IV IV III IV IV I• IV IV IV I I Rt IV IV IV IV •I' IV Although non -intersection crashes are less prevalent (31 percent of total crashes), three head-on collisions and one fatality occurred near the reverse curves segment situated in the vicinity of WCR 17 (MP 15.50 and MP 15.70). Field observations also identified two non-standard intersections on the reverse curves (MP 15.00 and MP15.65). Truck Freight The presence of truck freight varies along the corridor. In the Boulder County portion of the corridor, the percentage of truck traffic varies from 2.8 percent near CO 119 to 5 percent at County Line Road. A large increase in truck traffic occurs along the Weld County portion of the corridor from west to east. Truck traffic accounts for 6.5 percent of traffic at I-25 and increases to 19 percent in the final section nearing CO 79. In addition to truck freight, CO 52 is designated as a hazardous materials and oversize vehicle route from CO 119 to CO 79. The corridor provides an east -west freight route for the northern Denver metropolitan area that has relatively few horizontal and vertical clearance issues. Among the types of oversized cargo are wind turbine blades from the Windsor and Greeley area. Due to the corridor's crucial role in moving freight, CO 52 improvements must ensure that freight mobility is maintained in a safe and efficient manner. Intersections, turning paths, lane widths, horizontal and vertical clearances, and shoulders should be designed to accommodate the frequent movement of semi -tractor trailer trucks and oversized loads. Stretches of the corridor with higher truck traffic can significantly increase travel time and bottleneck situations which can lead to safety concerns and impact the travel time reliability of the corridor. Aso Geometric Issues Geometric issues result in a significant safety issue along CO 52. Spot deficiencies were identified throughout the corridor where headwalls, narrow bridges, or irrigation features are located directly adjacent to the roadway or within the clear zone. Ditches and trees were observed encroaching on the clear zone along corridor stretches east of Fort Lupton. These geometric deficiencies increase the risk and severity of potential crash occurrences. Poor pavement conditions were observed trom east of I-15 through Uacono to WCR 19 and from east of US 85 through Fort Lupton to WCR 29 %. Shoulder widths are inconsistent along the corridor, ranging from 2- and 10 -feet throughout most of the corridor and no shoulders east of Hudson. Improved pavement conditions and consistent shoulder widths are necessary should a motorist need to take evasive action, recover control of their vehicle, or pull a disabled vehicle out of the path of traffic. Safety concerns occur at locations along the corridor where vertical curves do not meet design criteria (MP 21.5, WCR 43, MP 32.15, WCR 53, and WCR 55). Vertical sight issues can increase the risk and severity of crashes due to lowered sight distances decreasing reaction times and ability to safely evade obstacles. Noncompliant grades can also cause issues with safely braking a vehicle or with rider comfort. There are 51 bridge structures along the project corridor. Major structures account for 22 of the identified structures. Results of a structures field visit identified an absence of guardrail at several major and minor structures along the corridor. The presence of guardrail helps cars to maintain travel along the roadway prism, as well as prevent major accidents where vehicles leave the roadway prism along major structures (span length of 20 feet or greater) and minor structures (span length between 4 feet and 20 feet). Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities High traffic volumes and high travel speeds along CO 52, paired with a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor, create safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along and across CO 52. There are currently no designated bicycle routes along CO 52; however, shoulders along much of the western section from CO 119 to US 85 are 4 -feet or greater. The shoulders provide some physical infrastructure for east -west bicycle connectivity between CO 119 and Fort Lupton, but high vehicle travel speeds result in a level of traffic stress (LTS) of 4 (Figure 2). In addition, gaps in shoulders at major intersections (95th St, US 287, I-25, and US 85) make it challenging for bicycle crossings. Shoulders east of Fort Lupton to CO 79 vary from less than 2 -feet to not present. Bicyclists are forced to mix with vehicular traffic in these sections, further increasing difficulty and discomfort. Figure 2 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis i LONGML:. 119 : V T DACONO BOULDER '2071 FO RT rLUPTON ® i I uff, 1 KEENESBURG 7 City Boundary Stream Lake ID118. Level of Traffic Stress: Segments 0 ■wn 3 1 t� 4 2 Level of Traffic Stress: Crossings 0 --; 2 If 4 1 13 ieq Crossing CO 52 is a significant challenge for bicyclists and pedestrians. Of 80 intersections, only 20 are signalized intersections and only two existing multi -use trails cross CO 52; the LOBO Trail crosses at an underpass just west of 79th St, and the Firestone/Legacy/Old Railroad Trail crosses CO 52 at -grade at Colorado Boulevard. ACCOMMODATE INCREASED TRAVEL AND FREIGHT DEMAND A review of data from the Existing Conditions Report supports the need for improvements to anticipate the continued growth of both residential communities and freight movement along the project corridor. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes create areas of congestion throughout the CO 52 corridor; lack of capacity at major signalized intersections is a major contributor. The result is delay to the traveling public with lengthy queues forming at multiple locations along the corridor. Between CO 119 and WCR 19 there are current delays with travel time indices at 1.3 (AM, in westbound direction) and 1.2 (PM, in eastbound direction). By 2045 they are expected to range from 1.8 to 2.1. From WCR 19 to WCR 31, the travel time index will increase to 1.2 to 1.4 (Figure 3). East of this location, the travel time index is expected to remain at or near 1.0. In the 2045 No Action scenario, travel times for the entire corridor are expected to increase by 22 percent to 31 percent during peak hours, with the western half expected to see increases of up to 71 percent in travel times. Figure 3 CO 52 Segment Operations - September 2019 v 1.6 � 1.4 1.2 ,‘...1.7441/4\ i .."\-- i— 1 ° _ CD E_ 0.8 H O N M V 0 -0 N CO P O .- N M V N oLL + la a co 60 ,0 n m 0, O N � I _ I ' ' �J a0 , �i � l I +� 20 0 N M Q 0 d r .. 0, O N M Q O O r m Z _ N N N N _ _J Kr` AM Peak PM Peak _ Speed Limit N N N N M M M M M A M Pi O M � 1 p O N � ry N N N N P.; N O M M M M M M v1 M A A Milepost 16 1.4 1.2 \4- FREDERICK �Q ~IT�� ERIE 1 DAC ONO i Time Travel Index t a a I 1 0.8 60 40 20 I n a `cn -0 m a o N LUPTON KEENES➢NRG QBottleneck N M .0 +I: ,0 0- CO P O N M Q 01 .0 r CO P O Milepost N N N N N m N N N EASTBOUND CO 52 N N AM Peak PM Peak -- Speed Limit N M M M M A AA M M N p p O N r0 v a v O M M M M M M M M V C O 1 Corridor Growth and Development CDOT's travel demand model, StateFocus (Version 1.4), uses socioeconomic growth projections to generate projected travel demand. 2045 No Action traffic volumes are projected to increase 40 to 55 percent in Boulder County, and over 90 percent in Weld County between Colorado Boulevard and US 85. Between US 85 and I-76, an increase of 6,000-7,000 vehicles per day is projected; east of I-76 will see an increase of 1,500 vehicles per day or less. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on CO 52 is projected to increase 74 percent between CO 119 and CO 79, from 308,000 VMT in 2015 to 534,000 in 2045. This growth is due in part to increases in residential development along the corridor. As current agricultural or undeveloped land along the corridor becomes developed, into mostly residential areas, CO 52 will be utilized more frequently to connect to employment centers within the region. This is accentuated due to CO 52 serving as one of the main east -west corridors in the area. This may particularly affect connections to major north -south roadways such as CO 119, I-25, US 85, and I-76. Improvements will need to anticipate the projected traffic volumes to identify potential improvements that will increase travel time reliability along the project corridor. CDOT's StateFocus model projects that the number of households within the corridor study area (defined as 3 -mile buffer on either side of CO 52 extending from CO 119 to CO 79) will more than double by 2045, adding over 30,000 households for a total of nearly 54,000. As current agricultural or undeveloped land along the corridor is developed, CO 52 will be utilized more and more to cnnnert employment centers within the region, significantly increasing the commuter traffic in the area. This growth could further increase congestion and reliability issues near major intersections. Freight The Upper Front Range 2045 Regional Transportation Plan identified CO 52 as a freight corridor in Colorado, which is a critical route that facilitates the movement of goods. Approximately 35 -miles of CO 52 is located in Weld County, which is one of the state's top three agricultural producers and the number one producer of oil and gas in the state of Colorado. These industries require substantial amounts of heavy, lower -speed, and oversized vehicles. When roadway characteristics do not accommodate vehicle travel around slow -moving equipment, bottlenecks occur. Freight rail lines traverse the corridor at three locations. The western crossing is located immediately east of CO 119, is 56 -feet wide, has one set of tracks, and averages 6 trains per day. The central crossing is in Fort Lupton, is 56 -feet wide, has one set of tracks, and averages 10 trains per day. The eastern crossing is in Hudson, is 40 -feet wide, has three sets of tracks, and averages 18 trains per day. All crossings are at grade and have active signalization. Rail crossings slow traffic as trains traverse the corridor and are an additional cause for low travel time reliability. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) is building a Logistics Center at I-76 and CR 49, just north of the CO 52 corridor. This 430 -acre facility will feature 15 sites for customers to ship via individual railcars and a unit train site for customers to ship entire trainloads. The improvements are designed to help customers more easily reach Denver and the surrounding markets via new rail -served sites. It is anticipated that this Logistics Center will increase the number of trains as well as motor vehicle freight in the surrounding area, directly impacting the CO 52 corridor. SUPPORT MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS Stakeholder input and prior planning efforts identified the need to improve north -south mobility and support enhanced parallel connectivity. Multimodal Plans It is anticipated that increased multimodal use of the corridor will continue to occur as local agencies plan for additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities parallel to and crossing the corridor. CO 52 is a critical link between many communities from east to west. However, in several communities the corridor acts as a multimodal barrier between residential areas on one side and schools, parks, or businesses on the other. The few existing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities that cross or run parallel to CO 52 are mostly located near Dacono, Frederick, Fort Lupton, and Hudson(Figure 4). Pedestrian needs are limited to these municipalities that are bisected by the corridor. Pedestrian travel is generated by schools, parks, and commercial use. In Frederick, Thunder Valley K-8 and Carbon Valley Parks and Recreation District have facilities located adjacent to or in the vicinity of CO 52. Within Fort Lupton, Fort Lupton Middle School, Butler Elementary, and Community Center Park and Recreation Center are located close to the corridor. The proximity of these facilities requires many students to cross CO 52 from the northern residential areas to these schools south of the corridor. Similar conditions exist in Hudson with Hudson Elementary and most residential areas to the south, and Hudson Memorial Park and many commercial uses primarily to the north. Overall needs of this corridor include improvements to safety and comfort level of existing pedestrian facilities by means of expanding sidewalk networks, increasing widths, detaching sidewalks from roadway edges, and installing controlled crossings where demand exists, and physical conditions allow. Stream Lake BOULDER,' ♦ Milepost Envlronmen'a Study Area C y Boundary • • .• • s 1' FREDERICK, I_ u . s ; i --_— i /I\ I t i c 9 �J _ I .I l• I L- 1 d Bcyc a Faaid es — Ex s nu Off -Street Paved Trail — — Pro osed Off -Street Paved -frail Ex s ng Off -Street unpaved Tra• - Pro osed Off -Street Unpaved Tra. — Ex s ng On -Street Bike Facility — — Pro osed On -Street Bike Facility FREDERICK s R 19 v. FREDERICK - - - Conceptua Connect on DRCOG Regional Active Transportation Corridor --` FORT LOPTON x , { .. FORT {r r LUPTON - r :i,` 1-1Z • Milepost Environmental Study Area City Boundary HUDSON Stream Lake i d KEENESBURG :5 35 Bicycle Facilities — Existing Off -Street Paved Trail Existing Off -Street Unpaved Trail — Existing On -Street Bike Facility 3U HUDSON 31 — — Proposed Off -Street Paved Trail Proposed Off -Street Unpaved Trail — — Proposed On -Street Bike Facility 35 - 40 - - - Conceptual Connection DRCUG Regional Active Transportation Corridor I d Pedestrian Facilities A Mdepost Environmental Stucv Area Gty Boundary a® Stream Lake Y i —• Existing Off -Street Paved Trail Existing Off -Street Unpaved Trail - Existing Sidewalk (DRCOG only) �r t - (ERIE — I �I • s I — — Proposed Of -Street Paved Trail Proposed Of Street Unpaved Trail © Trailhead - - - Conceptual Connection �I r5 FORt _ `I t — 1. I }'� f Ir i r i11� l- A rj I I I I , • }_ L I '8g, ♦ Milepost Environmental Study Area City Boundary Stream Lake KEENESBURG HUDSON :- Pedestrian Facilities — Existing Off -Street Paved Trai! - Existing Off -Street Unpaved Trail -- Existing Sidewalk (ORCOG onry) — — Proposed Off -Street Paved Trail Proposed Off -Street Unpaved Trail ® Traiihead --- Conceptual Connection Each of the individual municipalities has proposed regional bicycle facilities and improvements, including extending and building new paths as the jurisdictional populations grow (Figure 4). Stakeholder Interviews Many project stakeholders, including Fort Lupton, Hudson, Dacono, Frederick, Erie, Keenesburg, and Boulder County, have expressed a strong desire to increase the pedestrian and bicycle facilities along and across the corridor (Figure 5). An assessment of the frequency of stakeholder mentions of corridor concerns indicates that multimodal improvements has the highest number of mentions during stakeholder discussions about the project. Specific multimodal needs mentioned by stakeholders include safe crossings and connectivity to existing trails, and safe travel between residential neighborhoods, business districts, parks, and schools. On the eastern end of the corridor, Keenesburg highlighted the lack of available shoulders or bicycle facilities. As described above, the CO 52 corridor provides a critical connection for bicyclists traveling east since bicycles are not allowed on I-76. Expanded shoulder widths are essential for cyclist safety on the eastern end of the corridor. Overall, improvements are needed to meet the expected growth in travel demand for pedestrians and bicyclists between communities along and across the corridor. Maintain Character Figure 5 Frequency of Stakeholder Topic Mentions Frequency of Topics Mentioned Transit yLf:f-•��i:.•:V a"•❑ AeCessloll'� Future Growth Intersection Oil R Gas L'.)e•:elnpmen? Stakeholder Encagement RegioPal Appreach to P:anr•.na Access Control Reduction in Fre;cint.hazmal Reduce Cor nest or Bike/Ped Access and Sa`ery Saie!y ROW Prsserva:ICr� C=^nec::7!7y to Local Plans and P•opects Res: lencr go GOALS OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The recommended transportation improvements were developed to support the project needs. The project goals should: ■ Consider the natural and built environment — Improvements should minimize impacts to documented environmental resource constraints to the greatest extent possible. Environmental resource constraints documented in the Existing Conditions Report included wetlands, stream channels, floodplains, potential habitat for threatened and endangered (T&E) species and general wildlife, underground and above ground utilities, historic resources, and hazardous materials. Improvements should consider the built environment through a context -sensitive approach to land uses and character along the corridor that should consider both function and aesthetic of the surrounding land uses and character. • Support local and regional planning efforts — Improvements should consider planning efforts by recognizing spatial recommendations for future and proposed local agency plans, such as multimodal connections, adjacent multi -use paths, and streetscape plans. • Identify estimated ROW needs —Recommended project alternatives will be used to define the estimated ROW needs to support future growth along the corridor. Although a separate and concurrent process, the ACP will show the estimated ROW line developed during the PEL process to support local agencies in land use decision making. • Accommodate future technology — Improvements should consider that increases in development and traffic volumes will result in changes in implementation and advancement of technology along the corridor. Transportation technology is anticipated to change within the next 20 to 30 years and improvements should consider the potential for technological advancement. Appendix C-3 Check -in Point #3: Review of Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 September 30, 2021 Troy Halouska CDOT Environmental Programs Branch 2829 W Howard Place Denver CO, 80204 Subject: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study— FHWA Check in Point 3: Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated Dear Mr. Halouska: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) with support from a consultant team and stakeholders has finalized the Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated for CO 52 PEL Study (CO 119 to CO 79). Please submit to Stephanie Gibson, Environmental Program Manager and Brian Dobling, FHWA Area Engineering, as acknowledgement and completion of this third FHWA Coordination Point as a part of the Planning and Environmental Linkages process. Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to reach out through email, chad.hall@state.co.us or 970-350-2227. Sincerely, 7,114 Chad Hall Project Manager Attachment: CO 52 PEL Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated Memo CDOT R4 10601 W 10`hStreet Greeley, CO 80634 .1 1 a 0 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan (21656) To: Troy Halouska — CDOT, Planning and Environmental Linkages/NEPA From: Chad Hall, PE — CDOT R4, Project Manager Date: September 28, 2021 Subject: PEL Study for State Highway (CO) 52 Corridor between CO 119 and CO 79 FHWA Check in Point 3: Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to be Evaluated CDOT, in agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has determined that the attached Alternatives Evaluation Criteria (Attachment A) and Alternatives to be Evaluated (please see below) are sufficient in addressing the established Purpose & Need and Goals of the CO 52 PEL, while avoiding excessive analysis. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Development, evaluation, and refinement of alternatives focused on identifying alternatives that meet Purpose & Need for the corridor and that match corridor context. Evaluation criteria and performance measures were developed prior to beginning the alternatives development and evaluation process. The Project Team reviewed the proposed Evaluation Criteria with the Project Management Team (PMT) and Technical Team (TT) at numerous meetings, incorporating their revisions to ensure that the final Evaluation Criteria would address the project's established Purpose & Need and Goals. These meetings included representatives of all coordinating agencies along the corridor, as well as representatives from FHWA. Two -tiered Approach A two -tiered evaluation process was developed to evaluate alternatives. Evaluation criteria were developed for each level of evaluation and were used to assess alternatives relative to the Purpose & Need. The Level 1 performance measures assess the ability of each alternative to meet Purpose & Need at LEVEL a high level. The Level 2 performance EVALUATION measures delve into more detail for each CRITERIA category of Purpose and Need and as well as Goal; Evaluate alternatives based on corridor conditions to assess whether alternatives meet purpose and need �z = evaluate how well alternatives meet project LEVEL II ' `-- tt'+ _ . . goals. EVALUATION ';;.-r _ . The final Evaluation Criteria are included as CRITERIA �,•- Attachment A. _ ti — Potential Future Imprrnanents RESULT CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 f- rtr,. " 1 a 0 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS Alternatives were developed through a multi -level iterative process. The process began with a large number of alternatives that led to a smaller number of more detailed alternatives, following a focused evaluation effort. Agency coordination and public involvement played a major role in the alternative development process. Corridor Segments In order to better analyze the 42 -mile -long CO 52 study corridor, the study team divided the corridor into meaningful segments (Figure 1). Segment divisions considered political boundaries, community characteristics, and land use similarities. Other than Segment 2, which includes the communities of Erie, Frederick, and Dacono, the other segments only include one community along the corridor allowing individual community desires to be accommodated in the context of the overall corridor vision. • Segment 1: CO 119 to Boulder/Weld County line • Segment 2: Boulder/Weld County line to Weld CR 19 (eastern DRCOG planning boundary) ■ Segment 3: Weld CR 19 to Weld CR 31 (East of Fort Lupton) • Segment 4: Weld CR 31 to Weld CR 49 (East of Hudson) ■ Segment 5: Weld CR 49 to CO 79 Boulder .Erie Figure 1. CO 52 Segments Map �rn:ran. ef•¢:rrK, ' Keeeeshurg E.3 �ifn,�•pw, 0 as No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative anticipates future conditions of the CO 52 corridor without completing any transportation improvements that are recommended by this PEL. The No Action Alternative does include required safety and maintenance improvements to maintain an operational transportation system, as well as those fiscally constrained projects that have committed funding sources that will be built regardless of other improvements recommended in the PEL. Funding sources for those fiscally constrained projects include the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), regional Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) funded by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and local agency Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). The No Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need of this PEL but is used as a baseline for comparison to the operational and safety benefits that would result from recommended transportation improvements resulting from this PEL. Table 1 provides information on 2045 fiscally constrained projects that have been included in the No Action Model. .li: ,•i ryef tc r CDOT R4 10601 W 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 2 ie. COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Table 1. 2045 Fiscally Constrained Projects Considered in No Action Alternative Model (STIP/TIP) Facility CO 52 Project Name CO 52 & US 287 Intersection Project Description Intersection Improvements ID SR46666.071 Source CDOT (STIP) CO 52 CO 52 & I-76 Interchange Interchange improvements SR46600.055 CDOT (STIP) CO 52 CO 52 & WCR 41 Intersection Intersection improvements 1414 CDOT (Upper Front Range, TRP) I-25 MP 214-269 Congestion, safety, travel time and freight reliability improvements 2008-081 CDOT (TIP) N 71St St Lookout Rd to CO 52 Realignment and widening of intersection Boulder (CIP) WCR 7 CO 52 to Erie Pkwy Realignment and widening to 4 lanes 30 Erie Transportation Plan (CIP) Range of Alternatives To develop a range of alternatives for consideration, the study team utilized data from the existing conditions report as well as input collected from stakeholders (Table 2). Table 2. Stakeholder Meeting Highlights Agency Summary of Input Boulder County (Segment 1) • Relationship building • Intersection to accommodate transit, queue jump, and bypass lanes • Keep the rural feel • Fiscally responsible building • Acknowledge policy against widening roads between intersections • Improve safety • Desire for separate bike trail (west end) CDOT R4 10601 W 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 . ro; 7c• 3 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Weld County (Segment 2-5) • Right-of-way preservation ■ Work with community partners • Identify future bottleneck locations ■ Interest in widening corridor to 4 lanes Erie (Segment 2) • Improve traffic flow • North/South turn lane improvements • Congestion at WCR 7 • Commercial Development at WCR 7 ■ Improvements for bicycles • Identify right-of-way needs Frederick • Safety improvements for I-25 Frontage Road intersection ■ Improve North -South pedestrian connectivity (Segment 2) • Consider adequate turn lanes to improve congestion • Improve roadway safety Dacono • Safety concerns at WCR 17 • Improve pedestrian safety at Colorado (WCR 13) (Segment 2) • Improve pedestrian safety at Glenn Creighton • Interest in improving connections for vulnerable populations Fort Lupton • Potential to close Grand Ave intersection • Extension of lower "in -town" speed limits (Segment 3) • Right-of-way preservation • Intersection improvements at WCR 19 • Pedestrian crossings desired near the river (overpass or underpass) Hudson ■ Improve bike/ped movements across CO 52 ■ Improve railroad crossings (Segment 4) • Maintain town character ■ Discourage truck use along CO 52 • Right-of-way preservation Keenesburg • Roadway improvements for freight ■ Widen shoulders (Segment 5) • Right-of-way preservation • Commercial development planned at CO 52 / WCR 59 • Wild animal sanctuary traffic on WCR 53 The study corridor is primarily rural apart from more urban areas near I-25 and Fort Lupton. In addition to the l- 25 and Fort Lupton areas, urban sections are also being considered between WCR 7/Aggregate Blvd. and Silver Birch and through Hudson due to the more urban feel in these locations. Rural roadway sections are also being considered in these areas, consistent with existing conditions. CDOT R4 10601 W 10t Street Greeley, CO 80634 4 0 '; COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 The rural roadway character alternatives include adding or widening a shoulder to increase safety as well as adding general purpose lanes, auxiliary lanes, and medians treatments where traffic projections and access warrant. The team held several meetings that focused on individual segments to develop alternatives that had potential to meet project needs and goals while still addressing stakeholder concerns. The list of Alternatives to be Evaluated below summarizes the alternatives considered along the corridor. Final Range of Alternatives to be Evaluated • No Action • 2 Lane Rural • 2 Lane Urban • 2 Lanes with Peak Period Shoulder • 2 +1 Alternating Passing Lane • 2 Lanes + Reversible Lane + 2 Lanes + HOV/Managed Lanes • 4 Lane Rural • 4 Lane urban ■ 6 Lane urban Based on adjacent land use, environmental concerns, traffic and safety concerns, truck percentages, and geometric evaluation, not all alternatives were considered throughout the entire corridor. LEVEL 1 EVALUATION The goal of the Level 1 Evaluation was to assess a full range of alternatives based on the corridor Existing Conditions Report to determine whether alternatives would meet purpose and need appropriately. The Needs defined for the corridor were to increase in safety, accommodation of increased travel and freight demand, and support of multimodal connections. Each Alternative was evaluated according to the established evaluation criteria. • Does this alternative have the potential to improve safety by way of crash frequency, crash severity, ped/bike safety, roadway geometry, truck/oversize vehicle safety, and freight safety? • Does this alternative have the potential to accommodate projected travel and freight demand by way of congestion, corridor capacity travel times, travel reliability, and quality of traffic operations? • Does this alternative have the potential to increase and not preclude multimodal mobility by way of local and regional route connectivity, non -motorized opportunities, bicycle connectivity, and pedestrian crossings? Level 1 evaluation was limited to a simple yes or no to the questions above for alternatives to advance to Level 2. Study team members, as well as members of the Project Management and Technical teams had the opportunity to review and discuss inputs to this table as well as the alternatives progressing to the next tier. The full Level 1 Evaluation Matrix can be found in Attachment B. CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 /81,, 5 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Result of Level 1 Multiple alternatives were screened within each segment and the following language was used to document the findings: Carried Forward: meets Purpose and Need, considered reasonable and feasible, and may be considered for further evaluation in this study or subsequent NEPA and Project development Retained as Element: does not fully meet Purpose and Need, but will be evaluated as packaged element of a larger -scale alternative Eliminated: does not meet Purpose and Need, has a fatal flaw, and/or is considered unreasonable. A project alternative that is Eliminated is removed from further consideration in the PEL Study. The Project Team conducted the evaluation and several alternatives were considered to not meet the needs of the Study and therefore not carried to Level 2 for further evaluation. Eliminated alternatives are shown below in Table 3. CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 6 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Segment Alternative 1 Table 3. Eliminated Alternatives 2+1 Alternating Passing Lanes Reason Configuration does not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment. 1 2 Lanes plus Reversible Lane Configuration does not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment. 2 HOV/Managed Lane Demand for HOV/Managed lane insufficient 3 2 Lanes w/ 10' shoulder and turn lanes at intersections Minimal benefit over No Action 3 2 Lanes w/ 10' shoulder and turn lanes at intersections Precluding passing reduces operations performance; limited safety benefit over no -build option 3 2 Lane w/ Peak Period Shoulder Lane Precluding passing reduces operations performance; limited safety benefit over no -build option 3 Fort Lupton Bypass Evaluation was filled out by route perspective (SH 52), some outcomes may vary if evaluated at regional level. (per the City of Fort Lupton concern for economic vitality with a bypass) 4 2 Lanes w/ 10' shoulder and turn lanes at intersections Minimal benefit over No Action 4 2 Lanes w/ 10' shoulder and turn lanes at intersections Precluding passing reduces operations performance; limited safety benefit over no -build option 4 2 Lanes w/ Peak Period Shoulder Lane Precluding passing reduces operations performance; limited safety benefit over no -build option 4 2 Lanes plus Reversible Lane Configuration does not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment. LEVEL 2 EVALUATION After assessing the full range of alternatives in Level 1 and narrowing the options to only the alternatives that meet project needs, the team moved to Level 2. During the Level 2 analysis, alternatives were evaluated based on more detailed criteria related to project needs as well as how well they met the project goals. Each Alternative was evaluated according to the established evaluation criteria shown in Attachment A. CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 "/xi" 7 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 The full Level 2 Evaluation Matrix can be viewed in Attachment C. Design Refinements and Advanced Study Areas The more detailed analysis completed during Level 2 allowed the team to make design refinements to the alternatives put forth in Level 1, mostly related to location. For example, the team added a 6 -lane alternative between WCR 7 and Silver Birch/York St. to better manage the expected traffic volumes and thereby creating a sub -segment within Segment 2. Similarly, the analysis indicated that a four -lane section wasn't required in Segment 3 east of Denver Avenue so a 2 -lane section was introduced in lids area. As part of the study, a few key locations were identified for a more in-depth study than the remainder of the corridor. These included the US 287 and CO 52 intersection in Segment 1, the Reverse Curves between WCR 15 and WCR 19 in Segment 2, and the WCR 59 and CO 52 intersection in Segment 5. CDOT R4 10601 W 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 8 a 0 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS The following map show the Recommended corridor alternatives. uogmunt i I r r=. 3 I 3 I s Boulder .Erie Fred u•i it �F-vrfor ce 'Paco'^ Figure 2. Recommended Corridor Alternatives Map 1M= 63 frcrt 1li;Aor� :�' I � r ..rF: • •1 • K:�r=rlrsh�iril Hncsunr.� r In addition to the recommended alternatives, additional alternatives were Carried Forward. These are alternatives that are considered reasonable and feasible and would be expected to perform well if implemented but were not the strongest -performing alternative. Table 4. Alternatives Carried Forward Segment 1 Alternative 2 Lanes with Peak Period Shoulder Lane 2A 4 Lane Urban 2B 4 Lane Rural 2B 4 Lane Urban 2C 4 Lane Urban 2D 4 Lane with Median Cable Rail 3B 2 Lane Urban 4A 4 Lane Rural Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call or reach out through email, 970-350-2227 or chad.hall@state.co.us. Sincerely, Chad Hall Project Manager CDOT R4 10601 W 10`hStreet Greeley, CO 80634 r-riJr • h- rG • Y" 7i.'• 9 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Attachment A: Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures CDOT R4 10601 W 10`hStreet Greeley, CO 80634 ' ""` 10 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Attachment B: Level 1 Evaluation Matrix CDOT R4 10601 W 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 11 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 Attachment C: Level 2 Evaluation Matrix CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 m c w suolpauuoj lepowpmnyy yoddns n R 0 3 3 0 a m m 5 A m 3 N o m � a a y a e m m 0 a l w' ABnl;oauuoo apAolg A;lnl;oauuoD a;nou leuopaa pue leooi suoge;ado of jeJl }o A;lleno A;plgepeJ �ane;l ;y8la.i} 3onu; }o aouasaJd kaawoa8 Aempeoa A;a}es a3lq/pad (N/A) Ala;es enwdwl of lel;uelod AouenbaJ} Limo uep;seped pue alotilq M/3 3 8 F., 3 2 a 5 a aT ,a 37 3 (' o o M N (sa;nup) sa;nulw Aq awl; eseanao (oµe') xepul ewll lane;l aseene0 pecRunu) slimed loopioo ueulsapad/alolgan eonpall •saLIM0 1O Alliance pue Aouanba;} eon pay S033N 133rOild uopengen3 annseayii mewuopad ABopmnpai ainlnj alepowwcwv spaaN MOH Palew!1s31 A}puapl suoi13 8u!uueld leuo0au pule Uoddns luawuonnu3;l!ng pue leinleN ay; iap!suo) MOH amasaid (D3 Allunl.iodd0 2 O W L IanaT ul pa]enena;oN sasn puel 8ulpunauns �o sollaylsae pue uolloun; lenycaluoj slule.lsuoo a»nosaJ leivawuoJlnu3 T !anal ul palenlena 1oN m o w 3 w 3 m a a m wv N 3 m a J n c J 3 a C m5 S ry � 3 o a 5- 3 3 d O O lsoo MOH papadxa anpelaH 4.4 A o n c o o Fi a 11.'s a Ji G o. m 3 a J J w a a c n C � a w m 3 a _ m d _ a m m $ o c .Z J d g ri m w d 4 F. v o m = mm m a Q 1 st _. a m 6 O g J O �p 6 a O O J 5-N09 1)3fOHd A N uopenien3 amseaym axueumpad Segment 1 s � N 3 wnl ual ReM-o+l a ual Rr�•auy wnl mal ReM-oml suollepowwopotl usue.l ILZEIZILEEMEEEE Crash Frequency Crash Severity Ped/Bike Safety Roadway Geometry Truck/Oversize Vehicle Safety Freight Safety Congestion Corridor Capacity Travel Times Travel Rellablllty Quality of Traffic Operations Local and Regional Route ConnectNity Hdn•hlotortled Opportunities Bicycle Connectivity Pedestrian Crossings z i maps aseanuI a n 0 3 3 0 1 d a F 7 rr n O N 3 a a � d f a a 8 luaumenv Ft. Lupton A a 5 N umy ii°l AeM-nonj ue4n curl z Segment 3 Segment 2 J a a E 125 Frontage., CO Line Reverse Curves Rd to Reverse ; Rd. to Curves WCR7 i $ t l• I. i w i ' »_ 5. i i ! g i. k !ill R_I.- C A m wn1 ilal AQM-oml 1 a Q� 6 0 A 1 11 f w 0 Crash Frequency Crash Severity 2 Ped/Bike Safety 2 Roadway GeonieUy 2 Truck/Oversize Vehicle Safety Z Freight Safety Z Congestion Corridor Capacity Travel Times Travel Reliability Quality of Traffic Operations Local and Regional Route Connectivity ftcokotorlred Opportunities Bicycle Connectivity Pedestrian Crossings i Ala;es anuidwl of Mluaiod e.g i g - Ala}es aseanul D n 0 3 3 a -n d A � 7 n v� g CL 5'w M. w a L o g G ea S v � m „ m m m m m m 3— 3 3 3 b O n 0 a5uey»alui pa;endas apeJo Segment 5 Segment 4 Hudson 1 1 ti • _ m a a v c m < m E - _ 6 c N A N A N C Yr g N `i III Hirt I sua 1 Crash Frequency Crash Severity Ped/Bike Safety Roadway Geometry Truck/Oversize Vehicle Safety Freight Safety Congestion Corridor Capacity Travel Times Travel Reliability Quality of Traffic Operations Local and Regional Route Connectivity Non•Motorized Opportunities Bkycte Connectivity Pedestrian Crossings < i i i < i 2 < 2 i z tia;es anoidwi 07 lei;ua;od Ala;es aseanui D n 0 3 3 �• N 7 w n O N 3 a m a 1 d m Co. N C ft It g O a 01 3 luawy3e1W I! I ! fly;l ,Ecl;r LINT If l€ IIIli III!:in!r `` rOH !Rif 'Ilol I I jul;I;lip h11+.�, :Elplj rrl 111 Ei111I Il If�r I ''If.!'I li! Iii, ,11111; jl! i{! ! ! Il I u +,I• N.r 141111 14i '!'i! I� i i�; II ij r' Ir sil !I� iif �4jif i i I Hi 1�1 jll 11 11 I'll rill ;I! If7,rl 1k i 9i 9i €;lifi?i llii'l € !I ,F I sf€11 iilL1€ i'lli :!Iii III No Iili, i }i1 ; II, I:III Er 11 I:I91 ;11li ON 0,, id'. !! di ;;;fill r I I r I I 1! a II Ili l � ! !!I l+l Pill I 1is11 i!ii! S ' ! : ! 11 II .111•I 11;1� I!!l!fi llli i� l!• I t I I Ili till ! ! t1 ) I! ill til I 0 I I i iii; 1111, 1`11 lti Ilii f it 1!II I!Ii "IE i1,,11 I1 1111 1 114 H4 MilI. '! I iur 1Er I I — 1li 11 1 I {i!1 k�r's, lilt ;III Iif_I 1;111 k�i k:3 ji,k Ilii1 i;ryi III, lii�i EEl�I I�lFi I i 1k11I �k -i i IS�I 11111 i 1 ill !I•k/ 11111 I{lip PO 11111 ; iil;«I Ill! r 111 611 r "I 'i 11;1 Ipzi 1! }lilll�ii 11111i�i1 I,1111111 I�iil'111 11 11 1; I !7 ti 11 11 11 11 ii I1 Itl, liq 'lill 4,1 III t r' I rl IIi,:l 11,4 III, kill ills! 1111; Il=l i!! it III E r11i1 rlli! lf: !i!t I!It ( il` ! It !tit 'Ili; lilt To 1il II,1 ;il i1} ei 111 41111 1I ISit 1 ; tsl ISI SI {11161 I: III I 1, r t I fi ;11 111 t DI 31 ;I 111 1 ;it rlli 1111 ll� it I[ !I lis Di! • 1Silsi!II !I I I I i!l 0,111,; 111 1[1 If [ i I III li €t €t 11i f t I I i. I.. ;. i i 1 it r."1:. r. E 1 .If ii ;i. 'ill E ii Ii II 7 ; II+( ! 1 11' _ .!.II lj{jInC111e{I�, 1€(11lllil 11;1 �` 110 i €7l Jlii f 3 fill PEI III i 1 pp I I :I'11;�if�iI{{EI' fi E °I� iEflE rl .: 1� 'l I ' i ii II I I i i I I 3i� I ',NO 11�:: I I I 11111Ilk"; ,n l I f jl? ' III1 I� I' l k // Appendix D: FHWA PEL Questionnaire Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 Appendix E: Existing Conditions Report Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 Appendix F: Technical Memos 1. Logical Termini Memo 2. Project Terminology Memo 3. Purpose and Need Memo 4. State Policy Memo 5. Transit Memo 6. Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memo 7. Telework Analysis - Sensitivity Model Run Memo 8. Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Memo 9. Freight Memo 10. Traffic Technical Memorandum 11. Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo 12. Alternatives Analysis Terminology Memo 13. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo 14. Emerging Technology Opportunities Memo 15. Potnetial Funding Technical Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix F-1 Logical Termini Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Brian Dobling-Federal Highway Administration, Project Manager From: Chad Hall, PE-CDOT R4, Project Manager Date: May 13, 2020 Subject: Logical Termini Memo for State Highway 52 PEL Study in Boulder and Weld Counties, CO On July 23, 2019, CDOT and FHWA held a pre-scoping to determine the appropriate study approach for the State Highway (CO) 52 corridor within Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado. Participants of the meeting concluded that a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study is an appropriate study method, and that the extents of project logical termini should be CO 119 on the west and CO 79 on the east. The FHWA guidance on NEPA implementation and transportation decision -making includes guidance on criteria to frame selection of transportation improvements (23 CFR 771.111[f]). Those three guiding principles are identified below: 1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; 2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. In order to streamline subsequent analysis during NEPA, the CO 52 PEL Study will apply the above FHWA general principles. This memo addresses a requirement of the CDOT PEL process, which includes a description of the selection and rationale of the PEL logical termini and justification for independent utility for a given PEL corridor. Logical project termini are defined as rational end points for a transportation improvement that allow for evaluation of environmental matters on a broad scope (23 CFR 771.111[f]). Meeting participants determined that the CO 52 PEL corridor between CO 119 and CO 79 would connect logical termini to address environmental matters on a broad scope, provide independent utility for a reasonable expenditure on future transportation improvements, and would not require additional study corridor outside of these extents to consider alternatives for all reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. The following factors contributed to the justification of logical termini: 1. There is a decline in traffic volumes outside of the eastern terminus since residential development decreases east of Hudson. 2. An Access Control Plan was scoped and funded along the corridor between CO 119 and US 85 in 2017. The PEL corridor was lengthened to include corridor communities anticipated to experience further development and growth. 3. The PEL corridor was lengthened to include corridor communities anticipated to experience further development and growth. 4. A resurfacing project is planned for the corridor east of CO 79. 1 of 2 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Logical Termini Memo Should you have any additional questions please reach out to Chad Hall at Lhaci.i,all@state.ca.cs or 970- 350-2227 2of2 Appendix F-2 Project Terminology Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study / Access Control Plan To: Chad Hall, Project Manager, CDOT R4 From: Kelly Maiorana, Muller Date: June 4, 2020 Subject: CO 52 Project Terminology This memo describes the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) / Access Control Plan (ACP) general project terminology. CDOT suggested this memo to help the project team organize early -stage project components and to provide a consistent terminology framework when producing deliverables for the project. This memo specifically presents definitions and descriptions for the project Reason, Vision, Purpose and Need, and Goals. Reason The project Reason is driven by the desires and concerns of project stakeholders. Project stakeholders have identified various issues along the corridor which resulted in the creation of the SH 52 Coalition. The Reason for this PEL is a high-level overview that explains why we are doing this project and what outcomes need to be included in the PEL to make it a success. The Reason drives the development of the Vision, which drives the Purpose and Need. Vision The Vision is a unifying statement that will reflect a long-term view for the corridor. It considers regional planning efforts as well as local desires for how CO 52 will function in the future. The Vision is developed by combining stakeholder Reasons for the project and finding common themes that unite the interests of all project stakeholders. Purpose and Need The project Purpose is an action statement that expresses the attainment of the project Vision. Existing conditions data will identify the greatest Needs along the corridor. This is the foundation for the alternative analysis process and will provide a way to determine the project's short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The Purpose and Need addresses transportation related themes and is crafted in a way to allow it to be carried forward into NEPA for future federally funded projects along the CO 52 study corridor. Goals Project Goals are specific, actionable statements that support the Purpose and Need. These Goals are identified by stakeholders and may include non -transportation related concepts. Goals can be used to help focus the range of improvements. 1 Appendix F-3 Purpose and Need Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 4 CDOT R4 10601 W 10`h Street Greeley, CO 80634 October 28, 2020 Troy Halouska CDOT Environmental Programs Branch 2829 W Howard Place Denver CO, 80204 Subject: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study — Final Purpose and Need Memo Dear Mr. Halouska: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has revised the Purpose and Need Memo to address FHWA comments for CO 52 PEL Study (CO 119 to CO 79). Please submit to Stephanie Gibson, Environmental Program Manager and Brian Dobling, FHWA Area Engineering, as acknowledgement and completion of this second FHWA Coordination Point as a part of the Planning and Environmental Linkages process. Should you have any additional Nuestions or comments please do not hesitate to reach out through email, rhad.hallPstate.co.0 or 970-350-2227. Sincerely, r, '-14 Chad Hall Project Manager Attachment: CO 52 PEL Final Purpose and Need Memo 10601 W 10' Street, Greeley, CO 80634, P 303-546-5649 www.codot.gov ' Lri * 1 i&P CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) / Access Control Plan (ACP) TO: Brian Dobling, FHWA; Stephanie Gibson, FHWA From: Chad Hall, CDOT R4; Troy Halouska, CDOT HQ Date: October 28, 2020 Subject: CO 52 PEL Purpose and Need Memo CDOT initiated this PEL Study to identify and assess potential transportation solutions along the CO 52 corridor in Weld and Boulder Counties. The Purpose and Need statement was developed in coordination with stakeholders, including the state and local jurisdictions located along the corridor and those represented in the CO 52 Coalition Purpose of Transportation Improvements The purpose of the recommended transportation improvements is to increase safety, accommodate increased travel and freight demand, and support multi -modal connections. Need of Transportation Improvements This section summarizes the transportation needs for the CO 52 corridor with a more detailed description that supports of each of the needs from the Existing Conditions Report. In summary, transportation improvements are needed to: • Increase Safety — Increased highway access from continued development, high percentages of truck traffic, poor pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and geometric issues have resulted in safety concerns along the corridor. • Accommodate increased travel and freight demand — Traffic congestion from additional commuter and freight traffic has decreased travel time reliability. Increased corridor use requires roadway improvements to accommodate the movement of people, goods, and services. ■ Support multimodal connections — Stakeholder input and prior planning efforts identified the need to improve north -south pedestrian mobility and support enhanced parallel connectivity. Increase Safety The need for corridor improvements to support the increases in development has resulted in safety concerns at intersections and other locations along the CO 52 corridor. Crash Data A review of CDOT's statewide crash history between July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019 indicates that 1,603 crashes were reported on CO 52 in the study corridor. Of the total crashes, 1,095 were property damage only (PDO), 495 resulted in injuries, and 13 crashes resulted in 15 fatalities ( CO 52 PEL & ACP Figure 1). Rear -end crashes accounted for 50 percent of all crashes, primarily occurring near intersections and urban areas with concentrated access points. Overall, the frequency and severity of crashes at intersection locations were about average when compared to similar facilities. The next most common crash types were broadside and approach turn at 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively. These crashes were focused at intersections, both signalized and stop -controlled side street approaches, where gaps in traffic are less frequent for motorists attempting to turn onto or cross i.0 .52. Of the total crashes, 69 percent were classified as intersection or intersection -related crashes. Most crashes occurred in the western half of the corridor and tend to be clustered near major intersections and adjacent development. As development continues, there is concern that crashes will continue to rise near major intersections and adjacent to developments. Figure 1 CO 52 Crash Distribution Breakdown CRASH TYPE DISTRIBUTION CO 52A - ALL CRASHES (MP 0.00 - MP 42.00) 1,603 TOTAL CRASHES rear end (796) 50% + broadside (200) 12% approach tum (177) 11% cl sideswipe (same direction) (132) 8% fixed objects (117) 7% all other types (<5% each) (181)11% Property Damage Only (1095) Injuries (495) Fatilities (13) (V1/2000 -12/31/20V) overturning sideswipe (opposite dir) wild animal overtaking turn head on 40 39 22 21 18 domestic animal 10 vehicle debris or cargo 9 parked motor vehicle 9 other non -collision 5 involving other object 3 pedestrian (all other) 2 railway vehicie/light rail i 1 large rocks/boulder 1 bicycle 1 CDOT's Safety Performance Function (SPF) analysis procedure revealed 17 intersections that exhibited high crash frequency and have a high potential for crash reduction. Two intersections were rated with a level of service safety (LOSS) III but were the location of a fatal crash occurrence and could be considered at an equal priority level for improvement recommendations as intersections with a LOSS IV (Table 1). Table 1 Intersections with High Potential for Crash Reduction - 4.67 8.17 10.39 US 287 WCR 3 Puritan Way 1—10.95 West Frontage Road (I-25) 11 08 SB 1-25 Ramps 11.21 ( NB 1-25 Ramps 11.45 East Frontage Road (I-25) 12.81 •Vh Flying Circle Boulevard 13.19 Colorado Ave (WCR 13) 13.45 Cherry Street 13 64 Forest Street 13.9 Mac Davidson Drive 16.42 WCR 19 2540 WCR 37 27.46 WCR 41 29.07 West Frontage Road (I-76) 36.92 WCR 59 37.92 WCR 61 4194 CO 79 (WCR 69) 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Yes No No 47 12 28 59 1 Yes Yes YBS Yes Yes Yes No No No No No I 26 17 28 6 99 23 79 29 20 11 40 15 5 2 10 2 3 20 5 4 No No No No No 11 3 3 6 2 0 CO 52 PEL & ACP 0 0 0 1J? 15 35 IV IV 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 :5 43 V 34 V 122 IV 108 IV 31 IV 56 8 kll 12 IV 6 IV 25 IV r IV 14 IV 12 IV 5 IV IV .� fy IV IV IV III le IV IV �V IV IV Although non -intersection crashes are less prevalent (31 percent of total crashes), three head-on collisions and one fatality occurred near the reverse curves segment situated in the vicinity of WCR 17 (MP 15.50 and MP 15.70). Field observations also identified two non-standard intersections on the reverse curves (MP 15.00 and MP15.65). Truck Freight The presence of truck freight varies along the corridor. In the Boulder County portion of the corridor, the percentage of truck traffic varies from 2.8 percent near CO 119 to 5 percent at County Line Road. A large increase in truck traffic occurs along the Weld County portion of the corridor from west to east. Truck traffic accounts for 6.5 percent of traffic at I-25 and increases to 19 percent in the final section nearing CO 79. In addition to truck freight, CO 52 is designated as a hazardous materials and oversize vehicle route from CO 119 to CO 79. The corridor provides an east -west freight route for the northern Denver metropolitan area that has relatively few horizontal and vertical clearance issues. Among the types of oversized cargo are wind turbine blades from the Windsor and Greeley area. Due to the corridor's crucial role in moving freight, CO 52 improvements must ensure that freight mobility is maintained in a safe and efficient manner. Intersections, turning paths, lane widths, horizontal and vertical clearances, and shoulders should be designed to accommodate the frequent movement of semi -tractor trailer trucks and oversized loads. Stretches of the corridor with higher truck traffic can significantly increase travel time and bottleneck situations which can lead to safety concerns and impact the travel time reliability of the corridor. isfp,ICO 52 PEL & ACP Geometric Issues Geometric issues result in a significant safety issue along CO 52. Spot deficiencies were identified throughout the corridor where headwalls, narrow bridges, or irrigation features are located directly adjacent to the roadway or within the clear zone. Ditches and trees were observed encroaching on the clear zone along corridor stretches east of Fort Lupton. These geometric deficiencies increase the risk and severity of potential crash occurrences. Poor pavement conditions were observed trom east of I-25 through Dacono to WCR 19 and from east of US 85 through Fort Lupton to WCR 29 %. Shoulder widths are inconsistent along the corridor, ranging from 2- and 10 -feet throughout most of the corridor and no shoulders east of Hudson. Improved pavement conditions and consistent shoulder widths are necessary should a motorist need to take evasive action, recover control of their vehicle, or pull a disabled vehicle out of the path of traffic. Safety concerns occur at locations along the corridor where vertical curves do not meet design criteria (MP 21.5, WCR 43, MP 32.15, WCR 53, and WCR 55). Vertical sight issues can increase the risk and severity of crashes due to lowered sight distances decreasing reaction times and ability to safely evade obstacles. Noncompliant grades can also cause issues with safely braking a vehicle or with rider comfort. There are 51 bridge structures along the project corridor. Major structures account for 22 of the identified structures. Results of -a structures field visit- identified anabsenceof guardrail at several major and minor structures along the corridor. The presence of guardrail helps cars to maintain travel along the roadway prism, as well as prevent major accidents where vehicles leave the roadway prism along major structures (span length of 20 feet or greater) and minor structures (span length between 4 feet and 20 feet). Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities High traffic volumes and high travel speeds along CO 52, paired with a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor, create safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along and across CO 52. There are currently no designated bicycle routes along CO 52; however, shoulders along much of the western section from CO 119 to US 85 are 4 -feet or greater. The shoulders provide some physical infrastructure for east -west bicycle connectivity between CO 119 and Fort Lupton, but high vehicle travel speeds result in a level of traffic stress (LTS) of 4 (Figure 2). In addition, gaps in shoulders at major intersections (95th St, US 287, I-25, and US 85) make it challenging for bicycle crossings. Shoulders east of Fort Lupton to CO 79 vary from less than 2 -feet to not present. Bicyclists are forced to mix with vehicular traffic in these sections, further increasing difficulty and discomfort. Figure 2 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis City Boundary Stream Lake 120 CO 52 PEL & ACP Level of Traffic Stress: Segments Level of Traffic Stress: Crosstrgs 0 immr 3 0 r®®, 2 f[ 2 4 7 CO 52 PEL & ACP Crossing CO 52 is a significant challenge for bicyclists and pedestrians. Of 80 intersections, only 20 are signalized intersections and only two existing multi -use trails cross CO 52; the LOBO Trail crosses at an underpass just west of 79th St, and the Firestone/Legacy/Old Railroad Trail crosses CO 52 at -grade at Colorado Boulevard. Accommodate Increased Travel and Freight Demands A review of data from the Existing Conditions Report supports the need for improvements to anticipate the continued growth of both residential communities and freight movement along the project corridor. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes create areas of congestion throughout the CO 52 corridor; lack of capacity at major signalized intersections is a major contributor. The result is delay to the traveling public with lengthy queues forming at multiple locations along the corridor. Between CO 119 and WCR 19 there are current delays with travel time indices at 1.3 (AM, in westbound direction) and 1.2 (PM, in eastbound direction). By 2045 they are expected to range from 1.8 to 2.1. From WCR 19 to WCR 31, the travel time index will increase to 1.2 to 1.4 (Figure 3). East of this location, the travel time index is expected to remain at or near 1.0. In the 2045 No Action scenario, travel times for the entire corridor are expected to increase by 22 percent to 31 percent during peak hours, with the western half expected to see increases of up to 71 percent in travel times. no CO 52 PEL b ACP Figure 3 CO 52 Segment Operations - September 2019 f . y 1.6 c ' 1 4 v 1-2 1 d E 0.8 O r N M Q N .p r m P O , r ‘ m I.. E a Y a 60 1 11 — AO I 1 20 0 a N M a Lc, a r Milepost zs= N N M v N N N AM Peak PM Peak Speed Limit M MM a� uu'�J .p �mm N N N N M M M M M M M M M " e C J r K i 1 rl 1� a N M a m Q x� N N N N N N N N N � M M M M M M M M M M Q RnNi ➢FR wQ I ERIE FREDERICK 1 DACONO TFUR tUPIUN 4A KEENESBURG I � Bottleneck m m F` 14 1.2 1 1 0.8 60 t m P O r r r g � N Mi] a post f AM Peak PM Peak --- Speed Limit N N N N N N N M M M M M 2 M M i M M Q � P N N N N N M M M M NI M M„co o M Q V N a EASTBOUND CO 52 - CO 52 PEL & ACP Corridor Growth and Development CDOT's travel demand model, StateFocus (Version 1.4), uses socioeconomic growth projections to generate projected travel demand. 2045 No Action traffic volumes are projected to increase 40 to 55 percent in Boulder County, and over 90 percent in Weld County between Colorado Boulevard and US 85. Between US 85 and I-76, an increase of 6,000-7,000 vehicles per day is projected; east of I-76 will see an increase of 1,500 vehicles per day or less. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on CO 52 is projected to increase 74 percent between CO 119 and CO 79, from 308,000 VMT in 2015 to 534,000 in 2045. This growth is due in part to increases in residential development along the corridor. As current agricultural or undeveloped land along the corridor becomes developed, into mostly residential areas, CO 52 will be utilized more frequently to connect to employment centers within the region. This is accentuated due to CO 52 serving as one of the main east -west corridors in the area. This may particularly affect connections to major north -south roadways such as CO 119, I-25, US 85, and I-76. Improvements will need to anticipate the projected traffic volumes to identify potential improvements that will increase travel time reliability along the project corridor. CDOT's StateFocus model projects that the number of households within the corridor study area (defined as 3 -mile buffer on either side of CO 52 extending from CO 119 to CO 79) will more than double by 2045, adding over 30,000 households for a total of nearly 54,000. As current agricultural or undeveloped land along the corridor is developed, CO 52 will d `o be utilized more a��u more �� connect �nect employment centers within the region, significantly increasing the commuter traffic in the area. This growth could further increase congestion and reliability issues near major intersections. Freight The Upper Front Range 2045 Regional Transportation Plan identified CO 52 as a freight corridor in Colorado, which is a critical route that facilitates the movement of goods. Approximately 35 -miles of CO 52 is located in Weld County, which is one of the state's top three agricultural producers and the number one producer of oil and gas in the state of Colorado. These industries require substantial amounts of heavy, lower -speed, and oversized vehicles. When roadway characteristics do not accommodate vehicle travel around slow -moving equipment, bottlenecks occur. Freight rail lines traverse the corridor at three locations. The western crossing is located immediately east of CO 119, is 56 -feet wide, has one set of tracks, and averages 6 trains per day. The central crossing is in Fort Lupton, is 56 -feet wide, has one set of tracks, and averages 10 trains per day. The eastern crossing is in Hudson, is 40 -feet wide, has three sets of tracks, and averages 18 trains per day. All crossings are at grade and have active signalization. Rail crossings slow traffic as trains traverse the corridor and are an additional cause for low travel time reliability. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) is building a Logistics Center at I-76 and CR 49, just north of the CO 52 corridor. This 430 -acre facility will feature 15 sites for customers to ship via individual railcars and a unit train site for customers to ship entire trainloads. The improvements are designed to help customers more easily reach Denver and the surrounding markets via new rail -served sites. It is anticipated that this Logistics Center will increase the number of trains as well as motor vehicle freight in the surrounding area, directly impacting the CO 52 corridor. CO 52 PEL & ACP SUPPORT MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS Stakeholder input and prior planning efforts identified the need to improve north -south mobility and support enhanced parallel connectivity. Multimodal Plans It is anticipated that increased multimodal use of the corridor will continue to occur as local agencies plan for additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities parallel to and crossing the corridor. CO 52 is a critical link between many communities from east to west. However, in several communities the corridor acts as a multimodal barrier between residential areas on one side and schools, parks, or businesses on the other. The few existing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities that cross or run parallel to CO 52 are mostly located near Dacono, Frederick, Fort Lupton, and Hudson(Figure 4). Pedestrian needs are limited to these municipalities that are bisected by the corridor. Pedestrian travel is generated by schools, parks, and commercial use. In Frederick, Thunder Valley K-8 and Carbon Valley Parks and Recreation District have facilities located adjacent to or in the vicinity of CO 52. Within Fort Lupton, Fort Lupton Middle School, Butler Elementary, and Community Center Park and Recreation Center are located close to the corridor. The proximity of these facilities requires many students to cross CO 52 from the northern residential areas to these schools south of the corridor. Similar conditions exist in Hudson with Hudson Elementary and most residential areas to the south, and Hudson Memorial Park and many commercial uses primarily to the north. Overall needs of this corridor include improvements to safety and comfort level of existing pedestrian facilities by means of expanding sidewalk networks, increasing widths, detaching sidewalks from roadway edges, and installing controlled crossings where demand exists, and physical conditions allow. CO 52 PEL & ACP Figure 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • • 3 o. I I I 1 1 r , t 2 1 1 A Milepost Environmental Study Area City Boundary Stream Lake ,:?•8?r 1 ✓♦ ♦ _< I ___ _ I ♦ ♦f:„.i 1 { Bicycle Facilities — Existing Off -Street Paved Trail Exis ing Off -Street Unpaged Trail — Exis it ry On -Street Bike Fac'Ility 1' 1 r 1 L 1 ` i i L • �_ ___ _ FREDERI .—♦ — — Proposed Off -Street Paved Trail Proposed Off -Street Unpaved Trail — — Proposed On -Street Bike Facility ----- 1— ` - - - Conceptual Connection DRCOG Regional Active Transportation Corridor no CO 52 PEL & ACP I ; r ` ! - ---, { N FCRT it LEPTON r i ! �s A Milepost Environmental Study Area City Boundary r- — HUDSON. Stream Lake Bicycle Facilities — Existing Off -Street Paved Trail Existing Off -Street Unpaved Trail — Existing On -Street Bike Facility 2 2] re — — Proposed Cff St reel Paved Trail - Proposed Off -Street Unpaved Trail — — Proposed Cn-Street Bike Facility HUDSON 31 - - • Ccnceplual Connection DP.COG Regional Active Transportation Corridor KEENESHURG 82 ta-P CO 52 PEL b ACP d Pedestrian Facilities A Mfepost Emnronmental Study area City Boundary Stream Lake — Existing Off -Street Paved Trail — — Proposed Of' Street Paved IraII Ex;sting Oft -Street Unpaved Trail Proposed Off -Street Unpaved Trail ® Trailhead Ex,sung Sidewalk rDn^C: only) - - - Conceptual Connection GP CO 52 PEL & ACP ♦ Milepost Environmental Study Area City Boundary Stream Lake Pedestrian Facilities — Existing Off -Street Paved Trail — — Proposed Off -Street Paved Trail Existing Off -Street Unpaved Trail - Proposed Off -Street Unpaved Trail © Trail head — Existing Sidewalk (nacoc only) - - - Conceptual Connection CO 52 PEL & ACP Each of the individual municipalities has proposed regional bicycle facilities and improvements, including extending and building new paths as the jurisdictional populations grow (Figure 4). Stakeholder Interviews Many project stakeholders, including Fort Lupton, Hudson, Dacono, Frederick, Erie, Keenesburg, and Boulder County, have expressed a strong desire to increase the pedestrian and bicycle facilities along and across the corridor (Figure 5). An assessment of the frequency of stakeholder mentions of corridor concerns indicates that multimodal improvements has the highest number of mentions during stakeholder discussions about the project. Specific multimodal needs mentioned by stakeholders include safe crossings and connectivity to existing trails, and safe travel between residential neighborhoods, business districts, parks, and schools. On the eastern end of the corridor, Keenesburg highlighted the lack of available shoulders or bicycle facilities. As described above, the CO 52 corridor provides a critical connection for bicyclists traveling east since bicycles are not allowed on I-76. Expanded shoulder widths are essential for cyclist safety on the eastern end of the corridor. Overall, improvements are needed to meet the expected growth in travel demand for pedestrians and bicyclists between communities along and across the corridor. go CO 52 PEL & ACP Figure 5 Frequency of Stakeholder Topic Mentions Frequency of Topics Mentioned Transit Corrrectrv.ry. and Access a;i1v Future Growth Intersection Oil & Gas ❑evelop:new Stakeholder Fr:gagernen: Reg:;:nar Aop:oacn is Plann•na Access Control 2'r Reduction in Fre:gh: Hazn:a Maintain Character Reduce Congestror: Bike/Ped Access and Safety Safety ROW Preservation onne;:tivity to Local Plans and Prolecs Res•llencv CP CO 52 PEL & ACP GOALS OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The recommended transportation improvements were developed to support the project needs. The project goals should: • Consider the natural and built environment — Improvements should minimize impacts to documented environmental resource constraints to the greatest extent possible. Environmental resource constraints documented in the Existing Conditions Report included wetlands, stream channels, floodplains, potential habitat for threatened and endangered (T&E) species and general wildlife, underground and above ground utilities, historic resources, and hazardous materials. Improvements should consider the built environment through a context -sensitive approach to land uses and character along the corridor that should consider both function and aesthetic of the surrounding land uses and character. • Support local and regional planning efforts — Improvements should consider planning efforts by recognizing spatial recommendations for future and proposed local agency plans, such as multimodal connections, adjacent multi -use paths, and streetscape plans. • Identify estimated ROW needs —Recommended project alternatives will be used to define the estimated ROW needs to support future growth along the corridor. Although a separate and concurrent process, the ACP will show the estimated ROW line developed during the PEL process to support local agencies in land use decision making. • Accommodate future technology — Improvements should consider that increases in development and traffic volumes will result in changes in implementation and advancement of technology along the corridor. Transportation technology is anticipated to change within the next 20 to 30 years and improvements should consider the potential for technological advancement. Appendix F-4 State Policy Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 cr3 CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: 7/14/2021 Subject: State Policy: Safety and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Introduction This white paper provides an overview of recent policy initiatives directed by Colorado's Governor, the state legislature, and state agencies in an effort to improve safety and reduce greenhouse gas emissions These statewide priorities should be considered as part of the project development process and are integral for consideration relative to any outcomes resulting from the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study planning efforts. Safety Transportation safety policy in Colorado focuses on Vision Zero , a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.' The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) launched Vision Zero in 2015 with the 2014-2019 CDOT Strategic Highway Safety Plan which guided Colorado agencies and other stakeholders in taking action on improving transportation safety (CDOT, 2015). This was adopted after Governor Hickenlooper announced the vision of zero deaths for every individual, family and community using Colorado's transportation network, Moving Colorado Towards Zero Deaths, in 2015 (CDOT, 2015). Recent safety policy initiatives include the CDOT's Whole System, Whole Safety strategy (CDOT, 2019-2020) and the state's 2020-2023 Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan (CDOT, 2020), both described in more detail below. Recent legislation related to safety includes Colorado Senate Bill 21-260. This section provides an overview of these policy initiatives and legislation and covers how safety has been addressed in the CO 52 PEL planning process. Whole System, Whole Safety (2019) Whole System, Whole Safety (CDOT, 2019-2020) is a CDOT strategy launched in 2019 that includes both current and planned safety efforts to help reduce traffic injuries and deaths. This initiative takes a systematic, statewide approach to safety combining the benefits of CDOT's programs that address driving behaviors, the built environment, and the organization's operations. The goal is to improve the safety of Colorado's transportation network by reducing the rate and severity of crashes and improving the safety of all transportation modes. The program includes an effort to fully integrate safety in everything that CDOT does and supports real time operations. This program supports the overall strategy for Vision Zero (Vision Zero Network). 2020-2023 Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan (STSP) The 2020-2023 Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan (STSP) (CDOT, 2020) established a collaborative and shared vision and mission for transportation safety in Colorado. This plan reflects an extensive and cooperative planning effort by a multidisciplinary partnership of public agencies, private sector organizations, and advocacy groups representing transportation and safety interests statewide. 1 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan State Policy: Safety and Greenhouse Gas Emissions CDOT, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Colorado State Patrol, and the Colorado Department of Revenue are the lead agencies that directed the development of the STSP. Through collaborative discussion, data -driven analysis, and contribution of time and expertise, the STSP identifies unique, yet achievable strategies and goals to minimize fatalities and serious injuries statewide in Colorado's current transportation system. The STSP embodies the state's new safety targets for 2023 - a reduction in fatalities and serious injury crashes by 15%. It relies on the premise that every agency and jurisdiction has a role in enhancing transportation safety to the benefit of our citizens and travelers for any transportation mode and facility in Colorado through policy, planning, funding design and construction, operations, and maintenance. The STSP includes 15 Tier I (highest priority) Strategies that focus on proven countermeasures and targeted deployment, utilize current technologies, and identify roles and responsibilities for implementation. Tier II and Tier III supporting strategies are also included in the STSP. The STSP identifies performance targets for these measures to be achieved over the 2020 to 2023 period of the plan. Achieving the performance targets is dependent upon the lead agencies' attention and devotion of resources to implement the strategies. The performance targets can be achieved by successful implementation of the Tier I Strategies. Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 (2021) In June 2021, Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 Sustainability Of The Transportation System, was signed into law (httos://leg,.colorado.govisitesidefaultlfiles/202:ia 260 signed.pd1) . This legislation establishes the Freight Mobility and Safety Branch in the Division of Transportation Development, which is designed to plan, design, and implement programs and projects that enhance freight mobility and safety within the state. This branch is funded through a portion of the new electric vehicle fees. Addressing Safety in the CO 52 PEL Report The strategy from the STSP that is most applicable for the CO 52 PEL Report is to "Prioritize Safety in Transportation Planning, Facility Design, and Project Selection." The CO 52 PEL Report does this by incorporating Safety as a part of the Purpose and Need for the project and as part of the screening criteria for the alternatives evaluation process. The consideration and prioritization of performance metrics applicable to safety along the CO 52 corridor ensures future improvements will align with the vision and mission set forth in the STSP. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction In recognition of the role that transportation plays in greenhouse gas emissions, recent legislation and state agency policy initiatives have set the path toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions through transportation measures. These include Colorado House Bill 19-1261, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap (Roadmap) (Colorado Energy Office, 2021), and Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 Sustainability Of The Transportation System. The Pollution Reduction Planning for Transportation: Briefing Update (CDOT, 2021) highlights CDOT initiatives being considered to implement the recent greenhouse gas emissions legislation. This section provides an overview of policy initiatives and legislation and covers how greenhouse gas emissions reduction has been addressed in the CO 52 PEL planning process. Colorado House Bill 19-1261 (2019) In 2019 Colorado legislature passed Colorado House Bill 19-1261, the Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution (https://leg.coloraclo.govisitesidefaultifiles/2019a 1261 sigped.pdf) , which set ambitious 2 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan State Policy: Safety and Greenhouse Gas Emissions greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to combat climate change. This includes targets of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 26% by 2025, 50% by 2030, and 90% by 2050. This bill enabled Colorado to establish itself as a global leader on climate policy. However, Colorado House Bill 19-1261 does not include many of the specifics of how Colorado will attain the goals. It requires the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Quality Control Commission to promulgate rules to achieve the targeted reductions. It also requires the Air Quality Commission to track progress, reduce co -pollutants, and solicit input from frontline communities already experiencing harmful climate impacts. The Air Quality Control Commission is also permitted to coordinate with other jurisdictions and adopt their strategies (nenver I aw RPVIPw, 7 19). Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap (2021) The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap (Colorado Energy Office, 2021) describes actions Colorado has taken to address climate change, analyzes the current trajectory for greenhouse gas emissions, and presents a suite of actions the state can pursue in the near term to make progress toward the Colorado House Bill 19-1261 goals. This report was led by multiple agencies —the Colorado Energy Office and the Colorado Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Public Health and Environment, and Transportation. Additional support was provided by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, the Colorado Resiliency Office, and the Office of Just Transition. The goals for achieving greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets include increasing the number of electric vehicles and reducing the growth in vehicles miles traveled. The Roadmap envisions transitioning the vehicle fleet in Colorado to almost 100% zero emissions vehicles by 2050 and 100% market share for new vehicle sales of zero emissions trucks and buses by 2050. Achieving this will require close to 100% of new car sales to be electric by 2040. To reduce vehicle miles traveled, the Roadmap suggests changing the way development decisions are made regarding land use, housing, and infrastructure, which can enhance accessibility, cut pollution, and reduce the need to drive. The Roadmap implores the state to ensure that this transition is equitable and broad -based by developing policies and programs that will benefit communities that have been most heavily impacted by the pollution from transportation infrastructure, including highways and refineries. The Roadmap introduces the following potential policy solutions: ■ Trip reduction/Transportation Demand Management requirements and encouraging telecommuting for large employers. • Clean trucking strategy with multiple components, including infrastructure investments incentives for fleet turnover, and evaluation of regulatory options. • Secure new revenue to fund infrastructure and incentives to transition to electric cars, trucks, and buses. • Offer incentives for land use decisions by local governments that reduce vehicles miles traveled, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, and support greater access to housing near jobs. • Indirect emission source standards for some types of new development. • Expand public transit, including Front Range Passenger Rail and completion by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) statutorily required FasTracks system that voters passed in 2004, including the Northwest Rail. ■ Develop an Electric Vehicle Equity study to ensure access to electric vehicles for all Coloradans. • Provide input into development of new clean car standards by both the federal government and for state -based standards. 3of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan State Policy: Safety and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The sum of emissions reductions from all of the strategies, once fully developed, is designed to meet the 2030 transportation sector reduction targets set in the Roadmap and to align with the 2050 goals adopted in Colorado House Bill 19-1261. Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 (2021) In June 2021, Governor Polis signed Colorado Senate Bill 21-260, Sustainability Of The Transportation System, into law. The bill includes an extensive transportation fee and spending measure, with more than $5 billion to be spent over the next decade. The bill emphasizes electric vehicle adoption and expansion of mass transit, including the potential Front Range Passenger Rail system (Durango Herald, 2021). In terms of transportation -related greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the legislation includes the following strategies: • Implements air quality mitigation measures before federal and state sanctions occur. (CDOT, 2021) • New requirements for regionally significant projects, including: (CDOT, 2021) o Requirements for CDOT and the Colorado Transportation Commission to develop and implement new procedures and guidelines that account for the impact these projects will have on statewide greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. At a minimum, these procedures and guidelines must: • Implement rules issued pursuant to C.R.S. § 5-7-105 (Air Quality Control Commission). • Otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help achieve targets established in C.R.S. § 25-107-2 (g) (Colorado House Bill 19-1261 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals). Apply same level of analytical scrutiny to greenhouse gas emissions as other pollutants of concern. • Consider the role of land use. o CDOT (and Denver Regional Council of Governments and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization) must update their plans to comply with these policies by October 1, 2022. o Use models to determine air pollutant emissions impacts and provide monitoring and measurement of criteria pollutants prior to construction. o Develop and implement a Particulate Matter Construction Plan to provide continuous monitoring, public alerts, and action plans to prevent emission exceedances (focus on disproportionately impacted communities and develop and implement a plan to mitigate air quality impacts on communities). o With the exception of I-270, applies only to projects that do NOT have a signed National Environmental Policy Act document as of July 1, 2022. o Requires a review and update to the Department's public engagement plan for capacity projects. Draft Pollution Reduction Planning for Transportation: Briefing Update (2021) In response to the new legislative language in Colorado Senate Bill 21-260 and months of stakeholder discussions, CDOT is currently planning to propose to the Colorado Transportation Commission that it undertake a formal rulemaking process for pollution reduction planning, which would amend the current state planning rules in order to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions levels for transportation. This would separate targets for CDOT and metropolitan planning organization transportation plans. This rule will include establishment of a processes to demonstrate and enforce 4of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan State Policy: Safety and Greenhouse Gas Emissions compliance. The Transportation Commission rule would focus on the connection between public sector - funded transportation projects and vehicle travel. At the June 2021 Transportation Commission Meeting, CDOT staff presented Pollution Reduction Planning for Transportation: Briefing Update (Briefing). The Briefing stated that the purpose of establishing greenhouse gas emissions pollution standards for transportation projects is to create a standardized framework for assessing the expected impacts that a project or plan will have on consumer driving behavior. The goal is for project level decisions and planning level decisions to consider these impacts, among other considerations, and ensure that as state and metropolitan planning organization plans are updated and developed, projects within them fit within a fixed target when measuring cumulative emissions impacts. The Briefing also outlines CDOT's new approach to the National Environmental Policy Act, which seeks to go above and beyond the minimum federal requirements. This includes modeling additional metrics such as fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and induced demand for major projects currently underway, and such analysis will become a consistent expectation in project reviews moving forward. CDOT is exploring advanced mitigation to proactively identify ways to offset negative impacts of projects, as well as include elements that yield positive benefit for the community during construction and beyond. CDOT is also improving internal policies, such as requiring for the first time that communities follow the Department's process for approving new interchanges, which includes consideration and incorporation of transportation demand management strategies. Other proposed implementation strategies in the draft rule include: • Guidance on how different types of projects "score" in terms of greenhouse gas footprint, as well as a clear process for how those calculations are established and then updated. • Outline a process for evaluating different categories of projects that can serve as mitigations, primarily by virtue of showing a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. • Scope an evaluation process for how modeling for mitigations should be conducted and approved -- including transparency measures -- to ensure a public conversation about that process as well as a resulting policy that can be nimble and iterative. As of the June 2021 Transportation Commission meeting, the Proposed Resolution #11: Greenhouse Gas is on hold (CDOT, 2021). This document will be updated to include feedback provided at the June 2021 Transportation Commission. Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the CO 52 PEL Report These greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies are applicable to the CO 52 PEL Report, as the report will consider long-term transportation planning and project implementation along the corridor. Transportation infrastructure planning, funding, engineering, and construction can take several years, and it is imperative that the implementation process is consistent with Colorado House Bill 19-1261, the Roadmap, and Colorado Senate Bill 21-260. The CO 52 PEL Report recommendations for improvements are generally provided at a high level, without much detail on the design of the improvements. Because the recommendations are at a high-level, no air quality or greenhouse gas emissions metrics were used; however, next steps and the environmental process scoping recommendations will emphasize air quality and greenhouse gas emissions considerations and analyses. Projects that result from the recommendations set forth in the CO 52 PEL Report will be subject to applicable federal and state air quality and greenhouse gas emissions environmental regulations and processes, including those established in Colorado House Bill 19-1261, Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap, and Colorado Senate Bill 21-260, as applicable. 5of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan State Policy: Safety and Greenhouse Gas Emissions References Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2019-2020. Whole System, Whole Safety Fact Sheet. littps://www.codot.gov/safety/assets/wsws-fact-sheet.pdf Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2020. CDOT's new campaign reminds drivers to drop the distraction as they head back out on the roads. http_sjiwww.codot.gov/news/2020/june- 2020/cdots-new-campaign-reminds-drivers-to-drop-tire-distraction-as-they-head-back-out-on-the-roac€s Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2020a. 2020-2023 Colorado Strategic Transportation Safety Plan. https://www.codot.gov/safety/safetydata/safetyplanning/assets/strategictr'a nsportationsafetyplan. pdf Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2020. Strategic Transportation Safety Plan. https:Ilwww,codot.PavJsafetylsafetydatalsafetyt�larining6Lg Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2021. Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2020-2021. https://www.codot.gov/performance/assets/cdotperformancepfa n, pdf Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2021. June Transportation Commission Materials. https://www.codot.goviaboutitra n s po rta ti o n -co m m iss io n Jm eet i ny,-agenda. litre I Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 202.1. COOT Launches Moving Towards Zero Deaths. https://www.codotgov/safety/cdot-launches-movie towards -zero -deaths Colorado Energy Office. 2021. Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap. https://drive.goog,le.corn/fiief d/IjztvFcrDryhhs9ZkT UXkQM OLiiY2fg/view Denver Law Review. 2019. Implementation of HB 1261. iittps://www.denverlawre_view.org/dlr-online- a rticie/implernentation-of-hh-1267. The Durango Herald. 2021. Colorado Legislature sends transportation bill to governor. httpsAwww:durangoherald.com/articleskolorado-le islature-sencls-transportation-bill-to-governor/ Vision Zero Network. What is Vision Zero? https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/ 6of6 Appendix F-5 Transit Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 tap CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: April 16, 2021 updated June 15, 2021 Subject: Transit Analysis Methodology and Results Executive Summary As a part of the CO 52 PEL study, an analysis was performed to explore the viability of transit options along the CO 52 corridor. The analysis considered transit route options along the western portion of the corridor, providing ridership estimates for year 2045 under differing scenarios. Analysis of the CO 52 corridor of daily ridership forecasts from the travel demand model in year 2045 indicates fewer than 200 riders per day for a transit route along CO 52. This is relatively low compared to other routes in the region despite the generous route frequencies, addition of PnRs along the corridor, and direct connections to other routes in the region. A lack of dense employment/population centers along the corridor is likely the greatest factor in the ridership forecasts. The following documents the methodology, assumptions, and results of the transit analysis. Background CDOT's travel demand model was used to forecast future travel along the CO 52 corridor for the CO 52 PEL study. The travel demand model, StateFocus (Version 1.4), uses socio-economic projections for the State of Colorado to generate travel demand and distribute trips across the state's roadway and transit network. Currently, there are only a handful of transit routes that cross or travel along CO 52 through the study area. They are described below: ■ L Route — A regional route between downtown Denver and Longmont, the L is a north - south route traveling along US 287 through the study area. The L stops at the US 287 / CO 52 intersection. • Bolt and J Routes — At the far west end of the CO 52 corridor, the Bolt and J routes travel along CO 119 between Boulder and Longmont. Both routes stop at the CO 119 / CO 52 intersection. • LSX/LNX Routes — LSX connects downtown Denver and Longmont via I-25 and US 287. This route travels along CO 52 between US 287 and I-25 but has no stops on CO 52. The LNX also connects downtown Denver and Longmont but travels along I-25 through the study area. It also has no stops at CO 52. 1 of 9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results • FLEX — A regional north -south route between Boulder and Ft Collins, the FLEX travels along CO 119 at the west end of the study area. The route has no stops at CO 52. • Northline — A regional north -south route between downtown Denver and Ft Collins, the Northline travels along I-25 through the study area. The route has no stops at the CO 52 interchange. In the year 2045, the following new services are included in the planned transit system' • 119 BRT — A new bus rapid transit (BRT) service between Boulder and Longmont, the 119 BRT replaces the Bolt and J routes. This new service includes stops at the CO 119 / CO 52 intersection. Other changes in 2045 include adjustments to the L route to new route versions (LD1 and LD2) and the LX routes (LX1 and LX2). None of these adjustments changes the route stops or alignments through the CO 52 study area. Additional transit improvements in the area have been discussed but are not included in transit plans or the statewide travel demand model. This includes a CDOT Bustang route from Sterling to Denver with a stop in Hudson and a potential RTD BRT route along US 287. The Bustang route under consideration from Sterling to Denver would operate one to three days per week with one stop in the AM and one in the PM in Hudson. The RTD BRT route along US 287 was identified in the RTD Northwest Area Mobility Study of 2014 but is not in the DRCOG 2050 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan. It is less defined at this time but would most likely replace current service along US 287 and could include a stop at the CO 52 / US 287 intersection. In addition to the fixed routes discussed above, RTD operates the FlexRide program which provides extended bus service in specific Denver metro areas, including in Longmont north of the study area. Additionally, some curb -to -curb and door -through -door services operate in the area provided by private providers such as Via Mobility Services. These services commonly serve older adults, people with disabilities, and others with mobility limitations. Methodology Overview For the analysis of transit along the corridor, the project team performed multiple transit model scenarios in order to develop a range of ridership for the corridor. Three travel demand model runs were performed with the year 2045 travel demand model. The three scenarios include adding new bus service along the western portion of the corridor with variations to the route extents, service type, frequency, and stop locations. Additionally, the project team examined land uses along the corridor to identify population and employment centers that may be attractive for transit service. 2 of 9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results Transit Assumptions In order to identify potential benefits resulting from transit along the CO 52 corridor, three transit scenarios were performed using the 2045 model. Each scenario includes an east -west bus route serving the corridor, with a range of service types and frequencies. The route alignments, service types, and route frequencies were chosen in hopes of providing a range of potential ridership for year 2045. Each terminate at the western end of the corridor to connect to the BRT service on CO 119. Different eastern endpoints were tested. The three scenarios are listed below: 1. Scenario 1: Local CO 52 Route — CO 119 to/from Frederick/Dacono 2. Scenario 2: Regional CO 52 Route — CO 119 to/from Ft Lupton 3. Scenario 3: Regional CO 52 Route — CO 119 to/from Brighton A local route typically provides greater accessibility than a regional route as it has more stops and a higher frequency, along with a lower ridership fare. A regional route will have fewer stops at select locations in order to minimize travel time. Regional routes generally operate at lower frequencies and often only during peak periods. Scenario 1: Local CO 52 Route — CO 119 to/from Frederick/Dacono Scenario 1 includes a local route with extents on the west at CO 119 and on the east at Frederick/Dacono, as shown illustrated in Figure 1. The west extent is located at CO 119, providing a connection to the 119 BRT. The route does not continue southwest along CO 119 into Boulder as RTD typically avoids providing overlapping services that compete with one another. On the east end, the route ends at WCR 15, providing service to/from the Frederick/Dacono area. This terminus point provides accessibility to the route for most of the existing and future development in the Frederick/Dacono area zones along CO 52. Zones further east have low existing and future population and employment totals. The route was given a relatively high frequency, similar to high -frequency local routes in the DRCOG region and the Boulder/Longmont area. The route frequency is 15 minutes during the peak, 30 minutes during off-peak, and 60 minutes during early morning and late evening hours. Stops are located frequently along the bus route, at all major intersections and development access points along CO 52. To promote ridership, new Park -n -Rides (PnRs) were also included along the transit line at US 287, I-25, and WCR 15. Transit routes in the 2045 model that cross CO 52 at CO 119, US 287, and I-25 were adjusted, as necessary, to include stops at CO 52 to allow for transfers with the CO 52 route. This includes the Northline, which for the sake of this analysis, now exits I-25 at CO 52, stops at the PnR locations at the interchange ramp terminals, and then continues back onto I-25. Though 3of9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results not a planned improvement to the Northline, this adjustment, as with the addition of PnRs along the corridor, was included to support ridership along the CO 52 route. Figure 1 Local CO 52 Route — CO 119 to Frederick/Dacono Scenario 2: Regional CO 52 Route — CO 119 to/from Ft Lupton Scenario 2 includes a regional route with extents on the west at CO 119 and the east at Ft Lupton, as illustrated in Figure 2. East of Ft Lupton, land use density is quite sparse. Continuing the route further east was considered unnecessary as it would result in very low ridership. The route was given a relatively high frequency for a regional route. The route frequency is 30 minutes during the peak, 60 minutes during off-peak, and 120 minutes during early/late hours. Typically, regional routes have peak hour frequencies between 30 and 90 minutes and off-peak or early/late frequencies of at least 120 minutes or no service at all. This includes both the N and Y routes which serve Boulder to/from Nederland and Lyons, respectively. The multiple L routes, which serve Longmont to/from Denver via various alignments, have combined frequencies similar to the frequencies proposed for the CO 52 route. Stops are located at select locations along the route, including the major roadways (SH 119, US 287, I-25, and US 85) and at a handful of development access points including in Ft Lupton, Frederick/Dacono, and Niwot. Park -n -Rides (PnRs) were also included along the transit line at similar locations to those in Scenario 1. This includes PnRs at US 287, I-25, and at the east end of the route, which in this scenario is at the US 85 interchange just west of Ft Lupton. All adjustments to connecting north -south routes from Scenario 1 have been carried forward into Scenario 2. This includes the addition of stops along the Northline route at the I-25/SH52 interchange PnR. 4 of 9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results Figure 2 Regional CO 52 Route - CO 119 to Fort Lupton Laiiry11111W • Rrottone of 1 13nn'dr, •f1Mri c� ' •11,r 1sGl f' Scenario 3: Regional CO 52 Route — CO 119 to/from Brighton Scenario 3 is a regional route between CO 119 and Brighton, as illustrated in Figure 3. This route is the same as the route from Scenario 2, except that it extends south from Ft Lupton along US 85 to Brighton. The route connects to other local and regional routes in Brighton. All other attributes of the Scenario 2 regional route, including frequency, stop locations, PnR locations, and adjustments to north -south connecting routes, are included in Scenario 3. Figure 3 Regional CO 52 Route — CO 119 to Brighton f SoLedor w.' fe .B4 •r, 1eNel • i y uX'• } 1 �.. v •H axn • K..,..r...�i 5of9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results Forecasting Results/Comparisons Daily ridership forecasts from the travel demand model runs are illustrated in Table 1. The table shows ridership forecasts for year 2045 under the three transit scenarios described above as well as under the 2045 Base scenario, which is based on the planned transit network per the CDOT StateFocus model. Table 1 Daily Transit Ridership — Two -Way Total PROVIDER NA ROUTE ID CO 52 DESCRIPTION Local or Regional per Scenario DAILY 2045 BASE NA RIDERSHIP 2045 TRANSIT #1 171 BY ALTERNATIVE 2045 TRANSIT #2 71 2045 TRANSIT #3 141 RTD Y Regional — Boulder to Lyons 34 32 34 37 RTD N Regional — Boulder to Nederland 77 81 83 88 RTD 119 BRT BRT Boulder to Longmont 2632 2836 2789 2800 Transfort FLEX Regional Boulder to Ft Collins 1908 1915 1891 1853 RTD Long Jump (A+C) Local — Boulder to Erie/Lafayette 2264 2169 2239 2143 RTD LSX/LNX Regions! — Longmont to Denver 1351 1199 1169 1231 Bustang Northline Regional — Ft Collins to Denver 283 1006 846 831 Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Two-way ridership forecasts for the CO 52 transit routes range from 71 to 171 daily riders. The highest ridership, at 171 riders, is under Scenario 1, the local route extending from CO 119 to Frederick/Dacono. Scenario 3, the regional route extending to Brighton, has the second greatest ridership at 141 daily riders while Scenario 2, the regional route ending at Ft Lupton, has the lowest ridership at 71 daily riders. Conservatively assuming each of these transit riders would be a single -occupant vehicle driver, the models suggest that a transit route along CO 52 would decrease traffic volume by up to about 170 vehicles per day. This drop in passenger vehicle trips would be partially offset by an increase in buses, anywhere between 20 and 80 daily depending on the service, along CO 52 serving the transit route. This would also result in at least a partial offset to emissions reduction benefits from the decrease in passenger vehicles. In addition to daily ridership forecasts along the CO 52 transit route, Table 1 illustrates ridership forecasts along other routes serving the region surrounding the study area. The planned 119 BRT and the FLEX routes see slight variations in overall ridership under the three CO 52 transit scenarios, presumably from a shift in route choice and/or transfers related to the CO 52 route. The Jump A and Jump C routes, which extend east to Erie and Lafayette to/from Boulder, decrease slightly with the CO 52 route in place. This decrease is likely the result of the CO 52 route providing an east -west transit service that competes for certain trips. 6 of 9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results The Northline experiences a significant increase in riders under the CO 52 route alternatives. This bump in ridership is related to the additional stop and PnR provided at the I-25/CO 52 interchange rather than from riders traveling along the CO 52 route that transfer to the Northline. Meanwhile, the drop in ridership on the LSX/LNX is likely due to travelers shifting from the LSX/LNX to the Northline, boarding at the I-25/CO 52 stop/PnR. Socioeconomic Analysis Transit ridership is typically greater in areas with denser population and employment. As a part of this transit analysis, employment density along the project corridor was reviewed. Figure 4 illustrates the employment density by traffic analysis zone for years 2015 and 2045, according to the CDOT StateFocus travel demand model. Figure 4 Employment Density Source: CDOT StateFocus Model As Figure 4 shows, the vast majority of the CO 52 corridor exhibits employment density of less than 1 employee per acre in both years 2015 and 2045. Within the study area, growth in employment density from 2015 to 2045 occurs primarily along the CO 119 and I-25 corridors. RTD Service Standards To be consistent in the evaluation of service proposals and to ensure service is cost-effective, RTD has developed the Transit Service Policies & Standards, approved in July 2016. The document outlines RTD's current service "standards, the targets or minimum/maximum values for the standards, and a procedure for applying these standards." The standards are periodically updated. It is important to note that service expansion may occur if funds are available, just as 7 of 9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results contraction of service may occur with a lack of funds. A route meeting the minimum required service standards does not guarantee implementation. Routes are evaluated based on ridership and on a subsidy per passenger economic measure that combines fare revenue and total cost impacts. Productivity standards, separated by service class, are illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5 RTD Year 2019 Service Standards Service Class Subsidy Per Boarding Boardings Per Hour Average .10% Max 25% Max Average, 10% Min 25% Min CBD Local $5.04 $8.77 $6.99 30.9 17.7 24.0 Urban Local $5.09 $9.46 $7.38 29,1 15.1 21,8 Local $7.67 $12,80 $10.36 19.5 10.1 14,6 •Suburban Regional $6,68 $15,16 $10.90 32.2 10.4 20.8 FlexRide W $22.60 $34.09 $28.61 3.5 1.9 2.7 Rail $10.52 $17,82 $14.34 126.5 62.0 92.7 Mall $1,25 181.8 Access-a-Ride&Cab $48,44 1.4 _ Vanpool $2,90 2,7 System $7,19 32.6_ / System 2018 $6,07 31.1 With a projected ridership of fewer than 200 riders per day, varying depending on the type and scope of service, a transit route along CO 52 would most likely not meet the minimum requirements of RTD's. The RTD Service Standards also describe an area coverage standard (outside the Denver Central Business District) that combines population and employment to determine an area's potential demand for transportation. The minimum service levels for some form of transit route is 12 or more residents and employees per acre. The minimum service level for a Call -n -Ride service or Park -n -Ride service along a route is 3 to 12 residents and employees per acre. The CO 52 corridor does not meet this standard except for at the west end of the corridor at CO 119. Summary The ridership forecasts in year 2045 indicate fewer than 200 riders per day for a transit route along CO 52. This is relatively low compared to other routes in the region despite the generous route frequencies, addition of PnRs along the corridor, and direct connections to other routes in the region. A lack of dense employment/population centers along the corridor is likely the greatest factor in the ridership forecasts. There are other factors that, when met, increase ridership along transit corridors. One of these factors is having a "one -seat ride" from origin to destination, i.e. no transfers. The transfer on the west end of CO 52 to the CO 119 BRT to reach Boulder likely results in fewer potential riders. 8 of 9 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Transit Analysis Methodology and Results Additionally, a competitive travel time on transit can contribute to a boost in ridership. Having designated transit lanes may provide a slightly better travel time. However, eliminating transfers and providing dedicated transit lanes is unlikely to result in a meaningful boost to ridership totals when population and employment centers are so sparse along the corridor. Traffic volume projections along the CO 52 corridor from CO 119 to US 85 range from 16,300 to 36,200 daily vehicles under the 2045 No Action scenario. A shift of fewer than 200 persons from auto trips to transit trips would result in less than a 1% decrease in daily traffic along any given segment of the corridor. 9 of 9 Appendix F-6 Traffic Forecasting and Screenlin Parallel Routes Analysis Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: July 7,2021 Subject: Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Executive Summary This document summarizes the travel demand model traffic forecasting analysis and screenline/ parallel routes analysis for the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The document includes an analysis of traffic volumes under existing conditions for year 2020, the 2045 No Action alternative, and four 2045 action alternatives using the CDOT travel demand model. Additionally, a summary of traffic volumes at screenline locations along CO 52, and parallel routes to CO 52 is included. Currently, traffic along CO 52 from US 287 to the Dacono/Frederick area is approaching, and in some cases exceeding capacity. Under the No Action alternative, traffic volumes are expected to increase by 40% to 90% total capacity in this area by 2045. Under the 4 -Lane action alternatives, volumes along CO 52 west of Dacono/Frederick are approximately 35°/0 to 55% greater than volumes under the No Action scenario. Despite the increase in traffic along CO 52 under the 4 -lane action alternatives, the major highways that parallel the highway, CO 119 and CO 7, experience minimal impact to daily volumes. The greatest impact from the 4 -lane scenarios is that parallel roadways immediately adjacent to CO 52 experience daily volumes 5%-25% lower as compared to the No Action. East of the Dacono/Frederick area, under the No Action scenario, volumes along CO 52 generally increase 30% to 80% by 2045. Under the 4 -lane scenario, volumes between Dacono/Frederick and Ft Lupton increase nearly 50% while volumes east of Ft Lupton increase by less than 10%. 1 of 14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Background The basis for the development of the CO 52 travel demand model was the CDOT StateFocus (Version 1.4) model (CDOT Model). The CDOT Model uses socio-economic projections for the State of Colorado to generate travel demand and distribute trips across the state's roadway and transit network. For the CO 52 PEL study, the 2015 model was used as the base year and the 2045 model was used as the horizon year. The detailed travel demand forecasting methodology for the CO 52 PEL Study can be found in the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memorandum. Travel Demand Model Scenarios This section details the travel demand model runs performed for the alternatives analysis and summarizes the results, including the daily volumes along CO 52 and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and the Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) in the study area. Base Model Scenario Definitions A base year model and horizon year model were developed for the CO 52 PEL travel demand forecasting effort based on the CDOT Model. The model scenarios are described below: • 2015 Base Scenario — Roadway network adjusted to match existing 2020 conditions. Socioeconomic conditions are year 2015. • 2045 No Action Scenario — Roadway network includes existing conditions and any improvements identified in regional transportation planning documents. CO 52 is generally two lanes throughout the corridor. Because the CDOT Model does not include a year 2020 model, the CDOT 2015 Model was used as a basis for development of the CO 52 2015 Base Scenario model. To compare the 2015 Base Scenario model volumes to observed conditions, the model outputs will be factored to year 2020 to correspond with the 2020 count estimates. For the factored volumes to be comparable to existing conditions, the CDOT 2015 Model's roadway network was reviewed and adjusted where necessary to replicate 2020 roadway conditions. The roadway network within the CO 52 Study Area and surrounding area was adjusted based on recent aerial photography and known roadway improvements. The detailed steps used to develop the 2015 Base Scenario model and factor results to year 2020 volumes for comparison to real -world existing conditions are outlined in Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memorandum. 2045 Alternative Model Scenario Definitions Using the 2045 No Action Scenario model as a basis, four action scenario models were developed for the CO 52 PEL alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis scenarios included the following: 2of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis • 2045 Full Four -Lane Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from CO 119 to I-76. • 2045 West Four -Lane Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from US 287 to WCR 15 (east of Frederick/Dacono). • 2045 Middle Four -Lane to US 287 Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from US 287 to Denver Ave in Ft. Lupton. • 2045 Middle Four -Lane to County Line Rd Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from County Line Rd to Denver Ave in Ft. Lupton. The four action alternatives each include widening CO 52 to four lanes along various stretches of the highway. The extents of those four -lane segments are illustrated in Figure 1. Daily Volumes Daily volumes from the travel demand model runs were post -processed using standard travel demand forecasting methods, as outlined in the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memorandum. The daily volumes from the travel demand model runs at select locations along the 42 -mile corridor are shown in Table 1. Red text indicates the four -lane segments of CO 52. In addition, Figure 2 illustrates the volumes from west to east along the corridor under the various scenarios. Table 1 includes 2020 daily volumes that were estimated based on traffic counts from 2017 to 2019. At the time the travel demand model forecasting was performed, the Covid-19 pandemic was impacting travel patterns and obtaining year 2020 traffic counts was not viable as the counts would not reflect "normal", non -pandemic conditions. Historic counts were used instead, collected from the CDOT OTIS website, CDOT Model, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments' Focus travel demand model (DRCOG Model). The 2020 volume estimates were developed, on a location by location basis, by factoring counts to 2020 based upon historic count patterns and growth rates observed in the CDOT Model. 3of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Figure 1 2045 4 -Lane Action Scenarios 2045 Full Four -Lane Boulder 2045 West Four -Lane 2045 Middle Four -Lane to US 287 ■ LAU, i i I ■,.._,.. 2045 Middle Four -Lane to County Line Rd Ff:p.iilu _ .Ede I I i 4 -Lane Section 4 -Lane Section i 4 -Lane Section • 4 -Lane Section 4of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Table 1 Existing Counts & 2045 Daily Volume Forecasts CO 52 Segment Town Segment Begin IEnd Daily Two-VVay Volumes P020 Estimate Estimate 2045 No Action 2045 Full 4 -Lane 2045 West 4 -Lane 2045 Middle to US 287 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to County Line CO 119 to US 287 Niwol co 119 71st St 12,200 17,200 23,100 22900 18.400 18,100 71st St _ Monarch Palk PI 11,400 16,300 16,100 22 200 22 000 17.500 17,200 79th St Somerset Dr 12,400 24 600 24 500 19,300 19,000 95th St US 287 13,000 18 700 27 600 19,900 19,600 US 287 to -25 US 287 115th St 19,000 26,500 41,100 41,000 40,700 28,700 CR 5 CR 7 19.600 _ 29,300 45.000 44,800 44,400 42 500 CR 7 W I-25 Frontage 19.600 34,300 4R.4nn 48 200 _ 48 100 46 500 I-25 to US 85 Frederick / Dacono E I-25 Frontage CR 11 (York St) 25,100 36,200 50.900 49 B00 50 600 50.300 Colorado Blvd Glen Creighton Dr 15.800 30.800 42 400 39 200 42,100 41,700 Glen Creighton Dr CR 15 (Ridgeway) _ 12.600 23,800 34 000 31,100 33,700 33,500 CR 15 (Ridgeway) CR 14 11,800 18.900 27,200 22,000 26.900 CR 19 CR 21 12,000 20,900 31,100 23,000 30800 30600 CR 23 US B5 SB Ramps 11,600 21.300 an Ann 23,600 30 200 30 000 US 05 to I-76 Fl Lupton US 85 NB Ramps Grand Ave 13,800 19,300 22 900 19,600 22 600 22,600 Grand Ave Fulton Ave 12.500 17,300 19 400 17,500 19,000 19,000 Park Ave Denver Ave 11,400 18,400 20200 - 18,700 - 19,400 Denver Ave Harrison Ave Main St 10,500 17,500_ 19,100 17,700 17,000 18.500 18.500 Rollie Ave 13,700 11,500 16,900 18,200 17,600 17 600 Rollie Ave CR 29 5 18,800 20,400 19 000 19,900 19,900 CR 35 CR 37 10,300 17,100 18 500 17 200 18,000 17,900 CR 12 5 1-76 Fronde W (N) 9.200 16 200 17 200 16.300 16,700 16,700 I-76 to CO79 Hudson I-76 NB Dahlia 7.000 9.200 9300 9,200 9,300 9,300 Cedar/Hudson RR 76ng 6.680 8,800 8,900 8,800 8.900 8.900 Beech St Cherry St 4,000 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5 400 CR 49 CR 51 3,100 4,100 4,100 4.100 4,100 4.100 CR 59 _ CR fit 2.000 2,600 2,600 2.600 2,600 2,600 CR 67 CO 79 _2.000 _ 2.800 2.800 2,800 2,800 2,800 CO 79 East&CO 79 1,300 1,800 1.800 1.800 1800 1.000 Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020; model operation and volumes post -processing by HDR Note: Red text indicates CO 52 as a 4 -lane section. Figure 2 CO 52 Corridor — Daily Two -Way Volume Forecasts 50,000 40,000 30,000 20.000 10,000 0 Niwot Frederick/ Dacono CO 119 US 287 Cnty Ln 1-25 M r� 2020 Estimate 2045 No Action 2045 Full 4 -Lane 2045 West 4 -Lane 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 +2045 Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Rd 'Not to scale V _ r Ft Lupton Hudson US 85 I-76 CO 79 Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020; model operation and volumes post -processing by HDR 5of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Existing Conditions As Table 1 shows, between CO 119 and US 287, estimated daily volumes in 2020 range from 11,400 to 13,000 daily vehicles. East of US 287 to I-25, volumes are between 19,000 and 20,000 vehicles daily. CO 52 experiences the greatest traffic volumes through the I-25 interchange. Just east of the interchange, daily volumes exceed 25,000 vehicles between the East I-25 Frontage Rd and York St. Daily traffic volumes are generally in the 10,000 to 13,000 vehicle range between the Frederick/Dacono area and US 85/Ft. Lupton. East of Ft Lupton, volumes decline to about 9,000 vehicles approaching I-76. Volumes drop horn about 7,000 to 2,000 vehicles between Hudson and CO 79. East of CO 79, estimated volumes in 2020 are just over 1,000 daily vehicles. Traffic from US 287 to the Dacono/Frederick area is approaching, if not exceeding, capacity in 2020. Volumes are heavy between CO 119 and US 287 and east of Dacono to I-76, but do not generally exceed the capacity of a two-lane highway. East of I-76 and Hudson, daily volumes are very low and capacity constraints are not of concern. 2045 No Action In 2045, traffic volumes under the No Action scenario generally increase between 30`)/0 and 70% with some locations nearly doubling in volume. Daily volumes between US 287 and US 85 generally exceed 20,000 vehicles with volumes over 36,000 just east of I-25. West of US 287 volumes grow by around 5,000 vehicles daily, or about a 40% to 50% increase over existing conditions. Between US 85 and I-76, daily volumes increase about 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles, or about a 40% to 75% increase. East of I-76, growth is more modest at no more than 2,200 daily vehicles and increases of less than 40%. 2045 Full 4 -Lane Scenario The 2045 Full 4 -Lane Scenario assumed CO 52 as a four -lane highway from CO 119 to l- 76/Hudson. East of Hudson CO 52 remains a two-lane facility. The four -lane scenario sees substantial increases in daily volumes along much of the corridor. West of US 287, daily volumes increase by up to 9,000 vehicles resulting in volumes between 23,000 and 28,000. Between US 287 and Frederick/Dacono, volumes increase by 11,500 to 16,000 vehicles (about 40% to 55%). Volumes through this stretch of CO 52 range from 41,000 to 51,000. East of Frederick/Dacono to US 85, volumes increase by 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles to between 27,000 and 34,000 vehicles. East of US 85, volumes increase at a much lower rate. Through Ft. Lupton, volumes increase between about 1,500 and 3,500 vehicles per day, a 10`)/0 to 20% increase over the No Action scenario. East of Ft Lupton to I-76, daily volumes increase by about 1,000 vehicles to a range of 17,000 to 18,500. East of I-76 there is essentially no change in traffic volumes along CO 52 under the four -lane scenario. Even if CO 52 were a four -lane facility east of Hudson, volumes would be relatively unchanged as the two-lane facility provides more than enough capacity. An increase in the capacity along CO 52 associated with the 4 -lane scenario results in an increase in traffic volumes along the corridor, especially between US 287 and US 85. 6of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Other 2045 4 -Lane Scenarios The other three 2045 4 -lane scenarios include the West 4 -Lane scenario, the Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 scenario, and the Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Rd scenario. These scenarios were modeled to gauge the varying levels of demand in 2045. Daily volumes along the 4 -lane segments of each of these alternatives mirror the increased volumes reflected in the Full 4 -Lane scenario, though the increases are generally a little lower. Under the West 4 -Lane scenario, CO 52 is a four -lane facility from CO 119 to WCR 15 just east of Dacono. Daily volumes from CO 119 to I-25 are nearly the same as in the Full 4 -Lane scenario with daily volumes only 100 to 200 vehicles lower (less than a 1% difference). East of I-25 to WCR 15 in Dacono where the four -lane segment ends, volumes are up to 10')/0 lower than in the Full 4 -Lane scenario, but are still much greater than the No Action scenario by between 7,000 and 14,000 two-way daily vehicles at 31,000 to 50,000. The new four -lane segment west of WCR 15 influences volumes to the east of WCR 15. Daily volumes along the two-lane segment between WCR 15 and US 85/Ft Lupton are between 22,000 and 24,000 daily vehicles, up to 3,000 vehicles greater than the No Action scenario. East of Ft Lupton, volumes along CO 52 are essentially the same as the No Action volumes. Under the Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 scenario, CO 52 is a four -lane facility from US 287 to Ft Lupton. Daily volumes along the four -lane section are nearly the same as in the Full 4 -Lane scenario with daily volumes between 200 and 700 vehicles lower. West of US 287 to CO 119, the daily volumes along the two-lane segment of CO 52 are about 1,000 vehicles greater (about 7°/0 greater) than under the No Action scenario as the increased capacity along CO 52 to the east draws greater traffic volumes to/from the area. Similarly, east of Ft Lupton to I-76, daily volumes along this two-lane segment of CO 52 increase between about 500 and 1,000 vehicles compared to the No Action scenario, an increase around 3% to 6`)/0. East of I-76, daily volumes are the same as the No Action scenario. Under the Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario, CO 52 volumes are very similar to the Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 scenario. Only the segment between US 287 and I-25 sees much variation. From I-25 to County Line Rd, where CO 52 is a four -lane facility, daily volumes are up to 2,000 vehicles lower (up to 5% lower) than the Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 scenario. Between US 287 and County Line Rd, where CO 52 remains a two-lane facility, volumes are about 29,000 vehicles, much closer to No Action volumes. Corridor and Buffer Area Statistics Statistics from each of the travel demand model runs were compiled for the 42 -mile CO 52 corridor as well as for a three-mile buffer area surrounding the corridor. Year 2020 statistics were developed based on annual growth observed from the 2015 Base Scenario model to the 2045 No Action Scenario model. Table 2 shows the VMT, VHT, and average speed along CO 52 from CO 119 to CO 79. 7of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Table 2 CO 52 Corridor Statistics Scenario 2020 Base 2045 No Action 2045 Full 4 -Lane 2045 West 4 -Lane 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Daily VMT Miles 344,100 547,600 790,800 740,400 752,300 708,600 vs 2015 n/a +203,500 (+59%) n/a +446,700 (+130%) +243,200 (+44%) +396,300 (+115%) +192,800 (+35%) +408,200 (+119%) +204,700 (+37%) +364,500 (+106%) vs 2045 No Action n/a +161000 (+29%) Daily VHT Hours 8,000 17,200 21,700 21,000 21,200 20,100 vs 2015 n/a +9,200 (115%) +13,700 (+171%) +13,000 (+163%) +13,200 (+165%) +12,100 (+151%) vs 2045 No Action n/a n/a +4,500 (+26%) +3,800 (+22%) +4,000 (+23%) +2,900 (+17%) Daily Avg Speed MPH vs 2015 42.9 n/a 31.8 36.4 35.2 35.5 35.2 -11.1 (-26%) -6.5 (-15%) -7.7 (-18%) -7.4 (-17%) -7.7 (-18%) vs 2045 No Action n/a n/a +4.6 (+14%) +3.4 (+11%) +3.7 (+12%) +3.4 (+11%) Soul ee. CDOT SiateFuuus Mudel Version 1.4, 2020; 2020 Base statistics estimated from CDOT Model by I IDR Comparing the 2045 No Action Scenario to the 2020 Base, VMT along the corridor is projected to increase by 203,500 miles, a 59% increase. This equates to a 1.9% annual increase in VMT. VHT along the corridor is expected to increase by 9,200 hours daily, a 115% increase or 3.1% annual increase. The greater increase in hours traveled compared to miles traveled is reflected in the substantial decline in average speed along the corridor from 42.9 MPH to 31.8 MPH, a 26% drop. The four build scenarios show that there is substantial unserved demand to utilize the corridor in 2045. VMT under the 2045 Full 4 -Lane scenario is over 240,000 miles greater than the 2045 No Action scenario, or 44% greater. VHT is greater by 26% and average speed along the corridor is 36.4 MPH, 4.6 MPH greater than the No Action. The other build scenarios exhibit VMT 29% to 37% greater than the No Action, VHT 17% to 23% greater, and average speeds about 11% or 12% greater. Statistics were also compiled for the three-mile buffer area surrounding the CO 52 corridor. Table 3 shows the VMT, VHT, and average speed within the buffer area for each of the travel demand model scenarios. Similar to the CO 52 corridor, the three-mile buffer area shows substantial growth from 2020 to 2045 in the No Action scenario. VMT is projected to increase by 61% (1.9% annually) while VHT is projected to increase by 100% (2.8% annually). The average speed in the buffer area is projected to decline by 20%, a little less than the CO 52 corridor's decline by 26%. 8of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Table 3 CO 52 Three -Mile Buffer Statistics Scenario Daily VMT Miles 2020 Base 2,861,600 2045 No Action 4,597,000 2045 Full 4 -Lane 4,806,100 2045 West 4 -Lane 4,766,700 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 4,778,300 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to County Line 4,741,400 vs 2015 n/a +1,735,400 (+61%) +1,944,500 (+68%) +1,905,100 (+67%) +1,916,700 (+67%) +1,879,800 (+66%) vs 2045 No Action n/a n/a +209,100 (+5%) +169,700 (+4%) +181,300 (+4%) +144,400 (+3%) Daily VHT Hours 60,100 120,100 123,000 122,800 122,700 122,300 vs 2015 n/a +60,000 (+100%) +62,900 (+105%) +62,700 (+104%) +62,600 (+104% +62,200 (+103%) vs 2045 No Action Na NA +2,900 (+2%) +2,700 (+2%) +2,600 (+2%) +2,200 (+2%) Daily Avg Speed MPH 47.6 38.3 39.1 38.8 39.0 38.8 vs 2015 n/a -9.3 (-20°/0) -8.5 (-18%) -8.8 (-18%) -8.6 (-18%) -8.8 (-18%) vs 2045 No Action n/a n/a +0.8 (+2%) +0.5 (+1%) +0.7 (+2%) +0.5 (+1%) Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020; 2020 Base statistics estimated from CDOT Model by HDR The four build scenarios have VMT increasing between 140,000 and 210,000 over the 2045 No Action, a 3% to 5°/o increase. VHT and speeds are projected to increase by 1% to 2% under all four scenarios compared to the No Action. The VMT increase is about 85% to 90% of the VMT increase along the CO 52 corridor itself. This is an indication that some portion of trips are shifting from parallel corridors along the CO 52 corridor, but much of the VMT increase is due to a shift in trip patterns resulting from the increased capacity along the corridor. Screenline Analysis A screenline analysis reviews and compares traffic volumes along alternate parallel roadways that cross an imaginary line on a map. The analysis is used to understand regional traffic flow patterns, by providing information regarding the proportion of traffic utilizing various roadways and how these ratios/proportions may change during various forecasting years or under various roadway network conditions. Methodology For CO 52, the project team compared traffic volumes from the CO 52 PEL 2045 No Action model and the 2045 Full Four -Lane model. The Full Four -Lane Model included CO 52 as a four - lane facility from CO 119 through the I-76 interchange. For this analyses, the daily traffic volumes from the two models were reviewed and compared along the screenlines illustrated in Figure 3. Because this was a high-level analysis and post - processing of model volumes was not performed along roadways other than CO 52, the 9of14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis analysis compared raw model volumes. Additionally, the focus was on the proportion of traffic along the roadways and how those proportions shifted under the two scenarios. Also of note, volume increases along CO 52 under the 4 -lane scenario do not exactly match volume decreases along parallel facilities. Many trips will use local facilities (not included in the analysis) or roadways outside the analysis area. Additionally, some trips may change destination based on the change in travel times associated with the differing roadway networks. Therefore, there may be an increase or decrease in trips crossing the screenline that is not directly associated with a "shift" from another route. Figure 3 CO 52 Screenline Locations Findings The following section summarizes results from the individual screenline analyses. West of Frederick/Dacono Area Screenlines #1, #2, #3 and #4 are all located between CO 119 on the west and just east of I-25 on the east. Screenline #1 is west of US 287, #2 is west of County Line Road, #3 is west of I-25, and #4 is east of I-25. Major facilities crossing these screenlines include CO 119 and CO 7. These four screenlines tell a similar story in regard to the change in overall volumes crossing the screenlines and how volumes shift between the various roadways. Total daily traffic volumes crossing the four screenlines increase between 5,000 vehicles and 12,000 vehicles under the 2045 Full Four -Lane scenario compared to the 2045 No Action scenario, as shown in Table 4. Screenline #4, east of I-25, experiences an increase in daily volumes of about 7/0 while the other three screenlines all experience daily volumes about 4% greater under the 4 -lane scenario. The major parallel highways crossing the screenlines, CO 119 and CO 7, experience little change in daily traffic volumes under the two 2045 scenarios. Figure 4 illustrates the daily volumes along the major roadways crossing Screenlines #1, #2, #3, and #4. 10 of 14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Table 4 West Screenline Daily Volumes ID 1 2 3 0 SCREENLINE LOCATION West of I-25 West of County Line Rd West of 1-25 East of 1-25 SCREENLINE DAILY VOLUME DAILY VOLUME CHANGE 2045 BASE 2045 4 -LANE 131,000 202,000 239,000 173,000 136,000 210,000 248,000 185,000 +/- 5,000 8,000 9,000 12,000 4% 4% 4% 7% Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Figure 4 Screenlines #1-#4 — Focus Model Raw Daily Volumes Daily Volumes 0 J v 617000 50000 40(100 30000 20000 10000 0 80100 70000 6O11O0 50000 40000 3O700 2O)O0 1.0000 0 !Screenline #1 - West of US 287 Akin CO119 Ogallala Niwot 0O52 lookout Valmont CO/ (0119 1 Screenline #3 - West of I-25 I I CR20 CO52 CR10 Elie CR6 CO7 (Hells Pkwy Rosa) Source: CDOT StateFocus Model, Raw Model Volumes Daily Volumes 80000 70000 6O700 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 n Screenline #2 - West of County Line Rd! 111 611 F.1 [I o b a *� ,, `ah c s Co 4, Screenline #4 - East of I-25 M 1:1 ■;1 CR10 CR8(En e CR6 CO7 Pkwy) Volumes along CO 119 are about 2% to 3% less under the 4 -lane scenario at the three screenlines west of I-25. CO 119 just east of I-25 experiences essentially no volume change under the 4 -lane scenario. Meanwhile, volumes along CO 7 are about 0% to 1% less under the 4 -lane scenario at all four screenlines. The greatest difference in volumes generally occurs along parallel roadways in close proximity to CO 52. West of US 287, Niwot Rd and Lookout Rd experience a relief in traffic as volumes are about 10% to 15% lower under the 4 -lane scenario. West of County Line Rd, Niwot Rd and 11 of 14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Oxford Rd experience volumes about 15% to 20% lower. East and west of I-25, CR 10 and CR 20 experience volumes about 10% to 25% lower. East of Frederick/Dacono Area Screenlines #5, #6, and #7 are all located between CR 15 on the west (just east of the Frederick/Dacono area) and CO 79 on the east. Screenline #5 is located east of the Frederick/Dacono area, just west of CR 19. Total daily traffic volumes crossing this screenline increase about 5,000 vehicles (5%) from 95,000 under the 2045 No Action to 100,000 under the 2045 Full Four -Lane scenario, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 West Screenline Daily Volumes ID 5 SCREENLINE LOCATION West of CR 19 SCREENLINE DAILY VOLUME DAILY VOLUME CHANGE 2045 BASE 2045 4 -LANE 95,000 100,000 +/- 5,000 5% 6 East of CR 31 31,000 32,000 1,000 3% 7 East of CR 49 22,500 23,000 500 2% Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Screenlines #6 and #7 are located east of CR 31 and east of CR 49, respectively. These two screenlines experience daily volume increases of 1,000 vehicles or less under the 2045 Full Four -Lane scenario compared to the 2045 No Action scenario, as shown in Table 5. It should be noted, under the 2045 Full Four -Lane scenario, the entire CO 52 corridor is four lanes except east of Hudson where the facility would remain two lanes. However, because the overall volumes in this area are relatively low, there would be no change expected to traffic volumes with a four -lane section east of Hudson as there is plenty of available capacity with a two-lane section. At Screenline #5, west of CR 19, the major roadways to the south of CO 52, including CO 7 and 168th Ave, experience virtually no change in daily volumes under the 4 -lane scenario compared to the 2045 No Action. Other facilities closer to CO 52 experience volumes that are between 10% and 25% lower under the 4 -lane scenario. Figure 5 illustrates the daily volumes along the major roadways crossing Screenline #5. At Screenlines #6 and #7, roadways crossing the screenlines generally experience minimal changes in daily volumes. At Screenline #6, east of CR 31, daily volumes are about 5% less on facilities north of CO 52 under the 4 -lane scenario while some facilities to the south actually increase up to about 5%. This is likely due to increased accessibility to the area from the four - lane CO 52 sections to the west. Meanwhile, daily volumes along Screenline #7 east of CR 49 generally are unchanged or slightly increased under the 4 -lane scenario. Again, improved access to the area via the 4 -lane sections of CO 52 to the west are the likely cause for volumes increasing along the various roadways. Daily volumes along the major roadways crossing Screenlines #6 and #7 are illustrated in Figure 5. 12 of 14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Figure 5 Screenlines #5-#7 — Focus Model Raw Daily Volumes Screenline #5 - west of CR 19 Screenline #6 - East of CR 31 Daily Volumes E 0 0 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 1112045 I _y ri ff-3 ri I ge=, II� Screenline #7 - East of { CR12 1 76 WB I -7G EB CO1 Daily Volumes 10000 9000 6000 /000 haw 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 r 2045 Base r. 2045 4 -lane CRIB Other CO52 .. 168th Ave CO7 Source: CDOT StateFocus Model, Raw Daily Volumes except along CO 52 east of CR 49 which are post -processed. Summary Alternatives Analysis Today, traffic along CO 52 is approaching and, in some locations, exceeding capacity from US 287 to the Dacono/Frederick area. By 2045, traffic volumes are expected to increase by 40')/0 to 90% under the No Action scenario in this area. West of US 287 to CO 119, traffic will increase by about 40% to 50`)/0. East of Dacono to I-76 volume increases under the No Action scenario are generally in the 60% to 70% range. East of I-76, though volume increases are generally in the 30% to 40% range, volumes are expected to be below 10,000 daily vehicles. With CO 52 as a four -lane facility, volumes between CO 119 and US 85 would increase compared to the No Action scenario by 35% to 55% depending on the location and specific scenario. East of US 85 to I-76, with CO 52 as a four -lane facility, volumes would increase by 5% to 20% compared to the No Action scenario. Volumes east of I-76 would essentially be unchanged under any of the 4 -lane scenarios compared to the No Action as there is excess capacity available with CO 52 as a two-lane facility. The CO 52 corridor is expected to see daily VMT totals under the 2045 No Action Scenario that are 203,500 miles greater than the 2020 Base, a 59% increase. Daily VHT is expected to grow to increase by about 115%. The result is daily average speeds along the corridor that drop 26% 13 of 14 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis from 2015, from 42.9 MPH to 31.8 MPH. The four -lane scenarios would result in even greater VMT and VHT as the new capacity would draw more trips. However, average speeds would improve to between 35.2 and 36.4 MPH depending on the alternative. The three-mile buffer area would experience an increase in VMT and VHT from 2020 to 2045 similar to the percentage growth observed along the CO 52 corridor itself. The buffer area would experience absolute VMT and VHT growth similar to the CO 52 corridor under the four action alternatives compared to the 2045 No Action Scenario Generally, the increased VMT and VHT is attributable to a shift in patterns resulting from the increased capacity along the corridor. Screenline Summary Though volumes along CO 52 increase by approximately 35% to 55% at the screenlines west of Dacono/Frederick compared to the No Action scenario, the major highways that parallel the highway, CO 119 and CO 7, experience minimal impact to daily volumes. The greatest impact from the 4 -lane scenario is to parallel roadways in close proximity to CO 52 which experience daily volumes between 10% to 25`)/0 lower under the 4 -lane scenario compared to the No Action scenario. East of Dacono/Frederick at Screenline #5, west of CR 19, daily volumes along CO 52 increase by over 40`)/0 under the 4 -lane scenario compared to the No Action scenario. A decline in traffic along parallel facilities close to CO 52 is evident and generally ranges from 10% to 25% of the No Action daily volume. Major roadways to the south, including 168th Ave and CO 7, experience virtually no change in volumes under the 4 -lane scenario compared to the No Action scenario. Screenlines #6 and #7, east of Ft Lupton and Hudson, respectively, experience small increases in overall daily volumes compared to the No Action scenario. Volumes along CO 52 increase under the 4 -lane scenario by no more than 10% compared to the No Action scenario. Parallel facilities crossing the screenlines increase or decrease in volume generally by less than 10% compared to the No Action scenario. 14 of 14 Appendix F-7 Telework Analysis - Sensitivity Model Run Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 Project: To: From: Date: Subject: is 0 CO 52 PEL & ACP CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team May 12, 2021 Telework Analysis — Sensitivity Model Run Executive Summary During the COVID-19 pandemic, travel patterns shifted, including a portion of the work force shifting to telecommuting instead of commuting to an employment site. The shift in traffic volumes resulted in less total traffic on the roadway network, especially during traditional peak hours. The CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study project team prepared this Telework Analysis — Sensitivity Model Run Memo (memo) to describe how the presumed increase in telework resulting from COVID may impact the level of traffic along the CO 52 project corridor. The project team researched the CDOT StateFocus travel demand model's telework assumptions (6.3% in future year models) as well as other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and regional models to identify trends in telecommuting, both before and after the pandemic. Telework percentages in the Denver Regional Council of Governments' (DRCOG's) travel demand model were adjusted in the newly released version from a target of 12% in future year models to 20%. DRCOG states that this adjustment was based upon observed data from 2010 to 2019 as well as from "an extensive literature and research review of expectations for the future." Based on the findings in this research, the project team determined that it was necessary to perform a sensitivity model run for the corridor that targets 20% of work trips as Work at Home (WAH) trips in year 2045 to better reflect anticipated post COVID traffic patterns. It is important to note that WAH trips assume that the worker is not leaving their home to work. It can be presented that the "trip" is performed by telecommuting. For this analysis, the telework assumptions in the CDOT StateFocus model were increased to 20% - consistent with the DRCOG adjustment. The sensitivity model adjustment to 20% of all work trips to WAH trips (or about 4`)/0 of all trips) resulted in daily traffic volumes on CO 52 that are, on average, 2.5% lower than without the WAH work trip adjustment. The following documents the methodology, assumptions, and results of the Telework Sensitivity Model Run. 2045 Statewide Telework Model Trip Estimations All Activity /fps 4% non-work/other activity El commuter work activity work at home activity Work Activity, . Trips !// 20% 2045 Telework Model 1 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Telework Analysis — Model Sensitivity Run Background Future traffic volumes were modeled along CO 52 using CDOT's travel demand model. The travel demand model, StateFocus (Version 1.4), uses socio-economic projections for the State of Colorado to generate travel demand and distribute trips across the state's roadway and transit network. The statewide model is an activity -based model, where activities can include commuting to work using vehicles, transit, micro -transit, bikes, etc.; freight and truck traffic; remotely working from your home via zoom or other virtual tools; and traveling to the grocery store. All activities are used to predict traffic outcomes along transportation corridors. The project team requested a review of the CDOT StateFocus travel demand model's telework assumptions and that a sensitivity model run be performed that assumes a greater percentage of work trips as WAH trips in year 2045. During the COVID-19 pandemic, travel patterns shifted, including a portion of the work force shifting to telecommuting instead of commuting to an employment site. The shift in traffic volumes resulted in less total traffic on the roadway network, especially during traditional peak hours. The Telework Sensitivity Model Run was performed with a greater percentage (20%) of work trips designated as WAH trips as an output target based on the assumption included in the DRCOG sensitivity adjustment. The project team reviewed the current CDOT model's WAH assumptions and researched other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and regional models to identify trends in telecommuting, both before and after the pandemic. Existing Telework Assumptions The percentage of work trips that are WAH trips in the CDOT travel demand models (without DRCOG sensitivity) are illustrated in Table 1. In the base year 2015 CDOT model, 6.0% of work trips statewide are WAH trips. In the 2045 model, the percentage of WAH trips increases to 6.3%. As noted earlier, 6% of work trips equates to about 1% of all trips, which includes non - work trips and commercial/freight trips. In Boulder and Weld Counties, where the CO 52 corridor resides, the percentages of WAH trips is slightly higher at 6.2% in 2015 and 7.2% in 2045. Table 1 Travel Demand Model Work -at -Home Trip Percentages WORK -AT-HOME TRIPS AS PERCENTAGE OF WORK TRIPS MODEL CDOT YEAR 2015 2045 REGIONWIDE 6.0% 6.3% BOULDER & WELD 6.2% 7.2% Sources: CDOT StateFocus Model 2 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Telework Analysis — Model Sensitivity Run Telework percentages in the Denver Regional Council of Governments' (DRCOG's) travel demand model were adjusted in the newly released version from a target of 12% in future year models to 20°/0. DRCOG states that this adjustment to Focus 2.3 was based upon observed data from 2010 to 2019 as well as from "an extensive literature and research review of expectations for the future." Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, other planning agencies were anticipating growth in the percentage of telework. The San Diego Regional Planning Agency's (SANDAG's) travel demand model documentation from 2018 shows that telework is expected to grow into the future from 12.1% in 2016 to 15.5% in 2050. The telework trendline developed for the SANDAG model was based on multiple sources including the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), California Household Travel Survey (CHTS), SANDAG Regional Transportation Study, and the Census American Community Survey (ACS). Telework Sensitivity Model Run Results The project team adjusted the WAH target to 20% in the travel demand model's telework inputs. The sensitivity model run was performed under the 2045 No Action conditions. The project team reviewed the traffic volumes along the CO 52 corridor with the sensitivity adjustment and compared the results to the raw model volume outputs from the 2045 No Action model. The change in traffic volumes along the CO 52 corridor are illustrated in Table 2. As the results show, daily traffic volumes along the CO 52 corridor are, on average, 2.5% lower in the Telework Sensitivity model run. The segments west of WCR 31, which carry higher volumes, are lower by 1.2% to 2.4%. The segments further east are lower by 3.3% and 9.0%. The PM peak hour exhibits a similar pattern. Volumes west of WCR 31 are lower by 3% or less while to the east, volumes are up to 11% lower. The AM peak hour experiences even greater declines throughout the corridor than the PM peak hour. Segments 1, 2, and 3 experience volumes 2.6% and 4.7% lower than the 2045 No Action, just about double the daily decline exhibited in this area. Further east along Segments 4 and 5 the volumes are lower by an even greater amount at 7.3% and 20.5%, respectively. 3 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Telework Analysis — Model Sensitivity Run Table 2 Traffic Volume Difference — 2045 Telework Model vs 2045 No Action Model SEGMENT 1 LOCATION Between CO 119 and County Line Road % DIFFERENCE AM PEAK -4.7% IN VOLUMES PM PEAK -3.0% DAILY -2.4% 2 Between County Line Road and WCR 19 -2.6% -2.3% -1.2% 3 Between WCR 19 and WCR 31 -3.6')/0 -1.8% -2.4% 4 Between WCR 31 and WCR 49 -7.3% -2.9% -3.3% 5 Between WCR 49 and CO 79 -20.5% -10.8% -9.0% Total Corridor -5.4% -3.3% -2.5% Note: Telework analysis utilized the 2045 No Action model as a basis. Percentages are based on raw model outputs. The greater declines in volumes along the eastern end of the corridor, particularly along Segment 5 east of WCR 49, are likely more a reflection of the variability and uncertainty exhibited in the travel demand model in this area, rather than an indication that there is a large shift to WAH trips in the eastern portion of the corridor. The model roadway network and traffic analysis zones in this area are not as refined as the rest of the CO 52 corridor and therefore may be more responsive to adjustments to model inputs. 4 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Telework Analysis — Model Sensitivity Run Conclusion The sensitivity model adjustment to 20% of all work trips to WAH trips (or about 4% of all trips) resulted in 2045 traffic forecasts that are lower than the 2045 No Action model forecasts. The forecasted volumes, on average, are about 2.5% lower during the day, 5.4% lower during the AM, and 3.3% lower during the PM. Along the CO 52 corridor west of WCR 31, the daily volumes are lower by approximately 1.2% to 2.4%. In the east, the forecasted volumes are lower by greater amounts, though this may be more a reflection of variability and uncertainty in the model in this area. The overall impact on volumes along the corridor are in alignment with expectations with the DRCOG sensitivity adjustment. Average changes for the region are depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 Model Trip Estimations (Statewide) All Activity All Activity nrp� 16% 1% 2015 Base Model Work Activity f:-Ptl��nn Irv" 6% 175'0 Work Activity 1% 6% 2045 No Action Model non-work/other activity El commuter work activity .6Fot work at home activity Work Activity J 'rips 4% 20% 2045 Telework Model As the figure shows, non -work and commercial/freight trips combined are more than 80% of all trips in the 2015 and 2045 models. The Telework Sensitivity model resulted in WAH trips increasing as a percentage of all trips from about 1% to approximately 4`)/0. Thus, 2045 daily traffic forecasts that are approximately 2`)/0 to 3% lower, as observed in the model results, should be expected. 5 of 5 Appendix F-8 Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 '':,, Aso CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: September 22, 2021 Subject: Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis This document summarizes the origin -destination trip pattern modeling analysis performed for the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The document includes analysis of travel patterns using the CDOT travel demand model. The analysis includes select link and subarea model runs that consider where trips enter/exit the CO 52 corridor as well the origins and destinations of trips along the corridor. Background The basis for the development of the CO 52 travel demand model was the CDOT StateFocus (Version 1.4) model. The StateFocus model uses socio-economic projections for the State of Colorado to generate travel demand and distribute trips across the state's roadway and transit network. For the CO 52 PEL study, the 2015 model was used as the base year and the 2045 model was used as the horizon year. Adjustments to the roadway networks were made where necessary. Methodology Select link, subarea, and trip table analyses were performed using the CO 52 PEL 2015 Base Model and 2045 No Action model. For the analyses, the 2015 Base and 2045 No Action models were performed and travel patterns recorded for the PM peak hour from 5 to 6pm. A select link analysis (also known as a critical link analysis) records the origin and destination for each trip that traverses a target (select) link. For CO 52, various locations along the corridor were analyzed. The select link analysis results include various trip attributes, such as origin and destination locations, trip lengths, and travel times. For the subarea analysis, the CO 52 corridor was selected as a whole and all trips, entering and exiting the corridor, were recorded during the PM peak hour. The subarea analysis results provide all trip entry and exit points along the corridor, providing insight into travel patterns and the length that trips travel along the CO 52 corridor. The trip table analysis examined daily work trips between counties using the CO 52 PEL 2015 Base Model and 2045 No Action model. FEZ 1 of 19 f 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Trip Origins and Destinations The select link analysis provides a glimpse into trip origin and destination locations. Dot -density graphics were developed that illustrate the distribution of origins and destinations during the PM peak hour in 2045. Each dot on the graphic represents ten origins or destinations of trips that travel along the I-25 select links. Two locations were selected for this analysis: 1) west of CR-7 and 2) west of WCR-19 (east of Dacono/Frederick). Origins and destinations of westbound trips along CO 52 just west of CR-7 are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 WB CO 52 West of CR-7 — PM Peak Hour Trip Origins/Destinations dtattf.t5r H - 1 I I ` - 4I . _.`�. ! I — -- I . - •- I Z' - r _s i. Al '«!! l ;.. �`�,•t Il.i Li�.,�yr r•r �` .r , —� T• :'L + 0 1 Mlles 10 20 — r t I M1•. I Legend • Westbound Origins Westbound Destinations ' Select Link Location Source: CDOT StateFocus Model, 2020 2of19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Takeaways for westbound trips on CO 52 west of CR-7 during the PM peak hour from Figure 1: • Trip origins and destinations are most dense in the immediate vicinity of the select link, with many trips originating in Dacono/Frederick/Ft Lupton and ending immediately west of the select link. • Many trip origins are to the south along the I-25 and US -85, and Denver International Airport; trip origins in the northern front range communities are less frequent. • Destinations are most dense in Longmont, Boulder, and along CO 119. • Origins to the east are 60`)/0 Weld County, 20% Adams County, 10% Denver County, and all other counties approximately 1013/0. • Trip destinations to the west of CR-7 along CO 52 are approximately 40% Weld County and 60% Boulder County. All other counties account for less than 1% of destinations. Origins and destinations of westbound trips along CO 52 just west of WCR-19 (east of Dacono/Frederick) are illustrated in Figure 2 . FN 3 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Figure 2. WB CO 52 West of WCR19 — PM Peak Hour Trip Origins/Destinations I \t • M1L Pi • c'C f r 0 Miles 10 L ;! . 1 \ 70 f 20 I Legend • Westbound Origins Westbound Destinations * Select Link Location Source: CDOT StateFocus Model, 2020 Takeaways of westbound PM peak hour trips along CO 52 just west of WCR-19 from Figure 2: • Trip origins are most dense in the Ft Lupton and Brighton area, and to a lesser extent Greeley. • Destinations are dense immediately west of the select link in Dacono/Frederick, around the I-25 interchange area, and to a lesser degree in Longmont and Loveland. • Relatively few trips from this location have a destination in the City of Boulder. • Origins to the east are 60% Weld County and 35% Adams County. All other counties account for less than 5% with Denver and Morgan Counties the primary origins. 4 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis • Trip destinations to the west of CR-19 along CO 52 are approximately 60% Weld County, 30% Boulder County, and 10% Larimer County. All other counties are less than 1% of destinations. Trip Length CO 52 West of CR7 The select link analysis provides origin -to -destination trip length information for those trips traveling along a specific section of roadway. The chart shown in Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of PM peak hour trips, by distance between origin and destination, that travel along CO 52 west of CR-7 (west of I-25). The figure shows the trips during this period in 5 -mile bins in year 2015 and 2045. As was noted in the earlier methodology discussion, the 2045 results were developed under the 2045 No Action condition. Figure 3 WB CO 52 at CR7 — Trip Lengths 25.0% 20 0% 'I 15 0% 10 0% i 5 0% 0 0%a l l Percent of Trips I I .I i so 2015 2045 5' tier y�i LO 'V '5 03 IN ah cO �h 0o Miles Source: CDOT StateFocus Model, 2020 Iii The results of the select link analysis indicate that trips traveling along CO 52 have an average end -to -end trip length of 27.6 miles in 2015. In 2045, the average trip length drops by 5.4 miles to 22.2 miles. As Figure 3 shows, in 2015, the greatest percentage of trips, at just over 20°/0, falls between 20 to 25 miles. In 2045, the greatest percentage of trips, at 20%, shifts to between 10 to 15 miles. The decrease in average trip length of nearly 20% in the future may be the result of multiple factors. There appears to be an increase in short trips related to increased development in the area. Additionally, the limited capacity of CO 52 through the I-25 interchange and to the west may deter longer trips in 2045. CO 52 West of CR19 5of19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis The chart shown in Figure 4 illustrates the PM peak hour trip distribution along CO 52 west of WCR19 (east of Dacono/Frederick). Trips at this location have an average length of 28.5 miles in 2015. In 2045, the average end -to -end trip length increases by 4.4 miles to 32.9 miles. The greatest percentage of trips in year 2015 along WB CO 52 falls within the 15- to 20 -mile bin. This holds true in 2045 as well, but at a lower percentage. In fact, all percentages in the 5- to 30 -mile range show a decline in percentage as trip lengths shift to longer lengths. Figure 4 WB CO 52 at CR-19 — Trip Lengths 25.0% 20.0% 4- ▪ 15.0% O 10.0')/0 cu • 5.0% 0.0% I . I I III w 2015 • 2045 cP y0 ti..)' 9 '12 "00 �h b0 0.h h0 hh 00 O" c�' ,yam '1, Lp '1, hp �h. a0 Ch hp hh 0 Miles Source: CDOT StateFocus Model, 2020 I As opposed to west of I-25 where average trip length declines, CO 52 east of Dacono/Frederick experiences an increase in average trip length of over 15% during the PM peak hour from 2015 to 2045. This is likely the result of increased commuter trips utilizing CO 52 and its available capacity along CO 52 allowing for these longer trips. 6of19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Corridor Trip Entry/Exit Patterns The subarea analysis provides trip patterns along the CO 52 corridor itself. Major roadway crossings of CO 52, as well as the east and west ends of the corridor, were analyzed to illustrate trip entry/exit points and general trip patterns along CO 52 during the PM peak hour in 2045. The analysis locations included CO 119, US 287, I-25, US 85, and I-76. The following section provides analysis of trip patterns beginning at or near either end of the corridor (CO 119 and I-76) and analysis of trips traveling through the I-25 interchange. All other analysis locations and their projected year 2045 trip patterns, in both AM and PM peak hours, are summarized graphically in Appendix A. 2015 vs 2045 Trip Patterns The analysis focuses on future trip patterns as seen in the 2045 No Action model. However, a comparison to 2015 PM peak hour trip patterns was performed to document any significant differences between existing and future trip patterns. In general, trip patterns were similar along CO 52 in 2015 and 2045. 2045 exhibits an increase in the percentage of trips destined for the area surrounding the CO 52/1-25 interchange, between County Line Road and York Street. Additionally, an increase in the relative amount of trips is projected for the Ft Lupton area. Both areas experience increased development in the 2045 model. Eastbound from CO 119 Trips entering CO 52 on the west end from CO 119 were analyzed. The year 2045 PM peak hour travel patterns are illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5 EB CO 52 from CO 119 — 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Ttn.lprn�nrr I '4eR•' • Firestone 3 • Frederick •Dacono Source: CDOT StateFocus 2045 Model, 2020 •;fun Lupton pp Poccnl of rota' lops Easlhauod ham CO 119 100% 75% SG: 25% 5S, Where ale easlborird trips :;n CO 52., just ecsl of f,0 119, exiting ;'•.e conical': • SCSS berme or at US 207 • beme len:I2 titif •Hudson 3 F •krericohr 19 iraN'�rAndy. Fran, of nips le Ling Peicentof lisps dispersirg Local,. 0052 a1 a ma;orinleisectian hetrieen map. inleisetLons 7of19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Takeaways from eastbound trips entering CO 52 from CO 119 (Figure 5): • Approximately 50% of trips exit the corridor at or before US 287. • Only about 5% of trips access I-25. • Less than 20% of trips from CO 119 travel beyond the I-25 interchange. • Less than 10% of trips could be considered "through" trips traveling beyond US -85. Westbound from 1-76 and CO 52 to the East Trips entering CO 52 on the east from I-76 or from CO 52 east of I-76 were analyzed. The 2045 PM peak hour travel patterns are illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 WB CO 52 from 1-76 and CO 52 to the East — 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmont • Firestone I •goulder •Erie a� • Fredentk 1165.4 •Datono Petcent of Total Trip 54estbound Irons 41A 100% 75% 5O 25, 5'5 Source: CDOT StateFocus 2045 Model, 2020 .Vhem are westbound trips on CO 52, just west of I l6, wiling th= eo•ddar? • 65a mfore +eadling U5 25 • YO'4. Before or at 1 2S •Retii-1•..11:l I; • Ac.4nsgss Portent°flops teasing Percent of trips dispersing boron CO 52 at° major intersection bee°een major intersections Takeaways from westbound trips on CO 52, west of I-76 (Figure 6)Figure 5: • Approximately 65% of trips exit the corridor before US 85. • Only about 15% of trips access I-25. • About 30% of trips travel beyond US 85. • Only 10°/0 of trips could be considered "through" trips that travel beyond I-25. 8of19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Eastbound from West of 1-25 Travel patterns of 2045 PM peak hour trips along eastbound CO 52 approaching I-25 from the west are illustrated in Figure 7. Figure 7 EB CO 52 from CR-7 West of 1-25 — 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •doolder •Longmont •Erie 5 i •Firestone • — •Frederick •Dacono Source: CDOT StateFocus 2045 Model, 2020 I i,j Fa11 i nplen 6%; Percent of Tutal Trips Eastkund limn CR 7 lOn`., ]54 so% 25a 5, Takeaways from eastbound trips approaching I-25 (Figure 7): Fvher2 are eban:Lind trips on CO 32, at CD 7 nest el I-2_, caiting the mrridnr? • 9CS'.r125 • 355'. be'ote reach,ng 115 6S •KS enf;Fury •t-edtcn TiaHi<pnalys, Percent of nips leaving Peicenl of nips dispersing Loution 0052 at major intmseclion between mapr Intersection. • Approximately 60% -of -trips exit -the corridor at -or before I-25. ■ Approximately 30% of trips are destined for Dacono/Frederick and the immediate area to the east. • 90`)/0 of trips exit the corridor before US 85 Westbound from East of 1-25 Travel patterns of 2045 PM peak hour trips along westbound CO 52 approaching I-25 from the east (just west of York St) are illustrated in Figure 8. Figure 8 WB CO 52 from York/Silver Birch East of 1-25 — 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Longmont I n •xmdder •Erie • Firestone ti •Frederick • Dacono Source: CDOT StateFocus 2045 Model, 2020 I Ill es •1Fort Lupton Percent of Total trip: Weslhound Irom Yoik'Silver Ruch Ion 751 s0q 25'-, 5% Where are vestbctind trips on CO 52, at �nrkl5ilvR� Rlr; h aa,t of 1 75, exiling the rnnitln(% • 5CS:S at I-25 • A5ei be:cle redchinit County ine Rd /% • Hudson •xeenevtl.nri F ® I, I""ti Percent chops leaving Percent al triµ: dkpeising 0052 al a major inler-e;tion behveen major intaraenion: 9of19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Takeaways from westbound trips approaching I-25 (Figure 8)Figure 5: ■ Approximately 65% of trips exit the corridor at or before the I-25 interchange. • Fewer than 5`)/0 of trips are destined for US 287 or County Line Rd, the major north -south facilities between I-25 and CO 119. ■ Only 5% of trips reach CO 119. In general, year 2045 trip patterns at the locations described above, and at the other locations illustrated in Appendix A, are projected to be similar in the AM and PM periods along CO 52. Trips west of I-25 tend to travel along CO 52 for a relatively short distance compared to trips along CO 52 further to the east. Trips along CO 52 tend to disperse from the roadway at or before major north -south crossings like I-25, US 287, and US 85. County -to -County Trip Patterns Daily work trips in 2015 and 2045, traveling from Weld County to Boulder County, were analyzed. According to the travel demand model, daily work trips to Boulder County from Weld County totaled about 21,000 in 2015. This is projected to increase over 70% to approximately 36,000 in 2045. These trips may choose to use roadways other than CO 52 but are indicative of overall growth and travel patterns in the region. The growth in work trips to Boulder County from Weld County is much greater than the growth in work trips to Boulder County from other eastern counties. Work trips from Adams, Broomfield, and Morgan Counties are projected to be about the same or decline from 2015 to 2045. Overall Trip Pattern Observations The following section summarizes some general observations of the analysis. Trip Lengths Most trips on CO 52 are relatively short trips, traveling just a few miles on CO 52 before turning off to another highway or reaching their destination. In 2045, trips lengths are expected to decline west of I-25, likely the result of increased development in the area and increased demand along CO 52. In contrast, trip lengths in the future are expected to increase east of Dacono/Frederick, likely due to increased trips drawn to the available capacity along CO 52. Trip Patterns I-25 is a major connection for trips originating along CO 52 near I-25, from both the east and west side of I-25. I-25 is generally not a major connection from longer trip distances along CO 52. In general, most trips traveling along CO 52 exit the corridor at or before the next major facility crossing, i.e. I-25, I-76, or US 85. For example, almost two-thirds of eastbound trips west of CR-7 exit the corridor before or at the I-25 interchange with only 10% reaching US 85. PM peak hour trip patterns along CO 52 were found to be similar in 2015 and 2045. Year 2045 exhibits an increase in the percentage of trips destined for new development areas to the east and west of the CO 52/1-25 interchange and in the Ft Lupton area. 10 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Origins -Destinations While most trips originate and terminate near CO 52, some are regional trips that have trip ends many miles away, in Weld, Larimer, Adams, Denver, and other counties in the general vicinity of the corridor. West of I-25, trip ends are more densely concentrated along the corridor, in Boulder and Longmont, and along I-25 to the south. East of I-25, trip ends exhibit both density along the CO 52 corridor and wide dispersion regionally, with trip ends located in areas from Boulder to Loveland on the west and Brighton to Greeley on the east. FiN 11 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Appendix A FN 12 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Eastbound CO 52 from CO 119 EB CO 52 from CO 119-2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution ?Longmont , I r ♦De t'!et �,I s 1R1 •Erie ttt • Firestone a 3 • Fr•dvtick •Dacono EB CO 52 from CO 119 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution ritgelail kr 20% IS% •Ere Westbound from US -287 • Firestone •Frederick • Dacono Vt/B CO 52 from US 287 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmont •EIDAde: F3� •E.le • Fnestone 5%lt4 • Federick • Dacono Ef1 3 ii; as Lupton F {w Penerl of Total Ttips Eastbound horn 00119 25'4 5% '• ku t Lupton E <59; Petceni, of Total Trip: ka:lbound from C0119 100% 75% 50- 25a •IFort Lupton F Peron'', foto. T. ps Wenbound .wn U52B7 Tel, TS% 5, UVhere ale eastbound hip; on CO 52, lusteast of CO 114,salmi,' the (modttrl • (10`,,, heroin ul at US 257 • 85°5 before (eating 125 •Hudson 13 iPE Irrl cAnaiiea cent of tipsleavmg CO 52. a mejoi iineisa:lion •Nf'IVH'm!g Ye,cetn of Inps depeumg btlnaen quit)! inlereaions Where aro eastbound Inps. en CO 52, j,ist nest cl CO 119, exiling the (outdo'? • 5;1`S before oral US 287 • 86`;t brittle teal: nil 1.25 '4Neenesbu'g • Hudson F Traffic Anaips Petmnl of uips leaving Peron, of Win dispel:mg localion CU 52 al a mztor inte'se:lion betxoen major,nletsecl,on; Where are westbound trips on CO 57, lust west el US 287,'xjllllg Ih- CCM dol' • 259% at 95tb 9 • 50'natCOllri •Keenesbutg Hudson lialfit lLuly:r. Pereni of trip: leaving Penenl of lips dispeising .nation C052 at a motor:mime'oion belsvaan major in...ions 13 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis WB CO 52 from US 287 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Lcmg MOM •Erie 9 Eastbound from US -287 • Firestone 5-�: - • Frederick • oacono EB CO 52 from US 287 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution r.� •Ekkold+ •Longmom l I i • ..T res::ape ,i "• Frederic ' C5k ;ner.,nn EB CO 52 from US 287 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Long monl l I •9oulder f T Firestone ji Frederick a r •Fort Lupton ff, Percental fotartnps Weatuound fmnr Us 287 Mir= too. 15% SC=E 253 5% rsl a ton Lupton Nonni of Total Inv; Easttmund horn US 287 'nob 'So 503 25, 5' I 3 •Fort Lupton ff Percent of Iotal Trips Eastbaand from US 287 75% 58% 25% 5% 'O. hero arc srestbaund lips on CO 52, just v:esl e1 US :797, =_ailing the r.orridmv • [Oo;o at 95l,n Sj • G2�S al CO I19 •er. in•.m en •Hudson traffic Amrpsr Nu mof uta leanng Percent of lnps dispersing Location 0052 at a mater inter:a:3mi between major nnermtions Where ate eastbound tr-p≤ on CO 2, just oast of ,IS 297, evi;.rg the corudor^ • 40 heron orat (Aunty Inv- Rd • 9C';: bele.re or at 1-25 •Hudson CI jE •.Kfent5cu it) Traffic Analysis Percent of nip: leaving Fervent of trips dispersing Location 0052 al a major inter:e.^,ton henveen major mleoeaions Where a.e eastbound u;p≤ on CO 57, just US; of US 297, exilmn the ecrudo%' • 25), belr,re or at County Line Rd • 7SelrWale oralPS *Hudson i� •3d aladtc•g to.on Traffic Attain, Pertenl ofhi p: leaving Pettent of trip: dispersing lxatton C052 al a major inter:action between major intersections 14 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Eastbound from CR-7 (West of 1-25) EB CO 52 from CR 7 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmont F •4oulder •Erie EB CO 52 from CR / - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmnnr • Firestone m Its•„ 70• h • 'rec4lick •boulder • Erie Westbound from 1-25 • Daceno WB CO 52 from 1-25 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution i •Bou der a 1'einntnl n l Y 0 Oki I•Erie • Firestone 3 • Frederick • Dacone Ins I 'r•'1o.t Lupton 5 Percent of Total Tiips ranboand from CA 7 10D% 754 505, 15% 5%. al FOR r 3Z Percent al Total nips Ea:,batmd Iran CA 1 .01A '5:, 5C 255, 5. :1Foh Lupton F Petted of Tolai Tips Weslhound bun, 125 I0n'n 75% 50. 25% 5% *here, aro easthownd Vlp≤on CO r,2, at CR 7 WI2CL of .-25, exiling tee outdo!, • h5:: at ..25 • 4C- bnkie reaching IIS D5 •Heevr;D=-g • Hudson 5 3 iraffn,lnalysr, Fercent of trips leawng Velum of trips dopemng .,canon CO 52 at amajol inter:arror, between major,nterse,Lans Where a.e erslboulld tr.p≤on CO 2. al CH 7 ;vest o' I.25, exiting Ian cnrrldorl • 4C`?: at:'S • BzN before reEching US FI5 r3'6 L' ' H{Itdtcn Trafk Allelysis Percent of trip: leanng Percent of lops dispersing .ocanon C052 al a map, ri tereOion between rain mtersesbons N!'aere are v,eslbound trips on CO 52, justmecl nl I.75, er!inn the comhzr2 • (:5V, befnre (n:.nl)' Inn R;' • H5S; before CO 3 • Hudson CI •Kta'Ier1:411{ Traffic Aalyss Percent of lip: leanng Pececenl of trips dfspelsing Laotian C052 at a major,nlersenion helween major,nlemernan: 15 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis WB CO 52 from 1-25 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution !longone-I I �Braailn• Eastbound from 1-25 • Firestone oro Sta • Frederick •Dacono EB CO 52 from 1-25 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longman) *Boulder •Ene I F! •estone ® sl iI Etiy.•�, ;l • Frederick Y • ri Y cob EB CO 52 from 1.25 -2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmonr ga •Dort der •Ere E .s I 1 Firestone oI IM-:; trrder•:2 [41 • 114,0 I I 3 3 •lforr Lupton Ti Percent of lolai Ir es Westbound Irom 125 100% 75'e 50% 25% I rest 1 )run Lupton fa <5%; 113' Percent of Total Trip, Eastbound Lam 125 • 00% 75% 50% 25% 5.. -Irif Fort I woo - r*: 1. r*: P.M of :a1al Trips Easlbound Lon! ! 25 100% 75% 50% 25% 6 3 Weer_ are vreslbaw:d (lips on CO 52, lust west of O5, exiling the ruyridal? • be`ore Ca.mly floc • 95:!, Wore CO '19 •Hudson 4,••y Iraerr Analyse Perrenl of lop:leanng Perrenl of lops deeming • Co 52 ata majolurlerserllan ben.ezn Praia! mL•rsections Where are eastbound trips on CO2, ,usl i sl Di 1.25, ez•bng the cmr do'? • 5sr,i helot^ o• at Colorado Blvd • 95' befnle cc at Ft Luplml . •Hudson io ,••••y •Ilee=±stnerl Traffic Analyst; Perrenl of nip; leanng Perrenl of lripsdi,ocrsing Location CO 52 at a malo! mtemertion belmen majer mlelxrbonc La ' Where are eastbound trips on CO 57, ,oil east of 10.5, ex.l fig the Corr dc? •Gfl;bJmrOleDratColorado Itrd • 90% Delon ora: Ft I uplon • i 594 •Bndcso Pe«em of�eali ng CO 52 at a map tnterserllen •l:e:r:rehrPg 3 Yercenl of lops disperang bene•an major mterserbens 16 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Westbound from York/Silver Birch (East of I-25) WB CO 52 from York/Silver Birch - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution sx Cioulder WB CO 52 from York/Silver Birch -2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution Trnngmnnl • RasLJe• •Erie Westbound from US 85 • Firestone • Frederick • Daum WB CO 52 from US 85 — 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution • konhfel *Longmont 1 e5{ •E•.e 1:ro :I `I • e.r¢.I lcr oFp. p it Fort Lupton Perrenl of Total Trip, Westbound 1mm YorliSilner Birch Inns, 79% sea 25% •1 Fort Lup:on Percenl of fora: bip,Ylevbuend Plum Yorl6dver 9�nh toot l5"e 50% 25% Perm, of Total Iip=Weslbound flow US 95 OOA• 15', SO% 25% 5% i Wnere He vrestbalnd hips on CO 52, a Yo1425dver 31rd1 east of I-25, eai: on the candor" • 602sal1.25 • 1302, before rtzdhing C°unh. 'td •Hudson 0 4/•y FF •K^nnr•hury fns Ira9n AralY`t Perrenl of lops leanno Percent of top:dopemng lacallon 0052 at a mater mem.. barmen motor mrereormn, Where are westbound trips on CO 52, Ll Yort;,ISiivet Birch east o1195, e:aiocg :=hn orndar'r • 5:"S it I'5 • 85N before reaching Count,' rrso Rd •Hudson i r1• : • Yar'tc•.11: Ir) Tra Hie Anann: Pelcenl of lip, leavmg Pertem al trip, dispersing .00non C052 al a major M ier:a.. heMeen major mterseruons 'J. ^.ore Er° sestbourd trips oa CO 52,,usl west of 11S 85, exiting tFe corridor9 • 2,5beaole Co oral° Blvd • Priir,;e,ore or all 25 •Y.ee nt-t;el1:I Sio • Hudson rmHiranalois Pe cent of h'rysle virg Perrenl of raps dispersmg ['nation C052 at a mater mt•rotlion belvren major inlerecuons 17 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis WB CO 52 from US 85 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •em:der •Longmont a e5% •Er•e Eastbound from US 85 Firestone 30% r ' n l• H•atillt - •!Fe,l tun* ® IY•lli:crin EB CO 52 from US 85 - 2045 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmont r� •(reorder •foe Tay Firestone • Frederick • Dacono EB CO 52 from US 85 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longmort •Isc;ldei FYZ •Erie �• F,eslone • Frederick • Datono Pmenl al local Trips Wcslbound bmn US 85 'O0'.° 755 50, 25`•, 5% W:. ere are ;reslbound trips os CC 52„usl West ar US A5, 6x66,•.9 the --err ardor% • 453a oe°ore Colorado ;It'd • ROla ne`ore or at 125 •Hudson a . R'+en..burg PralloAi alyw PU Levi ul Uip leeuivg Perteraurli,p.dspeiAly teralian CO 52 al a al*,,nte,secben belwein major inlerseclion: Where are eastbound trips on CO 52, ,ustcart ceU e5, exilingIhe;vnldol'. • 50% at ft apto'r. (helm WCR 31) • RE, oeiore 176 `► .low F• Pricenl of Total hips Easlbound ILom US 65 'o0s. PSb, 50,, 25 .! 1Ft • i Peicenl of Total bops Eastbound Iron, US 85 006, 75a 50'= 25% 5S d^I. Penenl of trips lelvmg Portent of [pp dnpei5ing C052 at a mai., rae:ecl on between major inleiseclions Dillae are eastbound trips on CO 52, ,list Pact 0' Ili RS, exllin9lire corridor' • 35',L al Ft , upto^ (before WCR 31) • 311,na1 Hudson or to the east • DirdiaS. 0 •knees...bold Pelcev l of trips leaving Penonlof lvp: dispersing C052 dtdmalaLmte.r,,ecbon between major mimed.; 18 of 19 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Origin -Destination Trip Pattern Analysis Westbound from 1-76 WB CO 52 from 1-76 -2045 AM Peak HourTrip Distribution *Au dale •Longmonr. - •Erie •Firestone • FrodarirF • 0a(ono WB CO 52 from I-/6 - 2045 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution •Longntonl •Boulder •Erie • Firestone • Frederiek •Mono as• eS_ I Pe,. of fob' irps We-.Ibourid from t IL =ET.:_ .on 753 50-) 754 us1 Parcenl of total Top; We,ILotlnd Imtn I /6 'OEM i5`a 57 754 35% Where a•c eresaor:nd Irips ur CC 57, ju>lNest of I.76, emlicg the calr,do•? • 559: heLlc roe,ching US 85 • 9C;, belme or al I.75 •asr �r•:In'A i® Irafbcka'rys, Petcenl of lop6 loanna PEKE,' of lnp5 al:poring .outIon e0 S2 at a malai'nlerw Ricr penleen major mlatsecpen; ',Vher are ^eestbomld lrlps on, CO 57, ,o,t west of I-76, er,l-, eg the corndol' • 65f7, before reachirg Uti 85 • 9e,', before er al 1.25 •Hudson 40--e"s• •P.!Pc r SE mq Per,zrlol nip; lea, ng Percent of hip: disoeranc C052 a:a maim a:lemecticn between major mlenecbon: 19 of 19 Appendix F-9 Freight Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 6P CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: September 24, 2021 Subject: Freight Memo Freight Existing Conditions Background The Upper Front Range 2045 Regional Transportation Plan identifies CO 52 as a freight corridor in Colorado. CO 52 has been identified as a route that facilitates the movement of critical goods, such as farm -to -market products and oil and gas. Approximately 35 miles of CO 52 is located in Weld County. Weld County is one of the state's top three agricultural producers, it is nationally ranked for its animal products, and is Colorado's leading producer of beef cattle, grain, sugar beets, and dairy products. Weld County prides itself on being the number one producer of oil and gas in the State of Colorado. According to the County's website, 88% of all crude oil production and 40% of all natural gas production in Colorado comes from Weld County, thus requiring a substantial amount of heavy and oversized vehicles in order to access the wells. Methodology Existing freight data for CO 52 was collected using the CDOT Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) database. OTIS uses a system of CDOT traffic data stations to gather and record data along state highways. Along CO 52, within the limits of the PEL, there are a total of fifteen traffic data stations. The most recent data available at these stations was recorded and separated by location along the corridor. Both the existing freight data and station breakdown is shown in Table 3-1. Motor Carrier Freight CO 52 has been divided into five subsections as shown in Table 3-1. Truck percentages fluctuate along the CO 52 corridor, ranging from 3 percent to 19 percent. Along the western end of the corridor, between CO 119 and County Line Road, truck percentages generally fall between 3 and 5 percent. Along the next two sections of CO 52 from County Line Road to WCR 31, which include crossings with I-25 and US 85, truck percentages average between 6 and 10 percent. The easternmost stretches of CO 52 are much more rural and exhibit the highest truck percentages, averaging between 14 and 20 percent of all traffic. 1 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Freight Memo Table 3-1 Percent Truck Trips of Total Vehicle Volume CO 52 SECTION CO 119 to County Line Road LOCATION Between CO 119 and 95th Street TRUCK PERCENTAGE* 201$ 2.8 Between 95th Street and US 287 3.9 Between US 287 and County Line Road 5.0 Segment 1 Average 3.9 County Line Road to WCR 19 Between County Line Road and I-25 5.9 Between I-25 and Colorado Boulevard 6.5 Between Colorado Boulevard and Ridgeway Boulevard 7.8 Between Ridgeway Boulevard and WCR 19 10 Segment 2 Average 7.6 WCR 19 to WCR 31 Between WCR 19 and US 85 10 Between US 85 and Rollie Avenue 7.4 Between Rollie Avenue and WCR 31 6.4 Segment 3 Average 7.9 WCR 31 to WCR 49 Between WCR 31 and WCR 37 6.4 Between WCR 37 and I-76 13.6 Between I-76 and WCR 49 13.6 Segment 4 Average 11.2 WCR 49 to CO 79 Between WCR 49 and WCR 59 13.6 Between WCR 59 and CO 79 19.0 Segment 5 Average 16.3 * The most recent year of truck percentage data in the CDOT OTIS database is 2018. Designated Hazmat and Oversized Truck Route CO 52 within the study area is designated as a hazardous materials and oversize vehicle route from CO 119 to CO 79. Roughly 80 percent of hazardous material cargo along the corridor are petroleum trucks serving the oil and gas industry and its commercial delivery. The corridor provides an east -west freight 2of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Freight Memo route for the northern Denver metropolitan area that has relatively few horizontal or vertical clearance restrictions. The only overpass above CO 52 within the study area is located at US 85 with a vertical clearance of 16'-10", high enough for many oversized vehicles. Interstates 76, 70, and 25 and US 36 all are underpasses to CO 52 with restricted bridge heights ranging from 14'-7" to 16'-0" for vehicles traveling along those facilities. In June 2020, the Project Team met with CDOT's Oversize/Overweight (OS/OW) permits section and learned there is limited data on the amount of hazardous and oversize trucks. Single -use and annual use permits are issued to motor carriers. The number of single -use permits distributed annually is approximately 4,000 while the number of trips exercised under annual use permits Is not recorded. Freight Railroads The project corridor includes three active railroad track segments that cross CO 52. Two of the railroad tracks are owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and one is owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UP). One of the railroad track segments owned by BNSF, located in Hudson, has three individual railroad tracks crossing CO 52. The UP railroad track segment, located in Niwot, and the BNSF railroad track segment located in Fort Lupton each have only one railroad track crossing CO 52. Therefore, there are a total of five active individual railroad tracks crossing CO 52. Table 3-2 shows the detailed location and approximate number of trains per day for each crossing. Table 3-2 Percent Truck Trips of Total Vehicle Volume Crossing Name West Crossing City/ Town Niwot Railroad BNSF Milepost 36.679 Railroad Subdivision Front Range Maximum Train Speed (MPH) 49 NumberApprox.Crossing of Tracks 1 Trains per Day (Year of Data) 6 (2019) Description ' ctive Signalization (Gates/Flashers) Central Crossing Ft Lupton UP 25.51 Greely 50 1 10 (2017) Active Signalization (Gates/Flashers) East Crossing Hudson BNSF 512.981 Brush 79 3 18 (2019) Active Signalization (Gates/Flashers) The BNSF railroad through Niwot, which crosses CO 52 just east of CO 119, carries approximately six trains daily. The crossing has active signalization and crosses four travel lanes on CO 52 including left and right turn lanes approaching CO 119 from the east. According to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) accident/incident reports, no crashes have occurred at the crossing since May 1995. The UP railroad crossing CO 52 in Ft Lupton carries approximately 10 trains daily. The crossing has active signalization and crosses two travel lanes on CO 52. No crashes have occurred at the crossing since July 1995. 3of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Freight Memo The BNSF railroad crossing CO 52 in Hudson carries approximately 18 trains daily. The crossing has active signalization and crosses two travel lanes on CO 52. Only one crash has occurred at the crossing in the past ten years. The crash involved a car stopped on the crossing that was struck by a train causing property damage but no injuries or fatalities. There have been two incidents resulting in fatalities at the crossing that involved pedestrians. The first incident occurred in 2005 involving a pedestrian running in front of a train. The other incident involved two pedestrians that were both killed crossing the railroad in 2006. Freight Alternative Evaluation -Methodology Results Proposed alternatives were advanced to the Level 2 Screening process. The alternatives were qualitatively evaluated for their potential effect on accommodating freight movements along the CO 52 corridor, including hazmat and oversized vehicles. It is important to consider the size and types of trucks utilizing a facility in order to properly accommodate these vehicles. Performance grades assessed for the various alternatives included "Improves," "Neutral," and "Limits" in regards to the effect upon freight movements. The performance evaluation included the following elements: • Turn radii • Shoulder Width (safety) • Vertical clearance • Passing Opportunities • Roadway grade • Intersection control • Rail crossings Turn Radii Truck turn radii are greater than passenger vehicles. Truck movements are limited along roadways and at intersections/access points with limited space and tight turns. For this evaluation, the following alternative amenities were considered: • Additional travel lanes (e.g. four lanes vs two lanes) — an additional travel lane provides trucks with a greater cross-section for turning, including right turns where a truck can swing wide into the second general purpose lane if necessary • Median — provides additional space for left -turns • Turn lanes, shoulder — provides designated lanes and additional space for turns For the alternatives screening, alternatives that provide an additional travel lane, turn lane, or space for a median were given an "Improves" grade. Improvements to shoulder width were given an "Improves" or "Neutral" grade dependent upon the amount of widening. The No Action scenario was given a "Limits" grade as it does not provide improved freight accommodation. Shoulder width Roadway facilities with wider shoulders are generally considered safer as they provide a refuge for trucks and other vehicles to safely pull out of the flow of traffic. For the alternatives screening, shoulder widening as a stand-alone improvement was given a "Neutral" grade as this does not provide marked 4of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Freight Memo improvement to overall freight movement. Shoulder widening coupled with other improvements including additional through lanes, turn lanes, or median space resulted in an "Improves" grade. The No Action scenario was given a "Limits" grade as it does not provide improved freight accommodation. Vertical Clearance It is critical for a freight corridor to provide adequate vertical clearance at grade -separated crossings. The only existing overpass above CO 52 within the study area is located at US 85 and already adequately accommodates most oversized vehicles. None of the major alternative elements include grade - separated vertical elements that would limit truck travel; any intersection improvement that would include grade -separation needs to consider vertical clearance for oversized vehicles. Passing Opportunities Passing opportunities along a corridor provide vehicles with the ability to pass slower moving or turning vehicles, improving overall flow of travel. Freight truck traffic is commonly slower moving traffic, especially at locations with steeper grades. However, freight movement also benefits from passing opportunities in that it also allows trucks to pass slower moving or turning vehicles and the overall improvement in traffic flow benefits all vehicles, including trucks. For the alternatives screening, alternatives that include additional travel lanes and two-way left turn lanes were considered beneficial to freight movement and were given an "Improved" grade. Alternate passing lanes were given a "Neutral" grade as this improvement is intermittent and less likely to have meaningful impact to overall freight movement along the corridor. The No Action scenario was given a "Limits" grade as it does not provide improved freight accommodation. Roadway Grade Roadway grade affects vehicle speed and control, particularly for heavier vehicles like trucks. Steeper grades can cause truck speeds to decline quickly on the incline while posing a safety concern for trucks descending steep grades. For the CO 52 corridor, roadway grades are generally flat or at grades with negligible impact to vehicle speeds. For the alternatives screening, alternatives that include additional travel lanes or passing lanes on steeper grades were graded as "Improved" per the passing opportunities factor discussed above. Overall grades along the various roadway segments are expected to be the same throughout the various alternatives. Intersection Control Intersection controls can positively or negatively impact freight movement. Traditional intersections with stop of signal control can result in intersection delay and limitations to freight movements. Non- traditional intersection improvements can benefit freight movement to varying degrees. Turning lanes, medians, or increased turning radii benefit the movement of freight if designed accordingly, though negative impacts can occur when freight movement is not considered in the design process. For the alternatives screening, alternatives with additional turn lanes or medians at various intersections along the corridor were considered "Neutral" in their benefit to freight as these are for spot locations. However, when considering alternatives specific to individual intersections, individual grades can be applied for freight movement. Any grade -separated interchange would be given an "Improves" grade. Traditional intersection improvements are considered "Neutral." Non-traditional improvements, such as 5of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Freight Memo continuous -flow intersections (CFI's), roundabouts, etc.) are also considered "Neutral" until design elements are clarified that would have a positive or negative effect upon freight movement. Rail Crossings Rail crossings can impact truck freight movement by causing frequent delays at rail crossings. In general, grade -separated crossings benefit freight movement by reducing vehicle delays. Along the CO 52 corridor there are only three active railroad crossings. For the alternatives screening, any alternative that includes a grade -separated rail -crossing would be given an "Improves" grade. All other alternatives are considered "Neutral." Freight Evaluation Summary The qualitative evaluation of the proposed alternatives found improved conditions for freight movements through the CO 52 corridor under select alternatives. Generally, freight movements benefit from alternatives that include improved truck turn radii and additional roadway capacity. Alternatives that were considered to "improve" freight movement include: • additional travel lanes (general purpose, managed lanes, or peak period shoulder lanes) • two-way left turn lanes ■ widened medians (improved cross -sections for turns) Alternatives that were considered "neutral" in their impact to freight movements include: • alternating passing lanes ■ shoulder widening • median widening or turn lane improvements only at major intersections The No Build alternative and any alternative that results in shoulder widening alone is considered "limiting" in its impact to freight movements. 6of6 Appendix F-10 Traffic Technical Memorandum Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 1PiaMULLER MEMORANDUM Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation — Region 4 From: Kenneth A. Ryan, PE, PTOE — Muller Engineering Company Date: November 2, 2021 Subject: Traffic Technical Memorandum E rJt;INI LRINC, COMPANY This technical memorandum documents the traffic operational analysis completed in support of the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (CO 52 PEL, or PEL). The PEL study provides an understanding of the transportation problems in the corridor, a collaboratively developed vision for the future, and potential projects to implement that vision. CDOT and PEL partners initiated this study to explore a range of improvements for the corridor. The study supports CDOT, the local agencies, stakeholders, and the public to determine improvements that should be made and estimate a corridor preservation footprint for future projects. The project limits extend approximately 42 miles (milepost [MP] 0 to MP 41.94) along CO 52, from CO 119 in Boulder County to CO 79 east of Hudson in Weld County (Figure 1). Figure 1: Corridor Map a Boulder alongmEoi I r •r•che[k I 161 S 4•-4•- •�.�_ BO irtioc tr-Lupton • I� tl%ro, • • Ene ITraffic Signal 04 Railroad Crossing===Oversize Vehicle Route - •TranshlBuslService Existing Bike Rome ;School/College >r 777 South Wadsworth Boulevard • Suite 4-100 • Lakewood, Colorado 80226 • 303 988 4939 • www mullereng.com ANALYSIS DETAILS For the CO 52 PEL, a two -level evaluation process was developed to evaluate alternatives. Evaluation criteria were developed for each screening level and were used to assess alternatives relative to the Purpose & Need. Goals of the project were also considered in this process during the second level of evaluation. The goal of the Level 1 Evaluation was to assess a full range of alternatives based on Existing Conditions to determine whether alternatives would meet Purpose & Need. The needs defined for the corridor were to increase in safety, accommodation of increased travel and freight demand, and support of multimodal connections. During the Level 2 analysis, alternatives were evaluated based on more detailed criteria related to project needs as well as how well they met the project goals. The purpose of the traffic analysis was to evaluate the conceptual roadway layouts and intersection configurations to help guide the PEL Level 2 recommendations. The primary intent was to provide a comparative analysis of the alternatives over the length of the study corridor in a reasonably efficient manner to gather a combination of intersection and roadway corridor metrics. As the corridor primarily experiences congestion during the peak periods, the traffic analysis helped determine to what degree the conceptual layouts will affect future operations on this regional facility. Study Segments In order to better analyze the 42 -mile -long CO 52 study corridor, the study team divided the corridor into meaningful segments. Segment divisions considered jurisdictional boundaries, community characteristics, and land use similarities (Figure 2). Other than Segment 2, which includes the communities of Erie, Frederick, and Dacono, the other segments only include one community allowing individual community desires to be considered in the context of the overall corridor vision. ■ Segment 1: CO 119 to Boulder/Weld County line • Segment 2: Boulder/Weld County line to Weld CR 19 (eastern DRCOG planning boundary) • Segment 3: Weld CR 19 to Weld CR 31 (East of Fort Lupton) • Segment 4: Weld CR 31 to Weld CR 49 (East of Hudson) ■ Segment 5: Weld CR 49 to CO 79. Figure 2: Study Segment Map ngmonc .Firestone o f ■ limddni jl ■Ene r .Frndor ck ■ Oecono O � Q 3 PIMULLER Study Intersections The intersections that were specifically analyzed within each segment are listed in Table 1. Traffic operations were reviewed in the context of the corridor operations using TransModeler."' to model intersection and corridor conditions simultaneously. TransModeler is a microsimulation traffic operations software tool that provides detailed analysis results regarding the operational performance of integrated roadway segments and intersections. The TransModeler output provided a more comprehensive picture of the impacts of the PEL alternatives as opposed to analysis methods that review intersections and corridor elements separately. As such, improvements at one location that may impact traffic flow to other locations are explicitly accounted for throughout the analysis. Table 1: Study Intersections by Segment Segment 1 CO 119 Study Segment 2 WCR 3 Intersections by Segment Segment 3 WCR 19 Segment 4 WCR 37 Segment 5 WCR 53 71ST ST WCR 5 WCR 23 WCR 41 WCR 59 DRY CREEK PKY WCR 7 SB US 85 LOVES/W I-76 FR SH 79/WCR 69 MONARCH PARK PL W I-25 FRONTAGE NB US 85 WB I-76 79TH ST SB I-25 GRAND AVE EB I-76 HOVER/95TH NB I-25 FULTON AVE WCR 45 US 287 E I-25 FRONTAGE MCKINLEY AVE COUNTY LINE RD YORK/SILVER BIRCH DENVER AVE FLYING CIRCLE ROLLIE AVE COLORADO AVE WCR 29.5 GLEN CREIGHTON WCR 31 WCR 15 Excluded Areas Specific areas along the study corridor are excluded from the study because of other projects or studies (Figure 3). While these areas weren't specifically studied, the study team did consider proposed improvements in the context of the PEL. These corridor sections include: ■ CO 119 to immediately west of 71st Street - Alternatives will be considered 119 improvement project. • /-25 (between southbound frontage road to northbound frontage road) — alternatives will tie into I-25 recommendations. • US 85 (between northbound and southbound ramps) — Recommendations impact the bridge structure or conflict with US 85 PEL recommendations. • /-76 (WCR 43 to Dahlia St.) — I-76 Interchange constructed in 2020/2021. by teams for the CO PEL recommended are not expected to WMULLER Figure 3: Exclusion Areas ■4:lawnam I � Bounder i I •rod ,.„ ■Ene iggl l 3 . .'r.:!i.n:n'i y z • Keanesburg • No Action Improvements The No Action Alternative anticipates future conditions of the CO 52 corridor without completing any transportation improvements that are recommended by this PEL. The No Action Alternative does include required safety and maintenance improvements to maintain an operational transportation system, as well as those fiscally constrained projects that have committed funding sources that will be built regardless of other improvements recommended in this PEL. The No Action alternative is used as a baseline for comparison to the operational and safety benefits that would result from recommended transportation improvements resulting from this PEL. Table 2 provides information on 2045 fiscally constrained projects that were included in the No Action Model. Table 2: 2045 Fiscally Constrained Projects Considered in No Action Alternative Facility CO 52 Project Name CO 52 & US 287 Intersection Project Description Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements CO 52 CO 52 & I-76 Interchange Intersection Capacity and Safety Improvements CO 52 CO 52 & WCR 41 Intersection Intersection Safety Improvements I-25 MP 214-269 Congestion, Safety, and Freight Reliability Improvements N 71St St Lookout Rd to CO 52 Realignment and Widening of Intersection WCR 7 CO 52 to Erie Pkwy Realignment and Widening to 4 -Lanes Measures of Effectiveness The PEL performance measures were determined early in the project and documented in the PEL Evaluation Criteria matrix finalized as of 12/14/2020. The operations -based measures of effectiveness (MOE) are summarized in Table 3. WMULLER Table 3: PEL Evaluation Criteria (Operations) Category Accommodate Increased Travel and Freight Demand Criteria • Congestion • Corridor capacity • Travel times • Travel reliability • Quality of Traffic Operations Performance Measure Evaluation Level 1 Potential to accommodate projected travel and freight demand (Y/N) Level 2 Decrease Travel Time Index Increase Reliability Decrease Travel Time Decrease Delay Accommodate Freight Movements The specific MOEs used to evaluate these performance measures are generally straightforward, measuring the change in the stated performance measure, with the exception of "Increase Reliability". This was initially expected to use the relative change in the TTI as its basis. However, this was later changed to use the Planning Time Index (PTI), a more traditional MOE used for reliability. NOMENCLATURE An important word regarding the nomenclature used with the technical analysis for the CO 52 PEL to distinguish between the use of the terms model, alternative, and scenario: Model: The term model has the broadest scope and refers to the input, output (results), or files used to perform the technical analysis for the CO 52 PEL project. The program TransCADTm was used to perform the Travel Demand Modeling (TDM), thus the TDM results are referred to as the "model results". While the files used for microsimulation modeling in TransModeler may also be referred to as "models", the term model is typically used when referring to the TDM generated traffic volumes (e.g. — The Full 4 -Lane Model Volumes). Alternative: The use of the term alternative is used more versatilely and refers to the physical changes to the roadway geometry and its related impacts. In terms of the CO 52 PEL, a 2 -Lane alternative may include wider shoulders, a multi -use path, and additional median treatments. However, in terms of the traffic analysis, the alternatives are limited to the relevant features that are expected to have a direct, measurable impact on traffic operations. The traffic volumes from several different models could apply to a particular alternative in terms of the traffic analysis, depending on the location along the corridor. For example, west of US 287 the Full 4 -Lane and West 4 -Lane model volumes apply to the 4 -Lane alternative. Scenario: This is the most specific term and refers to the combination of TDM volumes (model) and geometric features (alternative) used in the TransModeler analysis. Thus a "modeled scenario" or "scenario model" refers to the TransModeler input or output (results) for a discreet combination of TDM volumes and roadway alternative. The results from multiple scenarios can be combined or aggregated within specific segments to provide average results for an alternative, but an alternative cannot be readily split without creating a new scenario. fiMULLER EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The Existing Conditions Report (Muller 2020) was prepared in early 2020 to provide vital context on the current conditions along the corridor. Roadway characteristics, traffic operations, travel demand modeling, socioeconomic projections, safety, transit, railroad crossings, freight, and structures were all considered along the CO 52 study corridor. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the stay-at-home orders significantly impacted traffic operations nationwide when this report was prepared, delaying the data collection effort necessary for the detailed traffic operations analysis. DATA COLLECTION EFFORT The data collection effort was postponed to the Fall 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data collected in support of the traffic operations analysis included vehicle classification data, speed data, pedestrian and bicycle counts. The intersection turning movement counts and link volume counts collected in the field were reviewed in detail and adjusted to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The field collected turning movement counts are provided in Appendix A. Vehicle Classification The link volumes collected included vehicle classification data based on September and October 2020 traffic counts. This information was used to inform the truck percentages assumptions used during the traffic operations analysis performed for the corridor. A summary of the vehicle classification data at select locations is provided in Table 4. I ink volume, speed, and classification data is provided in Appendix B. Table 4: Vehicle Classification Data Location Count 1 AM Peak o z /oL ' �. Period o s o 4 1 M/o A/o Count . _ W'e`stboun`d.� PM Peak Period o z /oL o 3 M/o 0 4 A/o -k'-t -a �- West of US 287 350 79% 20% - 1% 160 90% 9% 0% East of Colorado Blvd. 570 72% 22% 6% 450 78% 19% 3% West of US 85 410 69% 20% 10% 350 84% 13% 3% West of I-76 200 s 69% 22% 9% 200 76% 19% 5% East of WCR 59 120 71% 21% 9% 80 65% 31% 4% r y81% West of US 287 230 18% 1% 400 0 91% 8% 1% East of Colorado Blvd. 380 73% 20% 7% 670 82% 16% 2% West of US 85 370 66% 27% 7% 380 75% 21% 4% West of I-76 160 66% 29% 5% 210 76% 21% 2% East of WCR 59 100 79% 16% 5% 90 71% 24% 4% z 3 4 Two -Day Peak Period Average (vehicles per hour) Light Vehicles (Cars, SUVs, Pick -Ups): AASHTO Classes 1-3 Medium Trucks (Single -Unit Trucks, Busses, RVs): AASHTO Classes 4-7 Articulated Trucks (Semi -Trucks): AASHTO Classes 8-13 WMULLER Speed Distribution The data collection effort also recorded vehicle speeds at 19 locations across the CO 52 study corridor. This information was used to inform the speed distribution of vehicles relative to the posted speed limit input into the traffic analysis models. For reference, Figure 4 displays the posted speed limit along a map of the corridor. Figure 4: Posted Speed Limits F 52 I� 00112—11PTON 1 DA ONO y r it r. Legend 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 rnp1, 45 mph 50 mph 55 mph 60 mph 65 mph A representative sample of the speed distribution data, provided in terms of the deviation from the posted speed limit, are provided in Table 5. Table 5: Speed Distribution — Deviation from Posted Speed Limit Location Speed Limit Free Flowl AM Peak Periodz <5 ±5 >5 <5 mph mph mph mph . -?-r _ ,es"boun.d� ±5 > 5 mph mph PM Peak Period' <5 mph ±5 > 5 mph mph West of US 287 East of Colo. Blvd. West of US 85 West of I-76 East of WCR 59 55 45 65 65 65 2% 63% 2% 77% 18% 76% 23% 70% 25% 61% 35% 21% 6% 7% 14% 6% 59% 35% 11% 78% 11% 36% 63% 1% 16% 75% 9% 18% 80% 2% 2% 41% 57% 3% 71% 26% 23% 76% 1% 13% 78% 9% 23% 75% 2% West of US 287 East of Colo. Blvd. West of US 85 West of I-76 East of WCR 59 55 45 65 65 65 2% 64% 34% 2% 83% 15% 11% 63% 26% 17% 58% 25% 11% 56% 33% 1% 30% 3% 74% 19% 75% 8% 72% 14% 68% 69% 23% 6% 20% 18% 6% 72% 22% 5% 85% 10% 16% 78% 6% 2% 70% 28% 17% 59% 24% z Free -Flow based on speeds recorded late evening to early morning (10 p.m. to 3 a.m.) AM 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., PM 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity There was some degree of pedestrian or bicycle activity measured at 28 of the 40 intersections included in the data collection effort. Weather conditions were partly cloudy and warm with temperatures between 77°F and 88°F with no precipitation. WMULLER Pedestrian Counts The highest hourly crossing pedestrian volume for each peak period, by approach, is shown in Table 6. As expected, pedestrian counts are highest in the areas of higher land -use density, notably in the areas of Frederick/Dacono, Fort Lupton, and Hudson. Table 6: Pedestrian Activity LOCATION EWNS AM PEAK HOUR E EWNSE PM PEAK HOUR SH119 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 71ST ST DRY CREEK PKY MONARCH PARK PL 79TH ST 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 HOVER/95TH US 287 COUNTY LINE RD WCR3 WCR5 WCR7 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 W I-25 FRONTAGE 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 SB I-25 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NB I-25 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 E I-25 FRONTAGE 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 YORK/SILVER BIRCH 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 FLYING CIRCLE COLORADO AVE 0 2 2 0 4 3 9 ': 6 3 21 GLEN CREIGHTON/FREDERICK 0 2 0 0 2 1 4 0 5 10 WCR15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 WCR19 WCR23 SB US 85 NB US 85 GRAND AVE 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 4 FULTON AVE 0 5 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 7 MCKINLEY AVE 11 1 1 7 20 9 1 1 3 14 US 85 BUS/DENVER 2 2 0 2 6 3 3 2 0 8 ROLLIE AVE 6 0 1 0 7 8 0 0 3 11 WCR29.5 WCR31 WCR37 WCR41 LOVES/W I-76 FRONTAGE WCR45 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 WCR53 WCR59 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SH79/WCR69 Note: Pedestrian volumes represent bidirectional activity crossing the indicated approach. riaMULLER Bicycle Counts The highest hourly approach bicycle volume for each peak period, by approach, is shown in Table 7. In general, intersections towards the west end of the corridor (west of US 287) have more bicycle activity than the central and eastern portions. Table 7: Bicycle Activity LOCATION SH119 EB 0 AM PEAK HOUR WB NB SB 0 4 4 1 8 EB i 0 PM PEAK HOUR WB NB SB 0 4 8 1 12 71ST ST 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 3 DRY CREEK PKY 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 MONARCH PARK PL 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 79TH ST 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 8 6 16 HOVER/95TH 0 1 2 1 4 4 0 3 3 10 US 287 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 COUNTY LINE RD 0 2 0 2 4 1 1 1 0 3 WCR3 WCR5 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 4 WCR7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 W I-25 FRONTAGE 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 5 SB I-25 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 NB I-25 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 E I-25 FRONTAGE 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 YORK/SILVER BIRCH 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 FLYING CIRCLE 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 4 COLORADO AVE 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 GLEN CREIGHTON/FREDERICK 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 5 WCR15 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 4 WCR19 WCR23 SB US 85 NB US 85 GRAND AVE FULTON AVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 MCKINLEY AVE US 85 BUS/DENVER ROLLIE AVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 WCR29.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 WCR31 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 WCR37 WCR41 LOVES/W I-76 FRONTAGE WCR45 WCR53 WCR59 SH79/WCR69 Note: Bicycle traffic counted approaching the intersection in the indicated direction. ra0MULLER EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES As part of the project, traffic data was collected along the corridor, cross -streets and frontage roads for the purpose of analyzing traffic conditions, adjusting traffic models, and supporting other design needs. Data collection focused on weekdays and included turning movement count data (TMC), as well as link volume, classification, and speed data. The primary field data collection effort occurred on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during the week of September 20th, 2020 (9/22/2020 - 9/24/2020). Secondary data collection (corrections and refinements) occurred on the following dates: 9/29/2020, 9/30/2020, 10/28/2020, and 10/29/2020. COVID-19 Pandemic Volume Adjustments The purpose of this section is to summarize the steps taken to adjust the SH52 volumes for COVID-19. Evidence indicated that 2020 volumes were consistently lower than in previous years due to COVID. The following data was used in this evaluation process: Available Data • Current 2020 Traffic Counts: — 40 TMCs and 19 Link Counts ■ CDOT Short Duration Counts from OTIS: — 21 Link Counts Locations (some overlap): 2015 @ 11 Locations 2016 @ 7 Locations 2017 @ 15 Locations • 2018 @ 10 Locations 2019 @ 8 Locations • CDOT Continuous Count Locations from OTIS: — None on CO 52 or a truly similar facility. • Link Counts from Other Sources: — 4 Link Count Locations • 2017 @ 1 Location • 2019 @ 3 Locations ■ TMC from Other Sources: — 10 TMC Count Locations: 2015 @ 5 Locations 2016 @ 1 Location • 2018 @ 3 Locations • 2019 @ 2 Locations The historic data is spread out across five years and were collected in different months of the year. This methodology used seasonal and annual adjustment factors based on Continuous Count data locations to adjust the historic counts to represent 2019 Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) equivalent. The 2020 counts were adjusted to approximate 2020 AWDT levels for the purpose of this comparison. 1lIMULLER Developing Annual and Seasonal Adjustment Factors The Continuous Count Locations, or Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) locations collect hourly count data daily, by direction, and were downloaded from the OTIS website. There are many such ATRs located throughout the State. For the purpose of this analysis, the following eight (8) locations shown in Table 8 were selected; these locations are also shown in Figure 5 with the selected locations in red and the available locations in blue. Table 8: Selected Automated Traffic Recorder Stations ROUTE 287C MP 318.33 DESCRIPTION ON SH 287 107TH ST N/O SH 66 UTE HWY LONGMONT 085C 244.21 ON SH 85 N/O CR 18 034A 96.03 ON SH 34 EISENHOWER BLVD W/O I-25 LOVELAND 044A 2.24 ON SH 44 104TH AVE W/O BRIGHTON RD COMMERCE CITY 076A 9.48 ON I-76 NE/O 88TH AVE COMMERCE CITY 076A 38.92 ON I-76 EN/O SH 76 SPUR MARKET ST KEENESBURG 025A 255.27 ON I-25 S/O SH 34 JOHNSTOWN 025A 229.11 ON I-25 N/O SH 7 BASELINE RD BROOMFIELD Figure 5: Selected and Available Automated Traffic Recorder Stations Legend Selected Locations • Yes • No "WMULLER Annual Adjustment Factors The Average Annual Weekday Daily Traffic (AAWDT) is the average of the daily volumes on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Table 9 shows the calculated AAWDT based on the ATR data: Table 9: Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volumes by Year Route 287C MP 318.33 2015 23,300 2016 25,700 Year 2017 26,800 2018 27,600 2019 27,900 085O 244.21 21,500 21,200 24,000 23,900 22,700 034A 96.03 51,800 53,200 53,800 54,800 56,300 044A 2.24 13,600 14,400 15,000 15,900 16,300 076A 9.48 87,900 91,100 92,200 97,700 95,900 076A 38.92 11,400 11,000 10,900 13,200 13,100 025A 255.27 79,100 81,700 84,000 86,000 83,300 025A 229.11 113,700 117,500 126,000 129,100 127,000 This was used to create a factor that could be applied to any year to adjust the traffic volumes to a 2019 equivalent value using the following formula: Annual Factor - AAWDT2o19 Year - � AAW DT Year The resulting factor is ?1.0 when AAWDT is lower than the 2019 AAWDT and <1.0 when the annual AAWDT was greater than the 2019 AAWDT. The resulting factors are shown in Table 10 along with the average annual factor across all eight locations: Table 10: Annual Weekday Traffic Factor by Year Year Route MP 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 287C 318.33 1.20 ; 1.09 1.04 1.01 . 1.00 085C 244.21 1.06 . 1.07 '0,95.. - . 0.95 1.00 034A 96.03 1.09 . 1.06 1.05 I 1.03 1.00 044A 2.24 1.20 1.13 1.09 1.03 1.00 076A 9.48 1.09 1.05 1.04 ; 0.98 1.00 076A 38.92 1.15 1.19 1.20 0.99 1.00 025A 255.27 1.05 1.02 0.99. 0.97 1.00 025A 229.11 1.12 1.08 1.01 0.98 . 1.00 ifi � r _ E IIII � ��i� ' �i�" � � 'ice —� - : �- �._ �'-- iA,UFR,,.A .- 4U� 151E«l 'x!49. _. 1..05 ' _ :1:5§:1L . iitioT It was interesting that 2018 AAWDT was a bit higher than the 2019 AAWDT fairly consistently. There are a couple of odd patterns here that could be considered outliers, such as the I-76 count in Keensburg where the traffic decreased from 2015 to 2017 then increased significantly in 2018. The Average Annual Factor was applied to CO 52 count data to adjust the historic counts to 2019 equivalent values. UMULLER Seasonal Adjustment Factors The seasonal adjustment factors compare the monthly AWDT to the AAWDT for each year. A separate seasonal adjustment factor is calculated for each month and year using the ATR data. This calculation is performed separately for each year using the following formula: Seasonal Factor AAWDTYear Month,Year = /AWDT Month,Year Similar to the annual factor, this is >1.0 when the monthly AWDT was lower than the AAWDT for that year, and <1.0 when the monthly AWDT is greater. The factors calculated for 2019 are shown in Table 11 along with the average seasonal factor across all eight locations: Table 11: Seasonal Adjustment Factor, 2019 by Month Route MP I 2 3 4 5 2019 by Month 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 287C 3'18.33 1.11. 1.07 1.04 1.02. 0.98 0.92 0.91.0.89 0.94 1.01 1.14 1.08 085C 244.21 1.09 1.05 1.041 1.03 0.97 0.90 0.91 .0.90 0.93 11.01 1.11 1.15 034A 96,03 1.11 1.07 1.03 1.01 . 0.99 0.93 0.90 ' 0.91 0.93 1.01 1.13 ' 1.04 044A 2.24 1.12 1.08 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.98 1.07 1.03 076A 9;48 1.07 1.04 . 0.98 1.00 10.98 0.93 , 0.95 . 0.93 0.94 1.03 1.11 1.08 076A 38.92 1.18 , 1„25� 11.07 1.03 , 0.95 0.86� 0� ':D;80.84 _ ,' 0.93 1.06 I 1.18 1.10 , 025A 255,27 1.10 1.07 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.96 1.09 1.11 ; 1.04 025A 229,111 1.11 1.09 0.99 1.0{2y :A�00.98 0.90 0..9900 1��..04 1.10 1�.�05 �I ii . rte: - s5} •=.1 I`3l ' /0.92 p0.91j�; !_ �'li �.; �s5.1: j k' 'DIA 'A eatI � It: i. i -Tr r7 ��.�'f��?�.� �� r�' Yl�r�',� This was repeated for each of the five years (2015 through 2019) to create the average seasonal factors, by year, shown in Table 12. Table 12: Annual Seasonal Adjustment Factor, by Month YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 V 76�4 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.11 1.08 1.03 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.92 I 0.92 0.96 ! 0.99 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.06 1.02 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.97 • 0.98 1.01 1.02 1.15 1.10 1.02 . 1.00 0.97 , 0.93 0.96 . 0.93 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.03 1.10 1.11 1.03 . 1.00 : 0.96 0.93 , 0.95 0.93. 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.11 1.09 1.02 1.01 0.97 0.9.1, Ago 0.910 0.93 1.03 1.12. 1.07 The Seasonal Adjustment Factor was applied to the historic counts by month and year. Therefore, the 2019 AWDT equivalent is calculated using the following formula: 2019 AWDT Equivalent = COUNT DATAMonth,Year * Seasonal FactorMonth,Year * Annual Factoryear WMULLER Special Provision for 2020 Counts As the intent was to compare 2020 data directly to the calculated 2019 AWDT equivalent value, it was not necessary to apply an annual factor to the 2020 counts. However, the field data collection, which primarily occurred in September, was adjusted to an equivalent AWDT level. Therefore, the Average Seasonal Factor was applied to the 2020 counts. CO 52 COVID Adjustment Factors The 2019 AWDT Equivalent volumes were compared to the seasonally adjusted 2020 traffic counts to create the COVID adjustment factors along the CO 52 corridor. Where possible, the 2019 AWDT Equivalent from multiple historic counts were used in this comparison. Historic counts were included if the location description and count characteristics were consistent with other historic counts in the vicinity. The calculated COVID adjustment factors for these discreet count locations were evaluated individually and in terms of how to apply the factors to the 2020 traffic count data. Table 13 provides a summary of the count comparison locations with the seasonally adjusted 2020 counts, average 2019 AWDT counts, and the resulting factors applicable to traffic along the CO 52 corridor. Table 13: Historic Link Volume Data Comparison LOCATION 2020 Counts Average 2019 EquivalentZ %DIFF FACTOR APPLIED .FACTOR_ SH 119 and 79th Street 7,290 11,230 ;, -43% -3'6% 1.54 1.44 1.40 79th Street and 95th Street 7,980 11,520 95th Street and US 287 8,880 11,750 -28% 1.32 1.25 US 287 and County Line 16,450 18,830 -13% 1.14 Aggregate and SB 1-25 Ramp 18,840 20,650 -9% 1.10 1.10 1-25 Frontage and York -Silver Birch 20,700 22,910 -10% 1.11 Colorado Blvd and Frederick St 16,460 16,300 1% 0.99 Frederick St and WCR 19 11,260 12,480 -10% 1.11 WCR 19 and US 85 12,530 12,120 3% 0.97 1.10 US 85 and Denver Street 12,710 15,280 -18% 1.20 Denver St and WCR 31 6,520 N/A - - WCR 37 and Loves Access -176 Frontage 6,610 8,990 -31% 1.36 1.30 EB 176 and Beech St 6,180 8,230 -28% 1.33 Beech St and WCR 51 3,730 5,090 -31% 1.36 WCR 51 and WCR 59 3,980 3,520 12% 0.88 1.00 WCR 59 and WCR 69-SH 79 3,490 2,430 1'36' 0.70 1 2020 counts adjusted with average seasonal adjustment factors. z Average 2019 AWDT Equivalent factors based on annual and seasonal adjustment factors. There are several interesting patterns indicated here. The observed difference between the 2019 equivalent volumes and the 2020 traffic counts steadily increases between 1-25 and SH 119, more -so west of US 287. The difference between 1-25 and US 85 was less consistent but generally low (less than 10%), WMULLER going back up between Ft. Lupton and Hudson. There was significantly less data to use for comparison east of Hudson, which shows an increase in 2020 traffic during COVID conditions; therefore the 2020 data was used without adjustment in this area. These factors were generalized to apply to multiple links and intersections within six zones. The resulting COVID-19 adjustment factors are shown graphically in Figure 6. Figure 6: COVID-19 Adjustment Factors Adjustment to 2020 Volumes due to COVID-19 •lnrigiru�nt • Eautdnr 85l 1 Fi 3 COVID Factor. 100 1.10 120 1 25 1 30 1 40 r 3 3 • IQ,. sni..p Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Review In addition to the link -count comparisons, there were six locations where historic turning movement count data was available to compare to the Fall 2020 data collected for the CO 52 PEL study. There were four other locations available that were excluded from this review due to the age of the count data (2015 or older), or due to inconsistencies in the source data. The eastbound and westbound CO 52 approach traffic was adjusted using the annual and seasonal adjustment factors to 2019 equivalent levels to compare to the seasonally adjusted 2020 count data. The resulting comparison with the percent differences by peak period are shown in Table 14. Table 14: Historic Turning Movement Data Comparison LOCATION Eastbound and Westbound AM PEAK 2020 2019 % Counts' Equivalent' Diff. 2920 3720 -24% CO 52 Approach Volumes PM PEAK 2020 2019 Countsl Equivalent2 Diff. US287 and SH52 3070 3930 -25% 125 W Frontage and SH52 2250 2590 -14% 2240 2530 -12% 125 NB Ramp and SH52 2450 2650 -8% 2640 2770 -5% 125 E Frontage and SH52 2180 2290 -5% 2380 2610 -9% WCR19 and SH52 970 1040 -7% 1070 1140 -6% WCR41 and SH52 440 700 -46% 530 810 -42% ' 2020 counts adiusted with calculated average seasonal adiustment factor. 2 Historic counts adjusted using annual and seasonal factors to 2019 equivalent levels. This comparison indicates that while the 2020 counts were lower than the 2019 equivalent levels, there is not a substantial shift between the AM and PM peak periods. Observations made in the Denver Metro f1fMULLER Area have shown different shifts based on time of day, often with the AM peak period showing a larger decrease in 2020 than during the PM peak period. That does not appear to be the case for the intersections along CO 52, therefore, the same COVID-19 adjustment factors will be applied to both peak periods. COVID-19 Adjusted 2020 Peak Hour Traffic Volume Estimates Intersection turning movement counts were adjusted using NCHRP 255 volume balancing procedures, with manual adjustments to the applied factors where the applied factor changes. The resulting volumes were then balanced along the corridor to limit the differences in peak hour link volumes between intersections based on the relative amount of access between intersections. For example, a ±10% difference was allowed between Colorado Boulevard and Glen Creighton Boulevard as there are multiple access points between the two locations, while no change was allowed between WCR 5 and WCR 7 due to the minimal amount of access between the two locations. The resulting peak hour and daily link volumes estimated are provided in the following five figures: • Figure 7: Segment 1— COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes • Figure 8: Segment 2 —COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes • Figure 9: Segment 3 —COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes • Figure 10: Segment 4 —COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes • Figure 11: Segment 5 — COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes Figure 7: Segment 1— COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes SH119 1 135 (180) 0- 30 (5) 430 (205) DRY CREEK PKY 1� MONARCH PARK PL 71ST ST X520) �- 175 (75) II 2 i LeRend , XX (XX)— AM (PM) Peak XX,XXX— Daily Traffic Volumes - IIo9ER195TH rr---17;i )1IL, ;55 ;; "i r• L'S x46, , I,:-V,,� I � i ( 235 (515) " ..;.• / 20 (35) L'1 N $ R 13.000 79TH ST (IA x665 ) l 11,35(25) 10 (45)1 1 T 725 (525) --> . \5(5)� a 200(585)—o 125 (85) aSignalized Intersection ® Two -Way Stop Control ® Roundabout US 287 280 (220) 675 (245) ‘-:;.5;105F 19,000 ••� COUNTY LINE RD (I N 45 (90) n' m — 1020140 + ) ,I `� 45 (70) i ,51r�1 J'I' T 1 375 (1025) —0 m 50 (55) m UMULLER Figure 8: Segment 2 —COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes WCR3 � WCR5 •' - ."- 10 (10) 1090 (5:5; (": V 4.- 1065(5;0) -0r 35 (45) , 1 ` y- 90 (40) 46D (1135) -4 1 ( 30 (50) WCR7 '`80(190) • t' r 995 (560) I 40 1:51 i 25 (85) 925 (1040) -� 15 (30) ti i - _ �y _ ^ — COLORADO AVE ^•� GLEN CREIGHTON „� WCRIS n 72. u, 15 (5) a 60 (90) o '` 30 (30) N .. '1/4--20 (45) �— 005 (6051 "' .'�. r 675 (460) m o o 575 (395) v 4-485 •I f Oj �. � � •� is (so) J I � l f 70 r•i5] 1 ) �. \ 25 i651 ▪ - 15 (10) I' r 1 j (� 10 (5) 1 ( 110 (230) r l I I SeO(970) y n, a. 445 (700) —4 n m 1 1` r.)',) -1 g 45 (95) • co FLYING CIRCLE - 19,800 W 1.25 Fit — — - — 85 (85) 4— 930 (575) rd o ! 330 (155) ) ! :01951 911 r r 505(3025) o ffi o 60 [301 � i ggr d XX (XX)— AM (PM) Peak j XX,XXX— Daily Traffic Volumes 60 (135) -7 1 ' 410(610)-+ m 501:KSI9-9., �-+ 1 a �r �12.Bvo 125.100 --17`---4 15.800__ SB 1.25 •— 1095 (625) '` 205 (270) '▪ ' a r 1020 ;:•:,a ,r 485 (390) r 1115 (700) ) I 1/4, F 90 (55) 415 (890)jI 125(280) / 1 f 210 (260) J 1 I 520 (600) I 505 (765) 585 (1135) — I g VIFS a. 180 (130) ti -• „� a NB I.25 !!� E I-25 FR Signalized Intersection Two -Way Stop Control Roundabout Figure 9: Segment 3 —COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes WCR19 �1� {^i '` 35 (70) ` I J F 454 N7,1! �! Q 1r 20•:51 15 •25) 460 (515) —� '10 (15) I .n WCR13 X10(10)` 5) in 4— 485 (535) (,) I 1/4. � r 20{15) 20 (20) J b5,§ (525) —4 510 (15) ti 12,000 ROLLIE AVE 15 (15) 4 310(245) I 1/4, — SS 120) 50 (115) —7 245 (325) —4 75 •165) • I 1.12.Soa 21 WCR29.5 ,: '` 15 (15) 77 53 4— 270 (=8'1! '+ ( y X5(10) 15;15) --". 1 1 r , 235 (395) —1. \5(10)Thi ' ' 50 US BS GRAND AVE 11,600 1500 15 (30) � 1 Yei 1/4,, 4— 425 (510) '` 70 (80) '° .. V r 15 (30)f+1 +C I �j! 215 (180) 465 (950) ) I ,� 10 (20) 1 J 325 (400) —4 235 (140) 70 (85) y I r 340 (360) Z7 NB U5 BS Legend XX (XX)— AM (PM) Peak XX,XXX— Dally Traffic Volumes 25 (50) 465 (600) —4 45 (35 370 (550) —4 '85 (50) FULTON AVE `10 (15) 4-- 450 (955) - 25 gSignalized Intersection ® Two -Way Stop Control Roundabout 50 (140) 465 (510) —1' 25 (15) 11,800 YORK IS ILVIR BIRCH '` 25 (25) - 955 ;6251 �) I —20(5) 1, 95 (220) —7 I f 545(1025)—. N ii vo^i I \5(15) MCKINLEY AYE lU (10) 1 f— 450 (465) 15 (20) -.'4(560) 15 (15) I v ., / 20 (25) 40 (55) 205 (305) WCRIS US 85 BU5)4EH VER 20 (30) i. rx-390 r4JU! l F 65 (75) 1 310 (955) � r11MULLER Figure 10: Segment 4 —COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes FORE LUPrON WCR37 WCR41 LA o -s(15) fi e Lis in5l .'^. "' ^215x:35] `a —215(255) ) `' 110(20) 1 �) t10 us) sae) j T ( to (is) -� lilt. 90 (70 $ 70,300 l gkr d XX (XX)— AM (PM) Peak XX,XXX— Daily Traffic Volumes k55 (260) —� IS 10 Th, o Signalized Intersection Two -Way Stop Control Roundabout 9,200 G W B I-76 LOVES/ W 1-76 4— 200 (275) '1/4— 30 (25) l 150 (130) 4— 265 (270) 205 (390) —4 90 (115) -f 155 (195) 125 (250) —4 EB 1-76 S Figure 11: Segment 5 — COVID Adjusted 2020 Turning Movement Volumes l HUDSON 3,10O . 275 (180) —4 20 (10) Legend XX (XX)— AM (PM) Peak XX,XXX— Daily Traffic Volumes WCR59 Irw ry ti� sv o) I I ` — 120(100) I ) j 4 r.:Prl5r \ 10(15)J 1 T r 100 (190) -4 175 (35) 1 n WCRR53 i — 200 (135) � s (s) Signalized Intersection ® Two -Way Stop Control qg Roundabout 2,000 WC`R45 — 205 (210) r 25 (30) Ill 200 (275) —4 r ,95 (80) N �1\. 15 (10) --". 50 (80) —4 80 (85) --, 5X79/WCR69 5{S1\ r 1(,011 5 (10) fLIMULLER EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The Existing Conditions Report (Muller 2020) provided a review of corridor operations using data from the INRIX Probe Data Analytics Suite. INRIX uses anonymized data collected from mobile networks and other sources to provide location -based traffic data and analytics. The analysis focused primarily on the segment speed and travel time index (TTI) in September 2019, but also evaluated the historic trends between 2013 and 2019. In addition, the Existing Condition Report provided travel time data based on the preliminary Travel Demand Model results for the existing (Year 2019) and 2045 No Action peak period conditions. The detailed traffic analysis is based on the COVID-adjusted traffic data collected in Fall 2020, which was analyzed using the TransModeler simulation software to evaluate the combined impact of intersection and segment delays across the full 42 -mile length of the CO 52 study corridor. There are inherent differences in how this detailed analysis tool quantifies traffic operations compared to either INRIX or TDM, thus the results of the TransModeler analysis will not necessarily match those shown in the previous report. Segment Speed and Travel Time Index The following graphic (Figure 12) shows the peak hour segment speed and Travel Time Index along the study corridor, by direction. Figure 12: Existing (Adjusted 2020) Segment Speed and Travel Time Index 25 zo �1s 1.0 75 — 60 I E 45 v 30 it vo 15 0 E 45 a 30 d n15 0 2.5 2.0 F 1.5 1.0 Legend !` (F71�� ,,I;• AM Peak Period Segment Speed PM Peak Period Segment Speed AM Peak Period TTI PM Peak Period TTI Speed 25 mph 35 mph 45 mph 55 mph 65 mph Limit - UMULLER Signalized Intersection Two -Way Stop Control Roundabout There are several bottleneck locations along the CO 52 corridor where intersection delay leads to low speeds and potentially extensive queuing. These generally align with the known trouble spots along the corridor such as the US 287 intersection, County Line Road, and the I-25 interchange area. Intersection Operations The intersection levels of service (LOS) were also evaluated in support of the CO 52 Access Control Plan (ACP). Though simulation based, the delay -based LOS values are measured in a similar fashion to the methodology used in Highway Capacity Manual software. The resulting LOS results are provided in the following five figures: • Figure 13: Segment 1— Existing (Adjusted 2020) • Figure 14: Segment 2 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service • Figure 15: Segment 3 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service • Figure 16: Segment 4 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service • Figure 17: Segment 5 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service Figure 13: Segment 1— Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service 1 71ST ST HOVER/95TH -C/C MONARCH PARK PL 79TH ST- B/E Leaend I X / X — AM / PM Signalized Intersection Levels of Service x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service COUNTY LINE RD - E/E WMULLER Figure 14: Segment 2 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service WCR3 WCRS �a/f 11l r 1�r RYING CIRCLE - AIA W I -2s FR - B/B se I-25 • BM ti�� r 1 r t r NO 1.73 • C/C I 91.25 FR • OM Cato RADO AVE t qtr OUR CREIGHTON •C/C ti Le end X / X — AM / PM Signalized Intersection Levels of Service x/ x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service Figure 15: Segment 3 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service WCR23 ROLLIE AVE - B/B Legend X / X — AM / PM Signalized Intersection Levels of Service x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service Signalized Intersection IS Two -Way Stop Control Roundabout wCRts a/a r bib YORK/SILVER BIR - B/B .r gi Signalized Intersection ® Two -Way Stop Control [f}i Roundabout WCR29.5 WCR31 US 85685/OE 11 • B/B � 1 WMULLER Figure 16: Segment 4 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service WCR37 Lurroe WB I-76 r_a/a c/c c/c J a/a—. EB I-76 ILA X / X — AM / PM Signalized Intersection Levels of Service , x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service Figure 17: Segment 5 — Existing (Adjusted 2020) Levels of Service ASignalized Intersection ® Two -Way Stop Control • Roundabout Legend X / X — AM / PM Signalized Intersection Levels of Service x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service LOVES/W I-76 FR Hunsox WCR45 1.—a/a ri Signalized Intersection ® Two -Way Stop Control ® Roundabout u 1lIMULLER SAFETY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS The crash analysis was performed in a separate effort and is documented in the Safety Assessment Report (Muller, 2020). A summary of the operations -related recommendations from the conclusions and recommendations section of the safety report is provided here for reference: • General Patterns — Rear End Crashes Widen the roadway at two-lane, undivided intersections to provide turn lanes, where feasible. Provide additional through lanes at high -traffic signalized intersections to reduce queuing. — Approach Turn Crashes ■ Conduct signal studies for unsignalized intersections with a pattern of approach turn crashes. • SH 119 — Broadside Crash Pattern — There is a current project to reconstruct this intersection into two one-way intersections. This improvement should have a positive impact on safety and is expected to reduce the potential of broadside crashes. • US 287 —Approach Turn Crash Pattern The Region should consider protected -only left -turn phasing to address the potential for approach turn type crashes. • County Line Road — Rear End Crash Pattern As a short-term project, consider widening the east leg of the intersection to include a separate right -turn lane and expand the shoulders on the east leg approach. Consider widening CO 52 to provide two through lanes in each direction in the vicinity of this intersection to help reduce queue lengths. • WCR 3 — Rear End Crashes — Widen intersection to provide an eastbound right -turn lane and a westbound left -turn lane. • WCR 5 — Broadside Crashes — Consider conducting a periodic review of the traffic volumes to determine if a signal warrant analysis is appropriate to address conditions at this location. • W. I-25 Frontage Road —Approach Turn Crashes — Install four -section flashing yellow arrow signal heads in place of the five -section signal heads and consider protected -only phasing or protected -only phasing by time of day. • Silver Birch Boulevard — Rear End Crashes — Dilemma zone detection should be considered here to provide more time for vehicles to proceed safely through the intersection. • Flying Circle Boulevard — Rear End Crashes Dilemma zone detection should be considered here to provide more time for vehicles to proceed safely through the intersection. Review the signal timing and coordination with Colorado Boulevard to help reduce the frequency of westbound crashes. • Forest Avenue — Rear End Crashes — A long-term improvement of widening CO 52 through the Town of Dacono to four lanes should reduce the pattern of rear end crashes at this location. WMULLER • Glen Creighton/Frederick Way — Rear End Crashes — Check clearance intervals for base speeds and expected speeds at this intersection. • Mac Davidson Circle — Broadside Crashes — Install a raised -curb island to channelize the eastbound right -turn lane and move the stop bar closer to the intersection to improve sight distance to conflicting traffic for northbound drivers. — A long-term solution, consider access control for this intersection when CO 52 is widened to a 4 -Lane roadway section. • WCR 19 — Culvert/Headwall Crashes — Extend the culvert on the east side of the intersection and widen the adjacent approaches to provide for adequate truck turning. — Consider providing left -turn lanes on CO 52 to address the general frequency of crashes at this intersection. • WCR 41— Broadside Crashes The intersection priority study for CDOT Region 4 determined that signalization of this intersection is necessary to reduce the frequency of broadside crashes at this location. This intersection satisfied Warrant 1, Condition B and Warrant 2 for signalization based on a preliminary assessment. • WCR 59 — Broadside Crashes — Due to the irregular peak traffic associated with the schools In the southwest quadrant of the intersection, and associated safety concerns, the Region may wish to consider a high-speed - -roundabout in -lieu -of a-tr-affic—signal-(zssuming-signal-warrantsare-not met). lGiMULLER TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING The travel demand modeling effort is summarized in the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memorandum, (HDR 2021). The overview explains: Travel demand forecasting is the process of estimating the amount of travel along the facilities within a transportation system, be it roadways, transit lines, or multimodal facilities. A travel demand model is a planning tool used to estimate future travel within the transportation system and to assess alternative improvements to a transportation system. Its primary inputs are the region's transportation network and future socioeconomic data consisting of population, household, and employment data. The model produces various outputs including estimated future traffic volume forecasts along roadways. The CDOT StateFocus (Version 1.4) travel demand model (CDOT Model) was used as the basis for the development of the CO 52 travel demand model. The CDOT Model uses socio-economic projections for the State of Colorado to generate travel demand and distribute trips across the state's roadway and transit network. For the CO 52 PEL study, the 2015 model was used as the base year and the 2045 model as the horizon year. A detailed description of the base year, 2020 existing year, and alternative model development is provided in the referenced and accompanying memoranda. 2045 FORECAST MODELS In terms of the CO 52 PEL, the TDM effort focuses on how significant changes to capacity along CO 52 will affect traffic patterns on a large scale. Providing additional capacity between major crossing routes will generally have a greater impact than shorter capacity improvements that only connect local crossing routes. However, it is important to note that a capacity limitation along shorter segments between the same major crossing routes can affect regional traffic patterns. For the purpose of the CO 52 PEL study, the following five horizon year model runs were performed for the purpose of the alternatives analysis: • 2045 No Action (NA) — No capacity improvements to CO 52. • 2045 Full 4 -Lane (F4L) — CO 52 improved to 4 -lanes from CO 119 to I-76. ■ 2045 West 4 -Lane (W4L) — CO 52 improved to 4 -lanes from US 287 to WCR 15 • 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 (M4L) — CO 52 improved to 4- lanes from US 287 to Denver Ave. • 2045 Middle 4 -Lane to County Line (M4CL) — CO 52 improved to 4 -lanes from County Line Rd. to Denver Ave An additional model was added after the TDM effort to explore the potential impact of more limited widening, and was crafted by combining the M4CL volumes west of I-25 and the W4L volumes east of I-25: ■ 2045 Short 4 -Lane (S4L) — CO 52 improved to 4 -lanes from County Line Rd. to WCR 15. Figure 18 provides a graphical representation of the TDM models created for the purpose of this analysis. aMULLER Figure 18: Travel Demand Models , —L D A C tiJ I 1 — FR • CK FR I F,ORT-LUPTO i 1 Ri3 RORT'LOFTON fas FORT LIPTON i �ORTL PTON ORT LUPTON I _ . I )853 ALIDSON •re — RR 2045 No Action 2 -Lanes: CO 119 to SH 79 2045 Full 4 -Lane 4 -Lanes: CO 119 to Beech Street (Hudson) 2 -Lanes: • Beech Street (Hudson) to SH 79 2045 West 4 -Lane 4 -Lanes: CO 119 to WCR 15 (Dacono) 2 -Lanes: WCR 15 (Dacono) to SH 79 42045 Middle 4 -Lane S 2 -Lanes: # CO 119 to US 287 4 -Lanes: US 287 to Old US 85 (Ft. Lupton) 2 -Lanes: r 1,1, Old US OS to SI 179 2045 Middle 4•Lune to Count line • 2 -Lanes: CO 119 to County Line 4 -Lanes: County Line to Old US 85 (Ft. Lupton) 2 -Lanes: fR Old US 85 to SH 79 2045 Short 4 -Lane 2 -Lanes: CO 119 to County Line 4 -Lanes: County Line to WCR 15 (Dacono) 2 -Lanes: WCR 15 (Dacono) to SH 79 "i(1rMULLER 2045 DAILY VOLUME FORECASTS The methodology detailing the development of the daily traffic volume forecasts for estimated 2020 traffic conditions and the 2045 forecast horizon is provided in the Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis (HDR 2021) technical memorandum (excluding the S4L variation). The resulting daily volumes at select locations along the corridor are provided in Table 15 and Figure 19. Table 15: Existing (2020 Estimate) and 2045 Daily Volume Forecast CO 52 Segments ff 2045 No Action NA gieg I. r1t_x: DS k,,,,o,t. ; �I , .1 ,' I , 2045 Short 4-Lane1 S4L I 4- t �1► o 'i., c E N CO 119 71ST ST 79TH ST 95TH ST US 287 71ST ST MONARCH PARK SOMERSET DR US 287 115TH ST 12,200 11,400 12,400 13,000 19,000 17,200 16,300 18,100 18,700 26,500 23,100 22,900 22,200 22,000 24,600 24,500 27,700 27,600 41,100 41,000 18,400 17,500 19,300 19,900 40,700 18,100 17,200 19,000 19,600 28,700 18,100 17,200 19,000 19,600 28,700 N d aCOLORADO 'r) WCR 5 WCR 7 E I-25 FR BLVD GLEN CREIGHTON WCR 15 WCR 7 W I-25 FR YORK/SILVER BIRCH GLEN CREIGHTON WCR 15 WCR 19 19,600 19,800 25,100 15,800 12,600 11,800 29,300 34,300 36,200 30,800 23,800 18,900 45,000 44,800 48,400 48,200 50,900 49,800 42,400 39,200 34,000 31,100 27,200 22,000 44,400 48,100 50,600 42,100 33,700 26,900 42,500 46,500 50,300 41,700 33,500 26,600 42,500 48,200 49,800 39,200 31,100 22,000 „,, 5 E cu '" WCR 19 WCR 23 US 85 NB GRAND AVE PARK AVE DENVER AVE HARRISON AVE ROLLIE AVE WCR 21 US 85 SB GRAND AVE FULTON AVE DENVER AVE MAIN ST ROLLIE AVE WCR 29.5 12,000 11,600 13,600 12,500 11,400 10,500 13,700 11,500 20,900 21,300 19,300 17,300 18,400 17,500 16,900 18,800 31,100 23,000 30,400 23,600 22,900 19,600 19,400 17,500 20,200 18,700 19,100 17,700 18,200 17,000 20,400 19,000 30,800 30,200 22,600 19,000 19,500 18,500 17,600 19,900 30,600 30,000 22,600 19,000 19,400 18,500 17,600 19,900 23,000 23,600 19,600 17,500 18,700 17,700 17,000 19,000 c E m N WCR 35 WCR 12.5 I-76 NB HUDSON BEECH ST WCR 37 WI -76 FR DAHLIA ST RR XING CHERRY ST 10,300 9,200 7,000 6,600 4,000 17,100 16,200 9,200 8,800 5,400 18,500 17,200 17,200 16,300 9,300 9,200 8,900 8,800 5,400 5,400 18,000 16,700 9,300 8,900 5,400 17,900 16,700 9,300 8,900 5,400 17,200 16,300 9,200 8,800 5,400 ,n 5 aWCR In WCR 49 WCR 59 67 CO 79 WCR 51 WCR 61 CO 79 EAST OF CO 79 3,100 2,000 2,000 1,300 4,100 2,600 2,800 1,800 4,100 4,100 2,600 2,600 2,800 2,800 1,800 1,800 4,100 2,600 2,800 1,800 4,100 2,600 2,800 1,800 4,100 2,600 2,800 1,800 Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4: model operation and volume nost-nrocessing by HnR Note: Red text indicates 4 -Lane Sections 1 Short 4 -Lane scenario combines M4CL from CO 119 to I-25 and W4L from I-25 eastward. WMULLER Figure 19: Existing (2020 Estimate) and 2045 Daily Volume Forecast 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 n oo N N J Source: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020; model operation and volumes post -processing by NOR The shaded areas under the curves highlight the difference between the higher and lower volume build alternatives. Specifically, these are segments where the 4 -Lane alternative models result in a significant amount of additional growth compared to the 2 -Lane alternative models. Key locations are: ■ SH 119 to US 287: The F4L and W4L scenarios increase travel demand by approximately 26%. • US 287 to County Line: The M4L scenario increases travel demand over M4CL by around 35%. • Dacono to Ft. Lupton: The F41, M4L, and M4CL scenarios increase travel demand by about 25%. These differences represent how growth can be affected by the roadway capacity in these areas and affect how traffic is managed and what improvements are necessary to meet demand throughout the network. 2045 TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES The peak hour turning movement volumes were developed using the NCHRP 255 volume balancing methodology and growth factors based on the TDM model data. The COVID-19 adjusted 2020 turning movements were used as the base volumes for this process, with turning movements developed for each of the forecasted TDM volume models. The resulting turning movement volumes were also loosely balanced to account for mid -block intersections without allowing for drastic changes to occur between modeled intersections. Where necessary, there were also minor adjustments made based on engineering judgment. The modeled turning movements are provided in Appendix C of this technical memorandum. 111MULLER TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The traffic operations analysis was performed using the TransModeler microsimulation software. This allowed both intersection and corridor operations to be modeled simultaneously over the course of the morning and evening peak periods. Analysis Periods After reviewing the preliminary traffic data evaluated in the Existing Conditions Report, the traffic analysis focused on peak weekday traffic conditions. The focus of this study is to determine the peak travel times along the corridor during the morning and evening peak periods: • AM Peak Period: 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. • PM Peak Period: 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Measures of Effectiveness The MOEs shown in Table 3 provided the framework for the TransModeler analysis results. This section provides a general overview of how the model data was collected and aggregated for reporting. Intersection MOEs This MOE is based on reducing intersection delay. While a critical factor in reducing travel times along CO 52, the intersection delay (and by extension, the LOS), was not used as part of the Level 2 evaluation when comparing alternatives. Improved intersection operations (reduced delay) were an expected outcome of the intersection recommendations and refinements. Travel Time Related MOEs Three of the key MOEs, Decrease Travel Time, Decrease Travel Time Index, and Increase Reliability are related to vehicular travel time within the network. Data from segment statistics output and sensor records were used to calculate the average travel time and the 95th percentile travel time, which when compared to the free -flow travel time provide the TTI and PTI, respectively. The latter used as a surrogate for the reliability MOEs. GEOMETRIC AND OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS The Level 2 evaluation performed for the CO 52 PEL were developed during several brainstorming and workshop sessions, and included insight and suggestions from the public, local agencies, CDOT, and several other stakeholders. The improvements including geometric configurations with traffic operational components were included in the models at various stages throughout the process. Cross Section Improvements One of the key differentiators through most of the corridor is whether the cross section includes two or four through lanes within a segment. While the presence and type of median relevant to the cross section was considered at intersections, the number and type of through lanes has the most bearing on the operational analysis. The cross-section related alternatives analyzed as part of this analysis were: ■ 2 -Lane Alternative: Two general purpose through lanes along CO 52. • 4 -Lane Alternative: Four general purpose through lanes along CO 52. r11MULLER ■ Peak Period Shoulder Lane: Two general purpose through lanes along CO 52 plus one shoulder lane configured to act as a second through lane in only one direction for each peak period. — Only applied in Segment 1: Westbound AM, Eastbound PM ■ HOV Lane: Two general purpose through lanes along CO 52 plus one HOV lane in each direction. — Only applied in Segment 1: 2+ persons per vehicle. ■ Alternating Passing Lane: Two general purpose through lanes along CO 52 plus one passing lane in each direction, alternating between eastbound and westbound directions. — Applied to Segment 3 between WCR 19 and US 85 and Segment 4 between WCR 31 and WCR 43. Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements are critical to the operations and safety of the CO 52 corridor. The modeled traffic volumes were considered along with the geometric alternative (cross-section) when determining the intersection improvements along the CO 52 corridor. Several methodologies were used: Unsignalized Lane Additions Additional turn lanes at unsignalized locations, including vehicle storage and speed change distances, were outlined as per the CDOT Access Code unless also warranted by other factors such as crash experience. Intersection Signalization Future signaiization was considered for locations along the corridor that might be expected to meet signal warrants in the long-term future. This determination was primarily made using engineering judgement, with consideration for the MUTCD signal warrant factors. Critical Lane Analysis At signalized intersections, the lane geometry was determined through several iterations to meet critical traffic demands (critical lane analysis) and an acceptable LOS. In some cases, additional through lanes were used at intersections along 2 -Lane segments to improve traffic flow during the peak periods. Dual turn lanes and auxiliary right -turn lanes were also evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Widening along the side -street approaches was also considered to improve operations, reduce queuing, or in some cases to allow for better signal timing along CO 52. Signal Timing Refinement Throughout the TransModeler analysis, signal timing and corridor optimization techniques were used to refine intersection operations. This was performed in an iterative manner over sections of the roadway with similar characteristics (i.e. — the section through Ft. Lupton) and included cycle length analysis and signal progression. In most cases, the analysis focused CO 52 operations with an emphasis on reducing queues and improving travel times without unduly impacting side -street operations. '1GIMULLER CAP -X Analysis Specifically used for the US 287 intersection, the FHWA CAP -X tool was used to provide insight into possible alternative lane configurations. Based on this, the partial CFI was selected for analysis as an alternative to the conventional signal configuration. While the CAP -X also indicated that a grade separated interchange would be effective, only a cursory operational review was performed as it is an undesired configuration. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section summarizes the results of the TransModeler analysis after incorporating geometric improvements and intersection operational refinements. The corridor analysis subsection provides the segment speeds over the full 42 -mile CO 52 study corridor based on the primary TDM volumes developed for the study. The detailed segment analysis subsection details the travel time, TTI, and reliability metrics for each alternative by segment. Corridor Analysis The corridor analysis uses the link data output to estimate segment speeds under future traffic conditions. Average vehicle speed is inversely proportional to travel time, so higher speeds are an indication of better corridor performance (reduced travel time). This information was primarily used during build model development to help refine corridor performance prior to aggregation. Directional speed profiles representing the link data output derived from the model during development are provided in Appendix D. Detailed Segment Analysis The TransModeler analysis scenarios represent a combination of the TDM volumes (model) and the build geometry (alternative) over the full 42 -mile corridor. Thus, within each segment, multiple scenarios may apply to the same alternative. For example, within Segment 1 the 4 -Lane alternative was analyzed using traffic volumes from both the Full 4 -Lane and West 4 -Lane models. In general, the results from overlapping scenarios such as this proved quite similar. For comparing alternatives, the results from overlapping scenarios such as this proved too similar to be helpful separately, so the results were combined as appropriate for evaluation and documentation. .(JMULLER No Action The No Action scenario explores the result of traffic growth with no improvements beyond those that are currently in -progress or funded and slated for construction in the near future. Table 16 details the resulting change in travel time, TTI, and reliability (PTI) for the no action scenario. Table 16: Existing (Adjusted 2020) to 2045 No Action Corridor Operations Segment Travel Time (minutes) EX NA Change3 Travel Time Index D -r i) EX NA Change3 - Reliability (PTI2) Ex NA Change3 � ,. - _- J rr �:T'r��r�-Ir r r'- '.. ; :IrT.��r._ $•iiY-hE.3.3iS . i .. • .,r.�-, ; T:Trq ^ � s!:' is. i.. r1 1_ "T _ -.TZ j West of 71st St. to County Line Rd. Worsens 13.4 16.1 +18% r� Worsens +24% 1.56 1.98 2.73 2.98 Worsens +9% County Line Rd. to WCR 7 Worsens 5.4 11.3 +71% Worsens 1.70 3.53 +70% 3.54 7.92 Worsens +76% WCR7 to SB I-25 Frontage Rd. Worsens 0.5 0.9 +57% Worsens 1.16 2.20 +62% 1.34 6.34 Worsens +130% NB I-25 Frontage Rd. to WCR 15 Worsens 4.6 9.5 +700 ' Worsens 1.47 3.00 +68% 1.75 5.68 Worsens +106% WCR 15 to WCR 19 Worsens 2.7 2.9 +7% Worsens 1.14 1.2 +5% 1.29 1.47 Worsens +13% ..r._..,. I,_. 1 a'_-:�'"'r-r •?-..rITi7.,1717-r•::':1' r r� ...---1=i12 '.I �Y _ WCR 19 to US 85 Worsens 3.3 4.1 +22% Worsens 1.13 1.38 +20% 1.23 2.50 Worsens +68% US 85 to WCR 31 (Ft. Lupton) Worsens 5.6 16.4 +98� Worsens 1.44 4.19 +98� 2.75 10.61 Worsens +118% lv: I. ,"-7.---1—� - _ :.�.�;r`r1 � �. �L_ yam, tT,:r;..�ti .- - 7 ,r -- -; .ta... .i WCR 31 to Loves/I-76 Frontage Rd. No Change 6.2 6.5 +5� � Worsens 1.08 1.14 +5% 1.21 1.28 Worsens +6% Dahlia St. to WCR 49 - 2.2 2.2 No Change +0% 1.08 1.09 No Change +1% 1.25 1.23 No Change -2% .s•{..1i-I `.`t.I.EU:5.;;F_r L'7-jrZkr_S _ 277,, 1Z- ti i. _•- _l..-yJ_'.9.F• WCR 49 to 10 10.1 No Change CO 79/WCR 69 +1% +1% 1.08 1.09 No Change 1.23 1.21 No Change -2% 2 3 Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Planning Time Index = 95`h Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase UMULLER Build — Segment 1 (West of 71st Street to County Line Rood) The model volumes through Segment 1 are significantly higher under the 4 -Lane alternatives versus the 2 -Lane and No Action alternatives. The 2045 No Action volumes are approximately 35% higher than the existing volumes; the 2 -Lane build alternatives could result in another 6% increase due to increased volume elsewhere along the corridor, with the 4 -Lane build alternatives about 34% higher than No Action. The Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 forecast model extends the 4 -Lane cross section west of County Line Road to the US 287 intersection. The 4 -Lane connection between US 287 and I-25 allows for significantly more growth through the last couple of miles of Segment 1, with somewhat different traffic patterns than the other 4 -Lane options that extend to CO 119. The results of the detailed operations analysis are summarized by alternative in Table 17. The model volumes included for the alternative evaluation are defined as: • 2-LN: Two through lanes from CO 119 to County Line Road — Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road Volumes — Short 4 -Lane Volumes • 2-LN+: Four through lanes from CO 119 to US 287; 2 -Lanes from US 287 to County Line Road — Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 • 4-LN: Four through lanes from CO 119 to County Line Road — Full 4 -Lane Volumes — West 4 -Lane Volumes • PPSL: Two through lanes with peak period shoulder lanes between CO 119 and County Line Road — Full 4 -Lane Volumes • HOV: Two through lanes with one HOV lane in each direction between CO 119 and County Line Road — Full 4 -Lane Volumes Table 17: Segment 12045 Build Alternatives Corridor Operations Segment 1— 2045 Build Alternatives Measure of No Effectiveness Action 2-LN • Change4 2-LN+3 Change4 4-LN Change4 PPSL Change4 HOV Change4 eA of'71 StLto Coundty Travel Time (min) 16.1 14.1 Moderate -13% 14.3 Moderate -12% 11.6 Significant -32% 13.1 Significant -21% 13.6 Significant -17% Travel Time Index (TTI1) 1.98 1.75 Moderate -12% 1.77 Moderate -11% 1.46 Significant -30% 1.60 Significant -21% 1.71 Moderate -15% Reliability (PTIz) 2.98 2.65 Moderate -12% 3.18 Worsens +6% 2.11 Significant -34% 2.69 Moderate -10% 3.94 Worsens +28% ' Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time 2 3 4 Planning Time Index = 95th Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Higher traffic volumes due to 4 -Lane section between US 287 and County Line Road Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase WMULLER The intersection improvements were configured and optimized separately for each TransModeler analysis scenario. A summary of the Segment 1 final recommendations for intersection configurations are provided in Table 18; results based on Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario. Table 18: Segment 12045 Intersection Improvements Intersection 71St Street Improvement Detailsl Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section, existing project to realign 71St Street to right-angle and to add a northbound right -turn lane. • Signalize intersection when warrants are met. LOS2 (AM/ No Action WBL: e / c NBL: f / f NBR: f / f PM) Build C / F 79th Street Base Condition: Signalized; 2 -Lane cross section • No required capacity improvements: however, consider adding right -turn lanes as conditions warrant. C / C C / C Hover / 95th Street Base Condition: Signalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Add a second through lane in each direction (secondary through lanes terminate) D / F D / D US 2872 Base Condition: Signalized; 2 -Lane cross section, dual left turns on all approaches, secondary through lanes terminate. ■ Analyzed as a partial CFI in primary model. ■ No change to CO 52 lane geometry. D / F D / C 1 z 3 Improvements evaluated for Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario Signalized intersection Levels of Service or unsignalized movement Levels of Service US 287 also analyzed as a traditional intersection with minor improvements (LOS F/F) WMULLER Build - Segment 2 (County Line Road to WCR 19) Based on the 2045 No Action model, traffic volumes are expected to increase over existing levels by 40% to 50% west of I-25, by about 63% east of I-25 through Dacono to WCR 15, and by around 45% east of WCR 15 through the end of Segment 2. The build conditions which widen CO 52 to 6 -Lanes in the vicinity of I-25 are expected to increase volumes by another 30% over the No Action alternative, with a lesser increase of 15% anticipated out to WCR 19 in the West 4 -Lane model that drops CO 52 to a 2 -Lane cross section at WCR 15. The Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 forecast model extends the 4 -Lane cross section west of County Line Road to the US 287 intersection. This 4 -Lane connection between US 287 and I-25 allows for significantly more growth through the last couple of miles of Segment 1, with somewhat different traffic patterns than the other 4 -Lane options that extend to CO 119. The results of the detailed operations analysis are summarized by alternative in Table 19. The model volumes included for the alternative evaluation are defined as: • 4-LN: Four through lanes from County Line Road to WCR 15 - Full 4 -Lane Volumes - West 4 -Lane Volumes - Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road Volumes Short 4 -Lane Volumes • 4-LN+: Four through lanes from County Line Road to WCR 19 with 4 -Lanes US 287 to County Line Road - Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 • 2-LN: Two through lanes from WCR 15 and WCR 19 - West 4 -Lane Volumes - Short 4 -Lane Volumes • 4-LN: Four through lanes from WCR 15 to WCR 19 - Full 4 -Lane Volumes - Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road Volumes WMULLER Table 19: Segment 2 2045 Build Alternatives Corridor Operations Measure Of No Effectiveness Action Segment 2-LN Change' 2 —2045 Build Alternatives 4-LN Change4-LN+3 Change4 - - =Jam,--=---i' y . . Hr Lk.: _. _ - ' - t r F•-7.- - .- 4 _ -°. X13 Ll - Travel Time (min) 11.3 - - - 4.3 Significant -90% 5.9 Significant -63% Travel Time Index (TTI1) 3.53 _ - 1.35 Significant -89% 1.83 Significant -63% Reliability (PTI2) 7.92 1.86 Significant -124% 4.46 Significant -56% 4r—_ ter= - .— . L_; g � 1'1;C -a6507-7 ri' - - Travel Time (min) 0.9 — -- - - - 0.5 Significant -57% - — 1.1 Worsens +20% Travel Time Index (TTI1) 2.20 - - 1.24 Significant -56% 2.59 Worsens +16% Reliability (PTI2) 6.34 - - 6.17 No Change -3% 11.11 Worsens +55% LA— .M .i:—' r. ;et-- - —__- . F-. __-__-_-- —�i �'�! 4,7 i`:..i;. 11 c- rr� , —';_:..., r;.. ,'t- -.p. }�.:.:...j5 + •o. r;rli"�r: pis is . i ..^:-• f ..] !.-i.i..:.•..-*b.►ya S- Travel Time (min) 9.5 - - 5.9 Significant -47% - - Travel Time Index (TTIl) 3.00 - - 1.86 Significant -47% - - Reliability (PTI') 5.68 - 2.55 Significant -76% - - 17 -.rte �-T �T.° .- .c-7 • t` . a . �'1' "�'�i"� _ r T _ -t--l= Travel Time (min) 2.9 3.6 Worsens +22% 3.0 No Change +3% - - Travel Time Index (iv) 1.20 1.50 Worsens +22% 1.27 Worsens +6% - - Reliability (PTI2) 1.47 2.04 Worsens +32% 1.57 Worsens +7% - - 2 3 4 s Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Planning Time Index = 95th Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Higher traffic volumes due to 4 -Lane section between US 287 and County Line Road Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase 6 -Lane cross section from WCR 7 to Silver Birch/York Street The intersection improvements were configured and optimized separately for each TransModeler analysis scenario. A summary of the Segment 2 final recommendations for intersection configurations are provided in Table 20; results based on Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario. WMULLER Table 20: Segment 2 2045 Intersection Improvement Recommendations Intersection Improvement Details' County Line Road Base Condition: Signalized; 2 -Lane cross section to west, 4 -Lane cross section to east. • Add second eastbound through lane • Add dual southbound left -turn lanes ■ Add northbound and southbound right -turn lanes • Add second through lane in each direction on County Line Road (secondary lanes terminate) Base Condition: Unsignalized; 4 -Lane cross section • Add eastbound right -turn lane • Add eastbound accel lane for northbound right -turns ■ Add westbound left -turn lane LOS2 (AM/ PM) No Action Build F/F C/E WCR 3 NBL:f/f NBR:f/f WBL: d / f NBL: f/f NBR:f/f WCR 5 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 4 -Lane cross section ■ Signalize intersection when warrants are met • Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes • Add left- and right -turn lanes on WCR 5 Base Condition: Signalized; 4 -Lane cross section to west, 6 -Lane cross section to east. • Add eastbound right -turn lane • Outside westbound lane drops (right -turn) • Add eastbound lane from northbound right -turn Base Condition: Signalized; 6 -Lane cross section to west, 4 -Lane cross section to east. • Add eastbound left -turn lane and northbound receiving lane (terminates) for dual left -turns ■ Add northbound right -turn lane • Outside eastbound lane drops (right -turn) ■ Add westbound lane from southbound right -turn Base Condition: Signalized; 4 -Lane cross section • Reconfigure to allow dual left -turn lanes and channelized right -turn lanes on all approaches. Base Condition: Signalized; 4 -Lane cross section • Add southbound left -turn lane • Extend northbound left -turn storage • Configure northbound approach with a left -turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and right -turn lane (split phasing) • Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lane Base Condition: Unsignalized ■ Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes ■ Add southbound and westbound right -turn lanes EBL:e/c WBL:f/f NBT:f/f SBT:f/f B/C WCR 7 F/F C/C Silver Birch Road F/F D/D Colorado Boulevard Glen Creighton F/F F/F D/D D/C WCR 15 EBL: c / c WBL:c/c NBT:f/f SBT:f/f C/D 1 z Improvements evaluated for Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario Signalized intersection Levels of Service or unsignalized movement Levels of Service WMULLER Build — Segment 3 (WCR 19 to WCR 31) The traffic volumes through Segment 3 west of Ft. Lupton are expected to increase by around 57% in the 2045 No Action model, with an additional increase of 10% forecast with the 2 -Lane build alternatives up to an additional 35% with the 4 -Lane build alternatives. It should be noted that the shift in traffic patterns due to the 4 -Lane segment between US 287 and County Line Road was no longer distinguishable at this point along the corridor. Traffic forecasts east of US 85 through the Town of Ft. Lupton indicated a 30% to 40% increase in volume with No Action alternative, but significantly less additional growth under build conditions; the 2 -Lane alternatives were only 1% to 2% higher than No Action, while the 4 -Lane alternatives were only about 11% higher than No Action. However, it is important to note that the US 85 interchange operations were drastically worse because of the No Action traffic growth, resulting in standing queues and bottleneck operations through Ft. Lupton. All alternatives included an additional westbound through lane between the northbound and southbound ramps to accommodate the 2045 growth projection, as well as widening the bridge immediately west of US 85 to include two lanes in each direction. In addition, due to its proximity to the northbound US 85 ramp intersection, Grand Avenue was converted to a RIRO access in all build alternatives and the displaced turning movements were re -assigned at the Fulton Avenue intersection. Without these improvements to US 85 and Grand Avenue, the bottleneck conditions effectively cause gridlock conditions. The results of the detailed operations analysis are summarized by alternative in Table 21. The model volumes included for the alternative evaluation are defined as: • 2-LN: Two through lanes from WCR 19 to WCR 31 — West 4 -Lane Volumes — Short 4 -Lane Volumes • 4-LN: Four through lanes from WCR 19 to WCR 31 Full 4 -Lane Volumes — Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 Volumes — Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road Volumes • APL: Two through lanes from WCR 19 to WCR 31 with one alternating passing lane west of US 85 — Short 4 -Lane Volumes WMULLER Table 21: Segment 3 2045 Build Alternatives Corridor Operations Measure of Effectiveness No Action 2-LN Segment 3 — 2045 Build Alternatives Change4 4-LN Change APL3 Change' ' :7. 1.22 _ _ ' 4iiI: � • 2-',„----7:, 1''WCR 1 kiTu5 8s,! 7 f,_,u1_,,`_Tri _• Travel Time (min) 4.1 4.2 No Change +2% 3.3 Significant -22% 3.8 Moderate -8% Travel Time Index (TTI1) 1.38 1.40 No Change +1% 1.13 Significant -20% 1.30 Moderate -6% Reliability (PTI2) 2.50 -T 3.10 Worsens +21% 1.25 Significant 1.72 Significant _3r7% O. . __ -4- , O.._--_ 17 s 1•'i� 1 37 ��:1�-1 ♦ •t--67%1 ; l=U'L�1�}C�1 •rl,� �: , U- -' � i1 Travel Time (min) 16.4 9.6 -� Significant -52% 6.6 Significant -85% - - Travel Time Index (TTI1) 4.19 2.48 Significant -51% 1.72 Significant -84% - - Reliability (PTIz) 10.61 5.31 Significant -67% 3.29 Significant -105% - - 1 Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time z Planning Time Index = 95th Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time 3 Alternating Passing Lane compared to variant of No Action with modeled passing zones. 4 Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase Except for the Full 4 -Lane alternative, the models only have 2 -Lanes from Denver Ave to WCR 31 The intersection improvements were configured and optimized separately for each TransModeler analysis scenario. A summary of the Segment 3 final recommendations for intersection configurations are provided in Table 22; results based on Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario. JMULLER Table 22: Segment 3 2045 Intersection Improvement Recommendations Intersection WCR 19 Improvement Detailsl Base Condition: Unsignalized; 4 -Lane cross section LOSz (AM/ No Action NBT: f / f PM) Build B/C • Signalize intersection when warrants are met SBT: f / f • Add eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes • Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes • Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes WCR 23 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 4 -Lane cross section NBT: f / f EBL: e / e • Location may not meet signal warrant volumes SBT: f / f WBL: c / d ■ Add eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes NBL: f/f • Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes NBTR: f / f • Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes SBL: f / f SBTR:f/f US 85 Base Condition: Signalized; 4 -Lane cross section SB: D/B SB: C/C Interchange • Side -by -side left -turn lanes under bridge. NB: F/F NB: B/C • Inside eastbound lane feeds directly into northbound US 85 left -turn lane. • Outside eastbound lane continues. • Extend westbound left -turn to US 85 storage through Grand Avenue intersection Grand Base Condition: Unsignalized; 4 -Lane cross section EBL: c/ c NBR: b / c Avenue • Restrict access to RIRO access WBL: f / f SBR: d / f NBT: f/f NBR:f/f SBT: f / f SBR: f / f Fulton Base Condition: Unsignalized; 4 -Lane cross section EBL: b / c B/D Street • Signalize intersection when warrants are met WBL: f / f • Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes NBL: f/f • Add southbound right -turn lane NBT: f / f SBL: f/ f SBT: f / f SBR: f / f WCR 29.5 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section EBL: a / a EBL: a / b • Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes NBT: d / d WBL: b / b • Add westbound left -turn lane and extend eastbound left -turn lane SBT: d / d NBL: d / e NBTR: d / e ■ Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes SBL: d /e SBTR: c / e 7 Improvements evaluated for Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario Signalized intersection Levels of Service or unsignalized movement Levels of Service WMULLER Build — Segment 4 (WCR 31 to WCR 49) The No Action traffic volume forecasts through Segment 4 represent a 50% increase west of I-76 and the Town of Hudson, dropping to an increase of 29% east of I-76. Only the Full4-Lane alternative was modeled with 4 -Lanes through the Town of Hudson to Beech Street with 2 -Lanes farther to the east; the remaining alternatives include 2 -Lanes throughout Segment 4. The 4 -Lane cross section resulted in a 7% average increase in volume over the No Action alternative, while 2 -Lane cross sections only increased by 1% to 3% over No Action volumes. The results of the detailed operations analysis are summarized by alternative in Table 23. The model volumes included for the alternative evaluation are defined as: • 4-LN: Four through lanes from WCR 31 to Beech Street. — Full 4 -Lane Volumes • 2-LN: Two through lanes from Beech Street to WCR 49 — Full 4 -Lane Volumes ■ 2-LN: Two through lanes from WCR 31 to WCR 49 — West 4 -Lane Volumes — Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 Volumes - Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road Volumes — Short 4 -Lane Volumes Table 23: Segment 4 2045 Build Alternatives Corridor Operations Measure of Effectiveness No Action Segment 4 —2045 2-LN Change4 4-LN : W «1 -.,1Ic L' ' Frontage Build Alternatives Change° '=--_■ APL3 Change° IT- - "-.rk:I p' � sr- —.-i Rte Travel Time (min) 6.5 6.4 - No Change -2% 6.0 ~Moderate -8% .��.■ 6.3 No Change -3% Travel Time Index wrii) 1.14 1.14 No Change +0% 1.09 No Change -4% 1.13 No Change -1% Reliability (PTI2) 1.28 1.27 No Change -1% 1.23 No Change -4% 1.26 No Change -2% •i�r ,1`� ]C r� 1 _ •,. — _. ii i . -. .1 _ .1-- IL. r . 1f ---, _ Travel Time (min) 2.2 2.2 No Change +0% - - - - Travel Time Index (TTIl) 1.09 1.11 No Change +2% - - - - Reliability (PTI2) 1.23 1 1.25 No Change +2% - - - - 1 z 3 4 Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Planning Time Index = 95th Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Alternating Passing Lane compared to variant of No Action with modeled passing zones. Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase WMULLER The intersection improvements were configured and optimized separately for each TransModeler analysis scenario. A summary of the Segment 4 final recommendations for intersection configurations are provided in Table 24; results based on Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario. Table 24: Segment 4 2045 Intersection Improvement Recommendations Intersection WCR 31 Improvement Detailsl Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Add southbound right -turn lane • Extend accel and decel lanes LOS2 (AM/ No Action EBL: a / b WBR: a / a SBL: b / b PM) Build EBL: a / b SBL: c / d SBR: a / a WCR 37 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Add eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes • Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes • Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes NBT: e /f SBT: d / e EBL: a / b WBL: b / b NBL: d /f NBTR: c / d SBL: c/d SBTR: c / e WCR 41 Base Condition: Planned improvements include signalization and additional turn lanes. • No additional recommendations B/B B/B WCR 45 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Add eastbound right -turn lane ■ Add westbound left -turn lane NBL: d / c WBL: b / b NBL: f / e 2 Improvements evaluated for Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario Signalized intersection Levels of Service or unsignalized movement Levels of Service WMULLER Build — Segment 5 (WCR 49 to CO 79) Only 2 -Lane alternatives were modeled through Segment 5. The No Action model forecasts indicate about a 30% increase in traffic volumes by 2045, with very little change (0% to 1%) as a result of build conditions along the CO 52 corridor. Special consideration was given to the WCR 59 intersection due to the school located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection and the history of broadside crashes observed at this location. The school alters the peak hour characteristics due to student drop-off in the morning peak period and creates a secondary peak period during student pick-up in the afternoons, prior to the evening peak hour with busses present for both time periods. The operations analysis focused on unsignalized conditions as the intersection is not expected to meet signal warrants based on the current forecasted volumes, though development in the area could alter that in the future. The recommended single -lane roundabout would most likely operate at an acceptable level (LOS B or better) during all peak periods, including mid- afternoon school pick-up, but should be reviewed in greater detail in the future once details of the high- speed roundabout design are confirmed. The results of the detailed operations analysis are summarized by alternative in Table 25. The model volumes included for the alternative evaluation are defined as: • 2-LN: Two through lanes from WCR 49 to CO 79/WCR 69 — Full 4 -Lane Volumes — West 4 -Lane Volumes — Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 Volumes — Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road Volumes — Short 4 -Lane Volumes • APL: Two through lanes from WCR 49 to CO 79/WCR 69 plus one alternating passing lane. — Short 4 -Lane Volumes Table 25: Segment 5 2045 Build Alternatives Corridor Operations Measure of Effectiveness No Action 2-LN Segment 5 — 2045 Build Alternatives Change4 ■ _ ; 49,to CO3V/AVC,� fig Travel Time (min) Travel Time Index (TTI1) Reliability (PTIz) 10.1 1.09 1.21 10.1 No Change +0% 1.10 No Change +1% 1.23 No Change +2% APL3 Change4 9.9 No Change -2% 1.10 No Change +1% 1.23 No Change +2% x 3 4 Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Planning Time Index = 95th Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Alternating Passing Lane compared to variant of No Action with modeled passing zones. Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase VAMULLER The intersection improvements were configured and optimized separately for each TransModeler analysis scenario. A summary of the Segment 5 final recommendations for intersection configurations are provided in Table 26; results based on Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario. Table 26: Segment 5 2045 Intersection Improvement Recommendations Intersection WCR 53 Improvement Detailsl Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Add eastbound right -turn lane ■ Add westbound left -turn lane LOS2 (AM/ No Action NBL: c/ b PM) Build WBL: a / a NBL: b/ b WCR 593 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Location may not meet signal warrant volumes • Install Single -Lane Roundabout • As an interim improvement, consider adding northbound and southbound left -turn lanes (with caution for sight distance issues) EBR: a / a WBL: a / a NBLTR: d / b SBLTR: d / b Roundabout: A/A4 Unsignalized: WBL: a / a NBLTR: d/b SBLTR: d / b CO 79 Base Condition: Unsignalized; 2 -Lane cross section • Add eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes • Add eastbound right -turn lane NBLTR: c/ b SBLTR: a / a EBL: a / a WBL: a / a NBL: c / b NBT: a / b SBT: b / a 1 2 3 4 Improvements evaluated for Middle 4 -Lane to County Line Road scenario Signalized intersection Levels of Service or unsignalized movement Levels of Service Recommended high-speed single -lane roundabout expected to operate at LOS B or better. Based on HCS 7 Roundabout analysis using 2045 volumes; not included in primary analysis models. r11MULLER CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Level 2 evaluation incorporates information from multiple disciplines, public input, and agency recommendations. As a result, there are minor differences between the CO 52 PEL recommendations and the traffic analysis scenarios. However, the Middle 4 -Lane to County Line analysis model most closely matches the configuration outlined in the project recommendations. Table 27 provides a summary comparison for the recommended scenario versus the No Action scenario. Table 27: 2045 No Action and 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Corridor Operations Segment Travel NA Time BUILD (minutes) Change3 Travel Time Index (Till NA BUILD Change3 Reliability (PTI2) NA BUILD Change' West of 71st St. to County Line Rd. 16.1 14,1 Moderate -13% 2 1 7 Substantial -16% 3 2.7 Moderate -11% 9 r..IIL:anlJ wj".1-'-.1111-1 ail 1'l'.` :Ll '�1-1iti-i- n...1_3 k--"1-0 -I .'. ■11 ry-`1.r County Line Rd. to WCR 7 11.3 Substantial 4.2 92� 3.5 Substantial 1.3 92� 7.9 1.5 Substantial -136% WCR7 to SB I-25 Frontage Rd. 0.9 0.5 Substantial 57% 2.2 1.1 Substantial 67� 6.3 1.3 Substantial 0 -132 /o NB I-25 Frontage Rd. to WCR 15 9.5 5.8 Substantial -48% 3 1.8 Substantial -50% 5.7 2.4 Substantial -81% WCR 15 to WCR 19 2.9 3 No Change +3% 1.2 1.3 Worsens +8% 1.5 1.6 Worsens +6% WCR 19 to US 85 4.1 3.4 Substantial -19% 1.4 1.1 Substantial -24% 2.5 1.2 Substantial -70% US 85 to WCR 31 (Ft. Lupton) 16.4 6.8 Substantial 83% 4.2 1.8 Substantial 80% 10.6 3.3 Substantial -1050 _1_:'O_l_ I.:." 1 -1'' 1 , —i .• _ =--°u;: din • WCR 31 to Loves/I-76 Frontage Rd. - 6.5 -_ 6.4 No Change -2% 1.1 1.1 No Change +0% 1.3 1.3 No Change +0% Dahlia St. to WCR 49 2.2 2.2 No Change +0% 1.1 1.1 No Change +0% 1.2 1.2 No Change +0% WCR 49 to CO 79/WCR 69 10.1 10.1 No Change +0% 1.1 1.1 No Change +0% 1 2 1 2 No Change +0% 1 2 3 Travel Time Index = Average Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Planning Time Index = 95th Percentile Travel Time / Free -Flow Travel Time Significant > 15% reduction, Moderate > 5% reduction, No Change ±5%, or Worsens > 5% increase aMULLER INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE) The operational analysis performed for the Middle 4 -Lane to County Line scenario most closely match the recommendations for the PEL and are presented graphically in the following graphics: • Figure 20: Segment 1— 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service • Figure 21: Segment 2 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service • Figure 22: Segment 3 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service • Figure 23: Segment 4— 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service • Figure 24: Segment 5 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service Figure 20: Segment 1— 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service SH119 • 0/F J 1• RJR}}g •'�3t 1 DRY CREEK PKY 71ST ST- C/ F r �I 1 MONARCH PARK PL ~a/:\.\\ legend X / X — AM / PM Intersection Levels of Service x/ x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service US 267-D/C COUNTY LINE RD -C/E r A— Auxiliary Through Lane n Signalized Intersection r — -' 4 -Lane Cross Section ® Two -Way Stop Control = 2 -Lane Cross Section IS Roundabout WMULLER Figure 21: Segment 2 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service 0.covo COLORADO AVE - D/D F FLYING CIRCLE • Bit GLIB CREIGNTON - O/C WI -25 FR -D/F sB1.25 •C/D Legend I. X / X — AM / PM Intersection Levels of Service 1' 1. x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service NBI-25-E/D ' EI-25 FR -E/E t Auxiliary Through Lane 6 -Lane Cross Section -_ 4 -Lane Cross Section 2 -Lane Cross Section Figure 22: Segment 3 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service WCR 19 - B/C r SB U5 BS - C/C r NB Us B5 - B/C WCR23 �aJa di ` rcld r a/a= z/ati Auxiliary Through Lane A Signalized Intersection - 4 -Lane Cross Section ® Two -Way Stop Control 2 -Lane Cross Section ® Roundabout Iggg/Ld I X / X — AM / PM Intersection Levels of Service x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service TORN/SHVER BIR • D/D ti Signalized Intersection e) Two -Way Stop Control (41) Roundabout WCR29.5 ,- bib WCR31 FULTON AVE • B/D ,.� MCKDILEY AVE - A/C US BS DUS/oak • C/e ftl� r WMULLER Figure 23: Segment 4 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service WCR37 Foxr LUPIUN ILA d X/ X — AM / PM Intersection Levels of Service x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service A • WCR41-B/B -LOVES/WI-7s FR-B/B EB 1-78 - B/c +- Auxiliary Through Lane • 4 -Lane Cross Section 2 -Lane Cross Section Figure 24: Segment 5 — 2045 Build Conditions (M4CL) Levels of Service Single lane roundabout, while recommended, was not included in the primary analysis models (presented here). HCS 7 roundabout results show LOS A during peak periods :s WCR53 a Legend X / X — AM / PM Intersection Levels of Service x / x — AM / PM Unsignalized Movement Levels of Service WCR59 Huosox WCR45 .—a/a bJb Signalized Intersection Two -Way Stop Control Roundabout SH79/WCR59 Auxiliary Through Lane A Signalized Intersection - - - = 4 -Lane Cross Section ® Two -Way Stop Control ILA 2 -Lane Cross Section ® Roundabout T 111MULLER APPENDIX A - TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Field Collected Turning Movement Count Data 'aMULLER APPENDIX B - LINK VOLUME, SPEED, AND CLASSIFICATION COUNTS Field Collected Volume, Speed, and Classification Data WMULLER APPENDIX C - MODELED 3045 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Calculated 2045 Modeled Turning Movement Count Data 111MULLER APPENDIX D - MODELED 2045 LINK SPEED DISTRIBUTIONS Graphics showing link speed distribution used to refine build model development. .;‘4MULLER lExisting Peak Hour Speed Profile 75 60 i 1:45 45 6 v 30 15 u 75 60 n E 45 y 30 n � 15 o !r77.1r-'! i". AM Peak Period Segment Speed PM Peak Period Segment Speed pl Z O c0I I W I �{ I Speed 25 mph 35 mph 45 mph 55 mph 65 mph Limit 7 WMULLER (Full 4 -Lane Peak Hour Speed Profile 75 ..60 g- -95 30 '^ 15 0 Legend F ' I TC-K. I' 1 f r -P1 I ,I . I �1 AM Peak Period Segment Speed PM Peak Period Segment Speed 1; `"`-LIIPTOi4 �ORg i, 13 I West 4 -Lane Peak Hour Speed Profile 75 60 L E-95 130 r^ 15 0 75 60 a E 45 3,3o 6 (^ 15 tr-u r _ -• _ AM Peak Period Segment Speed PM Peak Period Segment Speed II r - Speed 75 mph 35 mph A5 mph 55 mph, 65 null tint! iM 0 Legend Speed 25 mph 35 mph 45 mph 55 rnpii 65 mph Lima[IMAS WMULLER f •Middle 4 -Lane to US 287 Peak Hour Speed Profile 75 60 L t45 45 330 I a15 0 -g 30 X15 I, 0 I Lesend Ij- rte l Y�11 AM Peak Period Segment Speed PM Peak Period Segment Speed IN/fiddle 4 -Lane to County Line Peak Hour Speed Profile 75 I .-,60 r E 95 330 8-15 0 G 0 Lesend AM Peak Period Segment Speed PM Peak Period Segment Speed T� Speed 25 mph 35 mph 45 mph 55 mph 65 mph Limit map Speed 25 mph 35 mph 45 mph 55 mph 65 mph Lim t f WMULLER WMULLER r Appendix F-11 _ Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 ter_ CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: June 30, 2021 Subject: Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo Background This technical memorandum documents the travel demand forecasting methodology performed for the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The methodology outlines the existing year data sources, existing and future year model inputs, and future year outputs and post -processing methods. A summary of forecast volumes is also provided. In addition to this technical memorandum, the following CO 52 PEL Study travel forecasting documents have been prepared for this project: • Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memorandum — This document summarizes year 2020 and 2045 travel demand model results and summarizes traffic volumes at screenline locations along CO 52 and parallel routes. • Origin -Destination Trip Patten Analysis — This memo documents the origin -destination trip pattern modeling analysis performed for the study to identify where trips enter/exit the CO -52 corridor as well as trip origins and destinations along the corridor. ■ Transit Analysis Methodology and Results — This document summarizes the methodology, assumptions, and results of the analysis of transit options along the CO 52 corridor. • Telework Analysis - Sensitivity Model Run — This document summarizes the telework modeling analysis that included research into telework assumptions for travel demand modeling and the adjustment to targets for work trips that are Work -at -Home (WAH). Travel Demand Forecasting Overview Travel demand forecasting is the process of estimating the amount of travel along the facilities within a transportation system, be it roadways, transit lines, or multimodal facilities. A travel demand model is a planning tool used to estimate future travel within the transportation system and to assess alternative improvements to a transportation system. Its primary inputs are the region's transportation network and future socioeconomic data consisting of population, household, and employment data. The model produces various outputs including estimated future traffic volume forecasts along roadways. The CDOT StateFocus (Version 1.4) travel demand model (CDOT Model) was used as the basis for the development of the CO 52 travel demand model. The Denver Regional Council of 1 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo Governments' Focus travel demand model (DRCOG Model) was considered for use on the project, however, because the CO 52 corridor extends through the far northeastern portion of the DRCOG Model's coverage, the CDOT Model was deemed more suitable. The CDOT Model uses socio-economic projections for the State of Colorado to generate travel demand and distribute trips across the state's roadway and transit network. For the CO 52 PEL study, the 2015 model was used as the base year and the 2045 model as the horizon year. Methodology The following outlines the travel demand forecasting process used for the CO 52 PEL study. Data Collection At the time the travel demand model forecasting was initiated in the late spring/early summer of 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic was substantially impacting travel patterns. Obtaining year 2020 traffic counts was not viable as the data would not reflect "normal", non -pandemic conditions. In lieu of year 2020 data, historic daily traffic counts were collected from the CDOT OTIS website, CDOT Model, and the DRCOG Model. The historic counts used for the CO 52 PEL forecasting effort were all from years 2017, 2018, and 2019. In September 2020, a data collection effort along the corridor was finally performed to obtain turning movement counts for the micro -simulation effort. The data included daily counts along the CO 52 corridor and peak period turning movement counts at select intersections and access points. In general, the daily counts along CO 52 were consistently lower than historic counts. A Covid-19 adjustment procedure was developed and applied to the traffic counts in an effort to adjust counts to "normal" 2020 conditions. The procedure involved developing seasonal and annual adjustment factors based on CDOT continuous count and short -duration count location data. These locations included data from before and during the pandemic. The September 2020 counts were then adjusted based on factors developed for five segments along CO 52. Year 2020 Count Estimates Year 2020 was selected as the base year for the project. In the late spring/early summer of 2020, well prior to the data collection effort in September, year 2020 daily count estimates were developed at locations along CO 52 based on the historic daily counts. Historic counts were factored to 2020 based upon observed historic patterns, where available, and growth rates observed in the CDOT Model from year 2015 to year 2045. Where traffic counts were unavailable along CO 52, the 2020 counts were estimated based upon counts at upstream/downstream locations. Once the September 2020 data was available, a review of the year 2020 count estimates was performed as a quality check. The comparison to the Covid-19 adjusted daily counts was a high-level effort that confirmed that the 2020 count estimates along the corridor were within an acceptable range. Using the September 2020 turning movements counts, cross -street daily count estimates along the CO 52 corridor were developed. The daily count estimates were based on the proportion of 2of5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo peak hour counts observed on each leg of a given intersection. The cross -street counts were estimated based on the proportion applied to the 2020 estimated daily counts along CO 52, resulting in 2020 estimated daily counts on the cross -streets. Existing Year Travel Demand Model A travel forecasting model is developed for the existing year with the goal of replicating real - world conditions as best as possible. The network and socio-economic inputs are reviewed for accuracy within the project's study area, compared to observed conditions, and adjusted where deemed necessary. The CDOT Model includes a base year 2015 model and two horizon year models for year 2030 and year 2045. To develop a CO 52 base year model, the CDOT Model's 2015 base year was used as a basis. The 2015 CDOT Model's roadway coded network was reviewed and corrected where necessary to replicate 2020 roadway conditions. The roadway network within the CO 52 Study Area and surrounding area was adjusted based on recent aerial photography and known roadway improvements. Corrections and additions to the roadway network included the following: • Added 79th St as two-lane collector south of CO 52 to Lookout Rd • CO 52 laneages adjusted from two to four (two each direction) between West 1-25 Frontage Rd to East 1-25 Frontage Rd • Removed WCR 12 grade -separated crossing of 1-25 (parallel facility north of CO 52) • Removed WCR 16 grade -separated crossing of 1-25 (parallel facility south of CO 52) ■ Realigned CO 52 / Colorado Blvd intersection as four -leg intersection, rather than two three-legged intersections ■ Added WCR 29.5 as two-lane collector crossing CO 52, extending from WCR 14 on the north to WCR 12 on the south • Added 1-76 Frontage as two-lane collector east of 1-76, from CO 52 to WCR 49 Though the roadway network matches 2020 conditions, the socioeconomic inputs remain unchanged and represent 2015 conditions. For this reason, and for simplicity sake, the existing year model is referred to as the CO 52 2015 Base Scenario (2015 Base Scenario). Horizon Year Travel Demand Model A horizon year travel demand model is used to project the future year travel patterns and volumes. The horizon year model inputs include the future transportation system, based upon expected improvement projects as specified in fiscally -constrained regional transportation plans and estimates of the future socioeconomic conditions. As with the existing year model, the future transportation network is refined if necessary. 3 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo For the CO 52 2045 No Action Scenario (2045 No Action Scenario), the 2045 CDOT Model's roadway network was used as a basis. The roadway network was modified to include all adjustments made in the development of the 2015 Base Scenario (listed above). Additionally, the DRCOG 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (2040 RTP) was reviewed to ensure any roadway and transit projects within the area were included in the 2045 No Action Scenario's transportation network. No additional adjustments to the roadway and transit networks were found to be necessary. 2020 Model Volume Development To compare CO 52 model volumes to observed conditions, the 2015 Base Scenario outputs were factored to year 2020, on a location by location basis, to correspond with the 2020 count estimates. The factors were developed from annual growth rates calculated based on output volumes from the 2015 Base Scenario and the 2045 No Action Scenario. The annual growth rates were applied to the 2015 model volumes to get estimated 2020 model volumes. Post -Processing Methodology As with all travel demand forecasting models, the CDOT Model is not expected to provide precise traffic volume forecasts throughout the roadway system due to the complexity of the real world. Per industry practice, the model's horizon year traffic volumes were adjusted based on actual traffic counts. The methodology of adjustment compared the 2020 estimated model traffic volumes to the 2020 estimated traffic counts throughout the project area. These comparisons highlight the expected variation associated with the model's representation of travel conditions along roadways in the region. 2045 No Action Scenario daily traffic forecasts were adjusted based on percentage and absolute differences between the 2020 estimated model volumes and the 2020 estimated counts, as prescribed in the Transportation Research Board's publication NCHRP 765 post - processing adjustment methodology. 2045 Model Alternatives Along with the 2015 Base Scenario and 2045 No Action Scenario, four additional horizon year model runs were performed for the alternatives analysis: • 2045 Full Four -Lane Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from CO 119 to I-76. • 2045 West Four -Lane Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from US 287 to WCR 15 (east of Frederick/Dacono). • 2045 Middle Four -Lane to US 287 Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from US 287 to Denver Ave in Ft. Lupton. • 2045 Middle Four -Lane to County Line Rd Scenario — CO 52 improved to four lanes from County Line Rd to Denver Ave in Ft. Lupton. The four action scenarios each include widening CO 52 to four lanes along various stretches of the highway. The extents of those four -lane segments are illustrated in As noted earlier, a 4 of 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Traffic Demand Forecasting Methodology Technical Memo detailed summary of results of the travel demand modeling analysis can be found in the Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memorandum. Figure 1. As noted earlier, a detailed summary of results of the travel demand modeling analysis can be found in the Traffic Forecasting and Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memorandum. Figure 1 2045 4 -Lane Action Scenarios 2045 Full Four -Lane Boulder 2045 West Four -Lane Boulder ,Ene Y 2045 Middle Four -Lane to US 287 „„,0„0 re 2045 Middle Four -Lane to County Line Rd 4.0 Bonder ,15A;, 1 f 4 -Lane Section 4 -Lane Section T, 4 -Lane Section 4 -Lane Section 5of5 Appendix F-12 Alternatives Analysis Terminology Memo i Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 Coq CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study / Access Control Plan To: Chad Hall, Project Manager, CDOT R4 From: Kelly Maiorana, Muller Date: January 29, 2021 Subject: CO 52 Alternative Analysis Terminology This memo describes the CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL) terminology that will be used to describe the outcomes of Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations of the Alternatives Analysis. Alternative outcomes are described to provide nomenclature guidelines for the Alternatives Analysis and to provide the most flexibility as projects move forward after the PEL study is completed. Level 1 Carried Forward: Meets Purpose and Need, considered reasonable and feasible, and may be considered for further evaluation in this study or subsequent NEPA and Project development. Retained as an Element: Does not fully meet Purpose and Need, but will be evaluated as a packaged element of a larger -scale alternative. Eliminated: Does not meet Purpose and Need, has a fatal flaw, and/or is considered unreasonable. A project alternative that is Eliminated is removed from further consideration in the PEL Study. Level 2 Recommended: Considered reasonable and feasible and recommended for consideration as the Preferred Alternative during subsequent NEPA and project development. Carried Forward: Considered reasonable and feasible and may be considered for further evaluation in this study or subsequent NEPA and project development Not Recommended: Will not be evaluated further in this study due to comparatively negligible benefits and higher impacts than other alternatives, but may be studied further with subsequent NEPA and project development Eliminated: Does not meet Purpose and Need, has a fatal flaw, and/or is considered unreasonable. A project alternative that is Eliminated is removed from further consideration in the PEL Study. Design Option: Alternative design variation to the typical that can be presented but will not be evaluated until future design phase. 1 Appendix F-13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: September 14, 2021 Subject: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo OV Consulting has prepared a bicycle and pedestrian connectivity analysis for the Colorado State Highway (CO) 52 corridor as a supplement to the Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL). The following memorandum summarizes the PEL process as it relates to multimodal connections, documents the multimodal evaluation criteria, and provides recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, both regional (corridor -wide) and local (location specific). Introduction CO 52 is one of the few continuous and straight east -west connections between CO 119 in Boulder County and the eastern towns of Wiggins and Fort Morgan. As a result, this corridor is a critical link in the transportation network not only for vehicles, but also for bicycles. No other continuous bicycle route or trail exists in close proximity that provides similar east -west connectivity for this area. Additionally, the corridor is located in between many growing communities to the north and south. Therefore, providing north -south connectivity across CO 52 is equally important to ensure connectivity and provide safe crossings within these growing communities. PEL Multimodal Process The PEL process included an evaluation of existing conditions throughout the corridor, which involved collecting local agency and stakeholder comments to gain an understanding of their priorities in terms of bicycle and pedestrian mobility needs, challenges, and desires around the corridor. Early feedback indicated a general community desire for multimodal facilities. Following the development of the Existing Conditions Report, the project team developers the Purpose and Need Memo which identified the need to support multimodal connections as one of three governing needs. Summary of Existing Conditions Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and operations were analyzed by dividing the corridor into three areas: CO 119 to County Line Road within Boulder County (West Area), County Line Road to WCR 37 within Weld County (Central Area), and WCR 37 to CO 79 within Weld County (East Area). Bicycle and pedestrian analysis involved a desktop review of existing and planned facilities, online resources, and available GIS data from local and regional agencies as well as a Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis. Figures 3-11 and 3-13 of the Existing Conditions Report show existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities proximate to CO 52, respectively. The LTS for most of the corridor was found to be very high due to the high vehicle speeds. Similarly, the LTS crossing rating indicates that bicycle travel across CO 52 is difficult at many of the unsignalized intersections due to the high volume and/or high speed of vehicular traffic along CO 52. 1 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Stakeholder and Agency Input In addition to the desktop reviews, agency and stakeholder input was collected. The analysis allowed for specific needs in each of the three areas to be identified as well as overall corridor needs. Input received is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Agency and Stakeholder Input Agency and Stakeholder Input Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Overall Corridor Needs • Improve bicycle mobility because there are no other existing or proposed parallel bicycle routes that connect the CO 52 communities • Improve the existing gaps in the shoulders near major intersections • Upgrade the existing infrastructure and operations to improve level of comfort for cyclists • Supplement the bicycle network by implementing proposed regional trails along CO 52 • Improve crossings of CO 52 as development starts to occur along the corridor • Improve safety and comfort level of existing pedestrian facilities by expanding the sidewalk network, increasing sidewalk width, and separating sidewalks from the roadway • Install controlled pedestrian crossings where demand exists and physical conditions allow West Area Needs • Explore shifting CO 52 to the north or south to provide a shared use trail parallel to the corridor • Consider bicycle crossing enhancements at CO 119 and 95th Street (and other important multimodal nodes) since both roadways are designated proposed Regional Active Transportation Corridors by DRCOG • Provide a continuous and safe bicycle facility on CO 52 through the l- 25 interchange area • Explore shifting CO 52 to the north or south to create a shared use path parallel to the corridor that is within the available right-of-way 2of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Central Area Needs • Consider the proposed regional trails and bicycle routes near the municipalities of Erie, Frederick, and Dacono, with special consideration for the crossings of CO 52 • Consider the proposed Regional Active Transportation Corridor (85-25 Trail/Front Range Trail) that travels from the south along WCR 23, to the west along CO 52, and connects with the existing Firestone Trail • Consider a connection along the corridor from Fort Lupton to the 85- 25 Trail/Front Range Trail • Improve connections across CO 52 between Dacono and Frederick and within Fort Lupton that serve community amenities such as schools, recreation centers, trails, and retail establishment • Provide connections to planned regional and local trails within Dacono, Frederick and Erie East Area Needs • Improve crossings within Hudson where CO 52 intersects the street grid and is a barrier for north -south mobility • Provide bicycle safety enhancements east of Hudson • Improve crossings of CO 52 within Fort Lupton and Hudson, especially near the schools and parks • Implement proposed trail network within Fort Lupton and Hudson, including the crossings of CO 52 Expected User Groups Most land uses adjacent to the CO 52 corridor are agricultural or industrial uses. However, the corridor is experiencing an increase in commercial and residential development and it provides critical east -west connectivity for several rural communities and business centers. The majority of proposed bicycle facility alternatives are in -road facilities such as roadway shoulders and bicycle lanes along CO 52. These types of facilities are in close proximity to high-speed and high -volume vehicular traffic. There are a couple of exceptions including the shared use path alternatives throughout Boulder County and Fort Lupton. For these reasons, the corridor is anticipated to attract high-speed, long-distance bicycle trips throughout the length of the corridor as well as a variety of users within lower -speed residential and commercial areas. It is expected that most bicycle trips along the extents of the corridor will be recreational or commute trips. Therefore, bicycle facilities along CO 52 should be designed to appeal to bicyclists that currently use the roadway shoulders while also appealing to and safely accommodating all user groups. Methodology for Improvements As discussed in the PEL, evaluation criteria, consistent with the Purpose and Need and Goals, were developed prior to beginning the alternatives screening process. The Level 1 performance measures assess the ability of each alternative to meet Purpose and Need at a high level. The Level 2 performance measures delve into more detail as well as evaluate how well alternatives meet project goals. Evaluation 3of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo of the Level 2 performance measures was informed by Chapter 14 of CDOT's Roadway Design Guide Rev. 2, 2015, AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 6th Edition, 2011, and AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012. Level 1 Evaluation Criteria The Level 1 performance measures evaluated alternatives at a high level based on whether or not the alternatives have the potential to increase and not preclude multimodal mobility. The following provides a description of the criteria and a summary of how they were evaluated: Local and Regional Route Connectivity —This criterion evaluates the alternatives based on their connectivity to existing and planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities near the CO 52 corridor. f Bicycle Connectivity —Alternatives were evaluated per the bicycle connectivity criterion based on whether or not they would provide improvements to bicycle infrastructure. Pedestrian Connectivity —Similar to the bicycle connectivity criterion, the pedestrian connectivity criterion evaluates the CO 52 alternatives based on whether or not they would provide improvements to pedestrian infrastructure. For a summary of alternatives that were eliminated as a result of Level 1 screening, please refer to the PEL. Level Evaluation Criteria After evaluation of Level 1 criteria, alternatives that advanced were evaluated based on Level 2 performance measures. The Level 2 performance measures added criteria that reflect components of the project goals which address local and regional planning efforts. Description of the criteria and a summary of how they were evaluated are provided below. The criteria evaluation rankings were split into substantial improvement, moderate improvement, minor improvement, or no change for all criteria except the "bicycle design guidelines" criterion, which ranked alternatives based on whether they exceed/meet/or do not meet the minimum standard. Improve Forth/South Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Connections —This included a review of existing and planned north -south bicycle facilities along the CO 52 corridor and evaluated how the alternatives would improve connectivity for bicyclists travelling north -south. Alternatives were evaluated based on their cross-section (how many lanes left -turning north -south bicyclists would need to cross), proposed bicycle facility type (e.g., widened shoulder, bike lanes, or multi- use path), and based on the presence of a roadway median which could provide width at intersection for potential crossing treatments. Improve Continuity for East/West Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Travel — Evaluation of alternatives under this criterion was based on the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facility types along CO 52. The provision of a multi -use path or bike lanes along a segment was considered a substantial improvement as bicycles would have a dedicated space. Additionally, the provision of roadway shoulders greater than four feet in width where shoulders do not currently exist was considered a substantial improvement because this alternative would create a bicycle facility that previously did not exist. Shoulder widening with the installation of rumble strips was considered a moderate improvement and, lastly, shoulder widening in areas that already included eight - foot shoulders was considered a minor improvement. 4of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo • Improves Bicycle Level of Service — For the alternatives which include bicycle facilities on roadway shoulders, bicycle level of service (LOS) was evaluated based on Chapter 14 of CDOT's Roadway Design Guide Rev. 2, 2015. The methodology considers the speed limit, average daily traffic, percentage of heavy vehicles, and shoulder width to determine bicycle LOS. Alternatives that include dedicated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or a multi -use path were considered to substantially improve bicycle LOS. Additionally, alternatives that introduce shoulders greater than four feet where none currently exist were considered to substantially improve bicycle LOS. The remaining alternatives that included shoulder widening were found to have no change on bicycle LOS. ▪ Reduce Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflict —The potential to reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflicts was evaluated for each alternative based on the cross-section and number of lanes pedestrians would be required to cross, the presence of a roadway median which could provide room for potential crossing treatments, as well as proposed pedestrian facility type (e.g., sidewalk, roadway shoulder, or multi -use path). Reduce Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) - A Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis following the methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (Maaza C. Mekuria, 2012) was performed to assess the comfort of the bicycle facilities proposed in each alternative. Because any corridor stretch with a speed limit of 40 mph or higher will have an LTS of 4 regardless of the other criteria (street width, bike lane width, bike lane blockage), speed limit was used as the primary LTS screening criteria for the majority of the CO 52 corridor. The most desirable LTS score of 1 applies to facilities that are separated from motorized traffic; therefore, alternative with multi -use paths provide a substantial reduction to I_TS. Reduce Vehicle/Bicycle Conflict — An alternatives potential to reduce vehicle/bicycle conflicts was evaluated based on the proposed bicycle facility type using Crash Modification Factors (CMF) published in the Federal Highway Administrations CMF Clearinghouse website. The CMF for shoulder widening was calculated per the methodology outlined in a study published by Park and Abdel-Aty in 2016 titled "Evaluation of Safety Effectiveness of Multiple Cross Sectional Features on Urban Arterials." The CMF associated with the installation of bicycle lanes was referenced from a FHWA study published in 2021 titled "Development of Crash Modification Factors for Bicycle Lane Additions While Reducing Lane and Shoulder Widths." Alternatives that resulted in crash reductions between zero and 25 -percent were considered to have a moderate reduction and those above 25 -percent were ranked as having a substantial reduction. • Incorporates Bicycle Design Standards/Guidelines — Design widths for roadway shoulders, bicycle lanes, and two -directional shared used paths are provided in Chapter 14 of CDOT's Roadway Design Guide Rev. 2, 2015. The alternatives were evaluated based on whether they exceed, met, or did not meet the standards provided in the guide. Corridor Improvements The proposed east -west multimodal alternatives along the CO 52 corridor include roadway shoulders for bicycle/pedestrian use in rural areas and either bicycle lanes and sidewalks or a shared use path in higher activity areas. The few existing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities that run parallel to CO 52 are mostly located near Dacono, Frederick, Fort Lupton, and Hudson. Pedestrian travel along the corridor is generated by schools, parks, and commercial uses and needs are limited to these municipalities that are bisected by the corridor. Selection of bicycle facility types was informed by AASHTO's Guide for the 5of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012, and Table 2-3 of the report is included below which summarizes general consideration for different bikeway types. Type of Bikeway Best Use Motor Vehicle Design Speed Traffic Volume Classification or Intended Use Other Considerations Paved Shoulders Rural highways that connect town centers and other major attractors. Variable. Typical posted rural highway speeds (generally 40-55 mph). Variable. Rural roadways; inter -city highways. Provides more shoulder width for roadway stability. Shoulder width should be dependent on characteristics of the adjacent motor vehicle traffic, i.e., wider shoulders on higher speed and/or higher - volume roads. Bike Lanes Major roads that provide direct, convenient, quick access to major land uses. Also, can be used on collector roads and busy urban streets with slower speeds. Generally, any road where the design speed is more than 25 mph. Variable. Speed differential is generally a more important factor in the decision to provide bike lanes than traffic volumes. Arterials and collectors intended for major motor vehicle traffic movements. Where motor vehicles are allowed to park adjacent to bike lane, provide a bike lane of sufficient width to reduce probability of conflicts due to opening vehicle doors and objects in the road. Analyze intersections to reduce bicyclist/motor vehicle conflicts. Shared Use Path; Independent Right of Way Linear corridors in greenways, or along waterways, freeways, active or abandoned rail lines, utility rights -of -way, unused rights- of- way. May be a short connection, such as a connector between two cul-de-sacs, or a longer connection between cities. N/A N/A Provides a separated path for nonmotorized users. Intended to supplement a network of on- road bike lanes, shared lanes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders. Analyze intersections to anticipate and mitigate conflicts between path and roadway users. Design path with all users in mind, wide enough to accommodate expected usage. On -road alternatives may be desired for advanced riders who desire a more direct facility that accommodates higher speeds and minimizes conflicts with intersection and driveway traffic, pedestrians, and young bicyclists. 6of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo The following sections provide guidance for regional and local corridor improvements. Bicycle Use of Roadway Should Due to the expected user type, land use mix, and development density, roadway shoulders are the primary bicycle facility type proposed along the majority of the CO 52 corridor. All of the shoulder alternatives include at eight- to ten -foot -wide shoulders exceeding the minimum standard of four feet for shoulders where bicyclists and pedestrians are to be accommodated. Regardless of the width, the shoulders should be continuous to provide bicyclists an area to operate without obstructing and conflicting with faster moving motor vehicle traffic. Additionally, shoulders on structures should have the same width as usable shoulders on the roadway approaches. At intersections that include right -turn lanes on the approach, the introduction of a bike lane placed to the left of the right -turn lane is recommended to avoid conflicts. Rumble strips along the edge of the vehicular traveled way can be implemented with wider shoulders to reduce run -off -road collisions; however, a minimum clear path of four feet from the rumble strip to the outside edge of the paved shoulder, or five feet to the curb/guardrail, must be provided for bicycle use. Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are proposed along CO 52 from WCR 7 to 1-25 and through Dacono, Frederick, and Hudson. The posted speed limit along CO 52 east of 1-25 is 40 miles per hour (mph). Speed limits through Dacono and Frederick range from 45 — 55 mph and Hudson is posted at 25 — 30 mph. The CDOT Roadway Design Guide Rev. 2 recommends a minimum bike lane width of four feet on roadways with no curb and gutter and a minimum width of six feet where a two -fool gutter is present. IL is noted that buffered bicycle lanes should be considered in place of standard bicycle lanes on roadways with high volumes and travel speeds such as CO 52 between WCR and 1-25 and throughout Dacono and Frederick. Shared Use Path A shared use paths is a bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by either an open space or a barrier. Shared use paths are proposed within Boulder County and Fort Lupton. The CDOT Roadway Design Guide Rev. 2 recommends a minimum 10 -foot width of pavement for a two -directional shared use path, which is met by both alternatives. The shared use path alternative in Fort Lupton would be located adjacent to CO 52 on the north side due to right-of-way constraints; therefore, additional consideration will be required on reducing conflicts at junctions. Location -Specific Improvements Several locations along the CO 52 corridor have been identified as locations that could benefit from the addition of bicycle and pedestrian improvements and these improvements have been categorized into five general improvement categories. These include bicycle crossing improvements, pedestrian crossing improvements, bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements, railroad crossing improvements, and network connections. It is noted that the selection of specific pedestrian and bicycle crossing treatments should be selected based on location -specific characteristics and that these improvement categories were developed for general application and to identify the need for improvements, rather than to identify design -level treatments at each location. 7of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Refer to Appendix A and B for a table listing the location -specific improvements is attached and maps of recommended location -specific improvements. Conclusions Due to the expected user mix, land use mix, and development density along the CO 52 corridor, pedestrian and bicycle facility alternatives primarily include the provision of continuous, widened roadway shoulders for pedestrian and bicycle use. At high -activity areas such as Boulder County, Dacono, Frederick, and Hudson, bike lanes with sidewalks and shared use path facilities are proposed for bicycle and pedestrian use. Crossing improvements are recommended at several locations along the corridor, which were identified in this evaluation. 8of16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix A Location Specific Improvements List 9of16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City/ County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Erie Location CO 52 at LOBO Trail Undercrossing CO 52/N 79th St CO 52/N 95th St CO 52/US 287 CO 52 at Boulder Creek CO 52/E County Line Rd CO 52 at Boulder and Weld County Ditch Control Trail Undercrossing Signalized Signalized Existing - Signalized Proposed - Continuous Flow Intersection Signalized Improvement Type Network Connection Bicycle Crossing Improvements Bicycle Crossing Improvements Bicycle Crossing Improvements Network Connection Bicycle Crossing Improvements Network Connection CO 52 PEL & ACP Improvement Description • Connect to existing LOBO trail • Provide bicycle crossing improvements east -west and north -south. ■ Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. • Improve crossing for left -turning bicyclists • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. • Improve crossing for left -turning bicyclists • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. • Connect to planned trail along Boulder Creek ■ Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. • Connect to planned trail along Boulder and Weld County Ditch 10 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo # oty C unty Location Control Improvement Type Improvement Description 8 Erie CO 52/CR 3 Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. 9 Erie CO 52/CR 5 Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. 10 Erie CO 52 east of CR 5 - Network Connection • Connect to planned trail connecting Sullivan Ditch and Cottonwood Extension Ditch 11 Erie CO 52/Aggregate Blvd Signalized Bicycle Crossing Improvements ► Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. ■ Include Dike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. • Improve bicycle connections to the north. 12 Frederick CO 52 east of E I- 25 Frontage Rd - Network Connection • Connect to planned trail 13 Frederick CO 52 at Sullivan Ditch immediately west of York St - Network Connection • Connect to planned trail along Sullivan Ditch 14 Frederick CO 52/York St - Silver Birch Blvd Signalized Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. • Install turn islands and provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection. 15 Frederick CO 52/Flying Circle Blvd - William Bailey Ave Signalized Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. • Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements 11 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo 16 17 18 19 20 City/ County Dacono Frederick Frederick Weld County Weld County Location CO 52/Colorado Blvd CO 52/Glen Creighton Dr - Frederick way CO 52/CR 15 - Ridgeway Blvd CO 52/CR 19 CO 52 east of CR 19 Control Signalized Signalized Minor Street Stop Controlled Minor Street Stop Controlled (Potential Future Signal) Improvement Type Bicycle Crossing Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Bicycle Crossing Improvements Network Connection Improvement Description • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. • Consider tunnel or ped/bike bridge for Old Railroad Trail. ■ Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. • Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail to the north. • Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative • Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection. ■ Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail north. • Install crossing visibility improvements. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative • Connect to planned trail 12 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo # City/ County Location Control Improvement Type Improvement Description 21 Ft. Lupton CO 52/CR 23 Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative 22 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Pearson Park Driveway Minor Street Stop Controlled Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Provide pedestrian improvements dependent on development and transit station connection. 23 Ft. Lupton CO 52/US 85 Interchange Overcrossing Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Pedestrian underpass identified as part of the US 85 PEL 24 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Grand Ave Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements 25 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Fulton Ave Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements 26 Ft. Lupton CO 52/McKinley Ave Signalized Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Install multiuse path crossing improvements. • Consider a bicycle signal for the proposed multi use path on the north side 27 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Park Ave Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements 28 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Denver Ave Signalized Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Install rnultiuse path crossing improvements. • Consider a bicycle signal for the proposed multi use path on the north side 29 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Union Pacific RR in Ft. Lupton RR Crossing Railroad Crossing Improvements • Install crossing improvements at railraod tracks 30 Ft. Lupton CO 52/Pacific Ave Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Connect the existing north -south trail with a crossing 13 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 City/ County Ft. Lupton Ft. Lupton Ft. Lupton Ft. Lupton r Weld County Weld County Hudson Hudson Location CO 52/Harrison Ave CO 52/Rollie Ave CO 52 east of Coyote Creek Dr CO 52/CR 31 CO 52/CR 37 CO 52/CR 41 CO 52/Hudson Dr CO 52/BNSF RR in Hudson Control Minor Street Stop Controlled Signalized Minor Street Stop Controlled Minor Street Stop Controlled Minor Street Stop Controlled (Future Signal) Minor Street Stop Controlled RR Crossing Improvement Type Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Bicycle Crossing Improvements Network Connection Bicycle Crossing Improvements Bicycle Crossing Improvements Bicycle Crossing Improvements Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Railroad Crossing Improvements Improvement Description • Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements • Install multiuse path crossing improvements. • Consider a bicycle signal for the proposed multi use path on the north side • Connect to planned trail • Multiuse path begins to the west. Bicycles on shoulder to the east. • Provide bicycle crossing improvements for eastbound bicyclists to transition from multiuse path to shoulder. • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. • Provide pedestrian crossing improvements • Ensure bike facility crosses tracks at 60 - 90 degrees. • Include similar treatment for westbound bicyclists as the existing path on the south side for eastbound bicyclists. • Potential to utilize existing trail on the south side of 52 (would require wayfinding/guiding westbound bicyclists to use existing crossings at Beech St and Hudson Dr). 14 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo # City/Location County Control Improvement Type Improvement Description 39 Hudson CO 52/Beech St Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Provide crossing improvements 40 Hudson CO 52 at irrigation ditch east of Evergreen St - Network Connection • Connect to planned trail along ditch 41 Weld County CO at irrigation ditch east of CR 51 - Network Connection • Connect to planned trail along creek 42 Weld County CO 52/CR 53 Minor Street Stop Controlled Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of riglht-turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative 43 Weld County CO 52 east of CR 53 - Network Connection • Connect to planned trail 44 Weld County CO 52/CR 59 Existing - Minor Street Stop Controlled Proposed - Roundabout Bicycle Crossing Improvements • Install bicycle crossing treatments for left -turns onto/off of CO 52 45 Weld County CO 52/SH 79 Minor Street Stop Controlled Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements 15 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B Preferred Intersection Improvements 16 of 16 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements Segment 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo a s I]=IM1 0 N 71° Street: Existing project to realign 71st to r ght-angle and add northbound right -turn lane. Signalize intersection when warrants are met. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. U ,'1 5a;e; 0 N 71a Street: Currently signalized No required capacity improvements; howeve , consider adding right -turn lanes as conditions warrant. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Provide bicycle crossing improvements east -west and north -south. - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative - Improve crossing for left -turning bicyclists - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative �z e kip!' Strstt. Assuming 2 -Lace Cross Section: - Add second through lane in each direction on CO 52 (secondary through lanes to minate). Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. - Improve crossing for left -turning bicyclists. - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes fo- on-shoulde- alternative sz 1 .I U 5 Niohwax x87: Base Ccnc'tlon'Traditional Intersection Improvements): Dual left -turns on all approaches, two -through lanes, channelized right -turn lanes. (CO 52 secondary through lanes terminate in 2 -Lane alternatives) - Significant queuing, in particular due to heavy southbound left -turn movements (550 - 800 vph), result in bottleneck/gridlock conditions. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative *See page 35 for US 287 Intersection Diagram 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements Segment 2 - West I I I ( ( i f ERIE ERIE ERIE FREDERICK - 11 V A O County Line Road: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane cross section (2 -Lanes west of intersection): - Add second through lane in each direction on CO 52 (secondary lanes to terminate on 2 -Lane approaches) - Maintain separate left and right -turn lanes. -Add dual southbound left -turns, maintain single northbound left -turn lane, add right -turn lanes - Add seond through lane in each direction on CLR (secondary lanes terminate beyond intersection). Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. - For multiuse path alternative, provide bicycle crossing _ improvements for eastbound bicyclists to transition from multiuse path to shoulder. • Weld County Road 3 Expected to remain unsignalized - Add eastbound right -turn decel, and accel lane on eastbound CO 52 for northbound to eastbound right -turn movement. - Add westbound left -turn lane. Note: Lane recommendations per COOT access code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. O Weld County Road 5 Signalize intersection when warrants are met (currently unsignalized) Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes. - Add left -turn and right -turn lanes on WCR 5. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. Note: Significant growth projected at this location Widening CLR provides more bandwidth for CO 52 movements. Narrower CLR cross sections would likely lead t_• pon,'icant side -street delays without providing dual :atF Farr. lanes at CO 52, which would also necessitate widening an CLR to provide receiving lanes Weld County Road 7: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane cross section to west, 6 -Lane cross section to east: - Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes. -Westbound right -turn lane -drop - Eastbound right -turn lane -add Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. Improve bicycle connections to the north Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative S2 l 2 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements Segment 2 - East REDERICK 11 DACOND 4 Silver Birch Road/York St: Currently signalized Assuming 6 -Lane cross section to west, 4 -Lane cross section to east: - Provide eastbound dual left -turn lane (Add left -turn lane and northbound receiving ane (terminates)- -Add northbound right -turn lane. - i.astooend right -turn lane drep. - Westbound right -turn .e se -add. sz - Expand northbound and southbound storage to accommodate queues - 4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements) - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn fork St lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. - Install turn islands and provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection. Colorado Boulevard/WCR 13: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: - All approaches to have dual F �� sa _ left -turn lanes, two thru lanes, and a channelized right -turn lane. r Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians - Consider tunnel or ped/bike bridge for 0 d Railroad Trail FREDERICK 4 Glen Creighton Dr./Frederick Way: Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: Add scuthbound left -turn lane. Extend northbound storage and modify lane desigiations for one left -turn, shared left-turn/thru lane, and right -turn lane (maintains split phasing). - Maintain eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvemends) - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians. - Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail to the north - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection 0 Wpl_i_Cgyntanad 15• 3 gralize:nterseciicri Mien warrants are met (currently unsignalized). Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: - Secondary through lane terminates east of intersection in 2 -Lane alternatives Add northbound left turn lane - Add southbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Maintain westbound right -turn lane Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: sz - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection. - Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail north- - Install crossing visibility improvements. - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection Note: Proximity to WCR 15 suggests westbound right -turn auxiliary lane between intersections. 3 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements • • Weld County Road 19: Signalize intersection when warrants are met (currently unsignalized) Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lane Note: High volume for 2 -Lane facility. Consider adding auxiliary thru lane at intersection in 2 -Lane alternative. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. Wald County Road 23: Signalize intersection when warrants are met (currently unsignalized). Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lane Note: High volume for 2 -Lane facility Consider adding auxiliary thru lane at intersection in 2 -Lane alternative. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative sz Segment 3 - West ® tsisiingln��z�danl`,irrss�nr, •••• hii�.iaC�D:iI3SH II ISideede:i 0 US 85 Interchange: Currently Signalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Widen bridge west of interchange to 4 -Lanes to extend eastbound storage and westbound auxiliary lane. - Add westbound thru lane under bridge to allow for northbound dual -left -turn lanes - Consider adding northbound right -turn lane on ramp. - Extend westbound left -turn lane storage through Grand Avenue intersection (Grand Avenue to RIRG). 4 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements Segment 3 - East FORT LUPTON C 4 BS FORT LUPTON OGrand Avenue: Currently unsignalized, offset intersection within 250 -ft of US 85 ramps. - Restrict access to 3/4 movement (not recommended) or RIRO (recommended) - Accommodating left -turns from sidestree: would require signal to be combined with US 85 signal due to proximity (not recommended) Note: Assumed Right -in, Right -out in models due to excessive delay for side -street movements Traffic rerouted to Fulton Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements. Signalize inters.uctions when warrants are met (currently unsignalized). Assuming 2 -Lane or 4 -Lane Cross Section: - Provide left -turn lanes from Fulton Street and a southbound right -turn lane to accommodate redirected traffic Note: Location has the potential to meet signal warrants with or without traffic redirected from Grand Averue Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements 0 Weld County Road 291/2: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes - Extend eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes Npte: Per COOT Access Code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements. 5 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements Segment 4 0 Weld County Road 31: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add southbound right -turn lane - Extend lanes to Access Code standards Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Multiuse path begins to the west Bicycles on shoulder to the east. - Provide bicycle crossing improvements for eastbound bicyclists to transition from multiuse path to shoulder. 4 Weld County Road 37: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes - Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes Note: Per CDOT Access Code. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative 0 Weld County Road 41: Being Signalized Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. - Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative. 0 Weld County Road 45/Beech Street: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound right -turn - Add westbound left -turn Note: Per COOT Access Code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Provide crossing improvements. s2 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Memo Appendix B: Preferred Intersection Improvements Segment 5 r HUDSON 52. 33 35 36 ® 3' Ia39 QU ..-. 41 5- • �J A 4) Weld County Road 53: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: - Add eastbound right -turn - Add westbound left -turn Note: Per CDOT Access Code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements: - Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative Weld County Reedit Rase Con;r'tion: S:np CantroPe; eriln eas[bound snared left-turnithru lane and right-turn;ans. wessoouno le'r•tcrn lane, westbound acce! ono for rtor; tnoJno loft-r•urn movernen Signorizo:ic.n. Ilces col meet vearranisirrot r.e:nmme-ded) tlosignorized: Conside•atier for nortnbaund ano soutri ound 1•aN•iu•c :'are could nega•ive:y irnea:' srgm O sta `ce or create anf ic? wrth taming tucks Roiraddaeur: S• vs. lane iligh•sae.ao roLmdanJut'rrould allow for sign. titan? safety imfrDvg:Peni5 while allovring ms.sEm operarror tnrodghdut she day Vrsrbirity kurovements Cons;de, overhead st:an viire warning signal Imaim:Re ye avr. sides:re_: red) e' ;:her inters'_t:r7n irtpr•overnenrs. Pedestrian1Bicycle Improvement: • ,cslais tricycle :rassoeg rreattnents foi :uf 'ur s on[orof` o: CO 52 `See page 37 for WCR 59 Intersection Diagram 0 Weld County Road 69/C0 79: Currently Unsignalized Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: -Add lanes per access code pending evaluation of ROW impacts Note: No operational deficiencies noted Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement: - Provide pedestrian accessibility improvements s2 VvCR bg 7 Appendix F-14 Emerging Technology Opportunities Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 aPICO 52 PEL b ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: 8/4/2021 Subject: Emerging Technology Opportunities Introduction With increasing traffic volumes and congestion, the traditional capacity expansion solution to congestion management has proven that it cannot be the only solution. Typical physical transportation improvements, such as the addition of new travel lanes are expensive, require extended periods of time for construction and the construction of those improvements is very disruptive to the travelling public, typically increasing travel times, delay, and vehicle crashes. Effectively utilizing technology in conjunction with roadway capacity expansion and intersection improvements provides an opportunity to improve system wide safety, reliability, and efficiency beyond capacity expansions alone, For PxamplP, the installation of Active Traffic Management Systems (ATMS), which uses dynamic message signs over each lane of traffic to close lanes that are obstructed due to crashes and then direct vehicles to adjacent lanes to move traffic more efficiently past the crash, has shown to reduce delays and secondary traffic crashes. Other types of technology, such as fiber optic cable for fast and reliable communications, detection devices to identify and manage vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, and traffic controllers that communication directly with vehicles and other roadside units are increasingly being installed on roadway projects to improve operations and future proof the transportation system. The addition of these types of current transportation technology solutions, while also considering emerging and future technology, to the CO 52 corridor will help to improve the operations and safety of the corridor now and in the future. In order to take advantage of these technological solutions, the underlying infrastructure (power, communications, and sufficient publicly owned space adjacent to the roadway) utilized to operate and communicate with this technology should be acquired and installed under all build scenarios Corridor Characteristics The CO 52 corridor is made of up five segments with the following characteristics: Segment 1— CO 52 from SH 119 to County Line Road — The section of CO 52 intersects with SH 119 on the west and extends east to the Boulder County/Weld County border at Colorado Boulevard. It is characterized by high average daily traffic (ADT) volumes (between 12,400 ADT to 19,000 ADT); a high volume of congested intersections; and a high volume of crashes with three fatal crashes (over a five-year period.). In addition, this section has a regional bus route that runs between I-25 and US 287 and intersects with bus service along SH 119. Segment 2 — CO 52 from County Line Road to Weld County Road 19 — The section of CO 52 intersects with I-25 and is characterized by high volumes (between 11,800 ADT to 25,000 ADT); minimal congestion with congestion occurring at I-25; and a high number of fatal crashes with five fatal crashes (over a five year period.); 1 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Emerging Technology Opportunites Segment 3 - CO 52 from Weld County Road 19 to Weld County Road 31- The section of CO 52 intersects with US 85 and is characterized by consistent volumes (between 11,500 ADT to 11,600 ADT); minimal congestion with congestion occurring at US 85; and a minor volume of crashes with crashes spiking at the US 85 interchange (over a five year period.) Segment 4 - CO 52 from Weld County Road 31 to Weld County Road 49 - The section of CO 52 intersects with I-76 and is characterized by medium to low volumes (between 10,300 ADT to 4,000 ADT); minimal congestion, and a minor volume of crashes with three fatal crashes (over a five year period.) Segment 5 - CO 52 from Weld County Road 49 to CO 79 - The section of CO 52 is characterized by the low traffic volumes (between 2,000 ADT to 3,100 ADT); minimal congestion, and a minor volume of crashes (over a five year period.) Technology Strategies The emerging technology field is an ever expanding and changing landscape. Depending upon the transportation needs at an intersection or corridor, there is likely an emerging technology solution that can help improve the safety, operations, and reliability of the roadway system. A combination of both intersection -based technology solutions and corridor -based technology solutions considered will provide benefits to the safety and operations of the CO 52 corridor. Intersection -based technology solutions are geared to improving the safety and operations for vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycles at intersections. These solutions range from adding additional devices at intersections to detect vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycles to the addition of traffic controllers that can directly communicate with vehicles approaching the intersection to alert them to changing roadway conditions or potential conflicts to avoid crashes. These intersection -based technology solutions can operate independently to improve the safety and operations at the intersection or if interconnected with other intersections can improve safety and operations corridor wide. Corridor based technology solutions can be deployed along a corridor, in spot locations along the corridor, or in conjunction with signalized intersection, to improve the safety and operations along the entire corridor. These solutions range from installing speed feedback signs to reduce crashes to the addition of smart street lighting across the corridor that can modify light levels to alert travelers to differing roadway conditions as needed. The following summarizes current, emerging, and future infrastructure that may provide safety and operational benefits through technology along the CO 52 corridor. Many of these technology improvements can be implemented immediately, some provide the required infrastructure to enable these uses of existing or future technology applications. As such, for the CO 52 corridor there are three separate and distinct categories for emerging technology solutions. Enabling for Future and Existing Emerging Technology — This includes the infrastructure that must be present to allow for the use and operations of current, emerging, and future technology. These include items like fiber optic cable for fast and reliable communications, conduit to safely and securely house the fiber optic cable, and Right of Way (ROW) adjacent to the roadway to place the fiber optic cable, conduit, and other supporting infrastructure. This is the infrastructure that must be available along the corridor and at 2 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Emerging Technology Opportunites intersections to facilitate the adoption and use of current and emerging technological solutions in the future. This infrastructure should be acquired and installed under all build scenarios. • Conduits and Pull Boxes — PVC conduit is used to provide positive protection for fiber optic cable or electrical cables that are buried within the ROW of the roadway. Pull boxes are used to provide convenient access to the conduits when connections to equipment are required and to allow for shorter conduits runs when adding fiber optic cable through empty conduits. Adding in sufficient conduit for new fiber optic and electrical cable and additional spares for future communications needs will allow for the efficient adoption of current, emerging, or future technology. Placing additional pull boxes approximately every 1500 feet, and at anticipated locations that will have additional technology, such as current and future signalized intersections, will also help with the efficient adoption of current, emerging, or future technology. • Applicable Segments: Segments 1-5 Applicable Intersections: All intersections • Fiber Optic Cable — Fiber optic cable provides the communications backbone to efficiently transmit large amounts of data between traffic devices and /or a traffic management center. The addition of fiber optic cables along the corridor will help to facilitate the use of current, emerging, or future technology. New fiber optic cables could be used to connect to other existing communication system or ITS equipment currently in use along the corridor. Applicable Segments: Segments 1-5 Applicable Intersections: All intersections • ROW considerations — Current, future, and emerging technology infrastructure will require poles, cabinets and other physical infrastructure that will need to be located in the ROW. It would be greatly beneficial to plan to accommodate this required infrastructure in the ROW now to facilitate future technology implementations. Determining current ROW needs and identify future ROW needs will help to ensure that there is sufficient room for the addition of current, emerging, or future technology. • Applicable Segments: Segments 1-5 • Applicable Intersections: All intersections Current Emerging Technology Opportunities — This includes infrastructure that is currently available and has the potential to make an immediate impact on the safety and operations. Many of these technologies have been installed and are currently operational in Colorado, while others have been installed and tested in other parts of the country and are rapidly gain traction as a proven traffic technology. These include items such as Blank Out Signs, to alert drivers to crossing pedestrian or bicyclists and temporarily restrict that vehicle movement; Adaptive Signal Control, to allow for better traffic flow based upon current traffic volumes; and Active Traffic Management Systems (ATMS), to better alert drivers to traffic crashes upstream and to efficiently open and close those affected lanes. 3 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Emerging Technology Opportunites • Blank Out Signs at Intersection for Pedestrian Safety - Blank out signs restrict right or left turns at signalized intersections when pedestrians or bicycles are crossing and can improve awareness and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The blank out can be activated by means such as a pedestrian push buttons or passively through infrared, video, radar, or LiDAR, to detect the presence of crossing pedestrians and bicyclists. The detection data, whether active or passive, can be shared and utilized by CV's in the future to convey the presence of a pedestrian or bicyclist to oncoming vehicles. Applicable Intersections: All currently signalized intersections and future signalized intersections within Segments 1, 2 and 3. With the addition of new pedestrian and bicycle facilities the blank out signs will help to increase the visibility of pedestrian and bicyclist at these critical locations. ■ Adaptive Signal Control - Adaptive traffic signals can improve the flow of traffic along certain corridors. The traffic signal controllers dynamically adjust signal timing, coordination, and progression of vehicles based on the actual traffic demand along the corridor. Modifying these factors can improve the flow of traffic, improve travel speeds, and improve safety along the corridor. CDOT Region 4 assessed CO 52 and identified it as a corridor that could benefit from adaptive traffic signal control. Applicable Intersections: All Signalized Intersection along the corridor to dynamically improve the overall flow of traffic along the corridor. • Commercial Vehicle Signal Priority - Commercial Vehicle Signal Priority utilizes advance detection at signalized intersections to determine the distance and travel speed of commercial vehicle and extend the length of the green time to allow the vehicle to safely pass through the intersection without having to stop. Not only does the extended green time help reduce the start-up loss time associated with large commercial vehicles, but the extension also helps to reduce and prevent crashes including broadside and rear end crashes, which are typically severe at high speeds. With the high volume of commercial vehicles on CO 52, the entire corridor could benefit from the use of Commercial Vehicle Signal Priority. As CV capabilities become increasingly present in commercial vehicles, the CV applications can be integrated into the system to gain additional benefits. Applicable Intersections: All Signalized Intersection along the corridor to dynamically reduce unnecessary stops for commercial vehicles, improve the overall flow along the corridor and reduce the potential for broadside and rear end accidents at signalized intersections. ■ Passive Detection at Signals for Pedestrians and Bicycles — The addition of passive detection, such as infrared, video, radar, or LiDAR, to detect the presence of crossing pedestrians and bicyclists at intersection, mid -block crossings or shared use paths. This passive detection data can be used to activate pedestrian crossing signals at intersections, and flashers at mid -block crossings or shared use paths in advance of the intersection or crossing greatly improving safety for those users. It can also be used to extend crossing times to 4 of 6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Emerging Technology Opportunites accommodate pedestrians, such as the young or elderly who may require more time to safely cross the road. Applicable Intersections: All currently signalized intersections and future signalized intersections within Segments 1, 2 and 3 to better detect pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections, mid -block crossings and shared use paths. • Adaptive curve warning signs, speed feedback signs and radar detection - Adaptive curve warning signs provide positive feedback to drivers prior to and through a curve that the roadway condition is non -typical and the flashers are only active when a motorist is approaching the curve helping to increase the awareness. Pairing these signs and flashers with a speed feedback sign, alerting drivers to the current speed, will help to reduce excessive speeding through the curves and vehicles that depart the roadway as a result of these excessive speeds. Applicable Segments: Segment 2 to improve the visibility of the reverse curves between Ridgeway Boulevard and Weld County Road 19 ■ Queue detection/warning — Queue detection, through passive detection and warning through dynamic message signs can help alert drivers to upstream congestion reducing he likely hood of a rear end crash. By providing this information to drivers prior to the congested section of roadway will benefit the safety of all travelers through reduced crashes. • Applicable Intersections — Those intersections with current congestion including: ■ CO 52 at SH 119 ■ CO 52 at US 287 ■ CO 52 at County Line Road ■ CO 52 at I-25 ■ CO 52 at US 85 • Transit signal priority — Transit signal priority at signalized intersections is utilized to detect transit vehicles to allow those vehicles to receive a green signal prior to the other non -transit vehicles receive the green signal. This additional time allows the transit vehicles to move more efficiently between stops, enter traffic more easily, get up to operating speed quicker and improves the overall efficiency of transit operations. Applicable Intersections: ■ CO 52 at CO 119 — To accommodate and enhance the current bus service along CO 119 ■ CO 52 at US 287 - — To accommodate and enhance the current bus service along US 287 • Adaptive/Smart Street Lighting — The addition of a communications capable module on top of a streetlight allows LED street light to communicate with a central server and become "smart" and adapt to varying conditions. Adaptive Street Lights can improve safety and sustainability through energy and dark sky savings. Light output can be varied to change brightness based on the presence or absence of vehicles, pedestrians, or bicycles. The Adaptive Street Light can also increase the communications network in a very efficient manner to provide additional communications where none previously existed. This 5of6 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Emerging Technology Opportunites additional communication capability can help improve access to Internet of Things devices such as CCTV cameras, detectors, on -street parking systems and public Wi-Fi. With their communications capabilities, Adaptive Street Light will help provide much needed communications infrastructure for CAV's. Applicable Segments: Segments 1, 2 and 3 Preparing for Emerging Technology Opportunities — This includes infrastructure that will accommodate future technologies and systems that have the potential to positively impact the transportation system. As this new technology becomes available, it is anticipated it will be transformative. It is beneficial to include infrastructure that can accommodate this future technology when possible so that it is ready for the adoption of the technology. These include items such as Connected Vehicle (CV) capable traffic controller and Larger Signal Cabinets to accommodate additional hardware required to support new technologies. • Larger Traffic Signal Cabinets — With new technology comes the need for additional space in a safe and secure enclosures to protect sensitive electronic equipment. At intersections with traffic signals, the traffic signal cabinet can provide this safe and secure enclosure, however current traffic signal cabinets are sized to just accommodate r;r the existing signal control equipment. As traffic signal equipment is upgraded, the size of the traffic signal cabinet should be upsized to provide the opportunity to accommodate additional equipment required to support emerging and future technology. Applicable Intersections: All Signalized Intersection along the corridor • Connected Vehicle (CV) capable enabled traffic controller — To take full advantage of the safety and operational improvements associated with CV's at intersections, the traffic signal controller will need to be upgraded to talk to and receive information from CV's and other connected devices such as detectors and handheld devices. While CV technology is still in the early adoption stage, the technology will soon have wider adoption and those that are preprepared can quickly experience the benefits. As such, when current traffic controllers reach their obsolescence, upgrading those traffic controllers to controllers that have the capability to communicate with nearby vehicles will better prepare the corridor for the benefit of CVs. Applicable Intersections: All Signalized Intersection along the corridor 6 of 6 Appendix F-15 Potnetial Funding Technical Memo Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 asP CO 52 PEL & ACP Project: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 From: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team Date: May 12, 2021 Subject: Potential Funding Technical Memo Introduction Purpose The purpose of this technical memorandum is to initiate the funding analysis component of the Colorado State Highway (CO) 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) / Access Control Plan (ACP). Specifically, this memorandum provides summary descriptions of existing and potential federal, state, local, and private funding sources, which could be used to support investments that will benefit different users throughout the corridor: roadway (vehicles), active transportation (bicycle and pedestrian), transit, and freight. Depending on the investment category, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) could pursue funding opportunities for specific projects with local (cities and counties), regional (Regional Transportation District (RTD), Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), or North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO)), and federal partners. Preparing for Funding Asks As described in Sections 2 through 5, there are a variety of existing funding source and a likely significant increase in federal funding over the next five years. To maximize the possibility for successfully obtaining funds for the CO 52 improvements, there is a significant advantage in conducting upfront analysis to understand how future roadway, active transportation, transit, and freight investments fit within the criteria of different potential funding programs. Some funding programs are broad enough to match well with most types of investments, while others are targeted to a very specific functional category or strategic priority. In either case, CO 52 corridor partners can improve their chances of securing outside funding by developing a clear understanding of what sets apart a given project, whether it is serving a critical population or addressing a clear deficiency of the transportation network. Funding program evaluation criteria generally fall within three categories: existing conditions, planning process, and the anticipated benefits of proposed improvements. These categories are summarized in the following sections. The data needed to address the program evaluation criteria evolves as specific investments move through the project development process. For the proposed CO 52 improvements, the work associated with data collection, planning, and project definition described in the sections below has started as part of the PEL process and will continue to be refined as the corridor program moves forward. The goal of the following sections is to provide a framework for obtaining information and developing key messages that will support targeting the most promising funding programs for the future corridor investment categories. 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Existing Conditions Existing conditions include metrics related to operations of the existing transportation facility, such as crash rates, delay, usage (across all modes), and demographic conditions. It is also important to understand likely changes in the future (such as forecasts for population, employment, and travel demand). These are important data points for several reasons: 1. Many funding programs prioritize projects that serve specific kinds of communities. For example, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary program for fiscal year (FY) 2021 awarded projects that serve Opportunity Zones, Empowerment Zones, Promise Zones, or Choice Neighborhoods. The USDOT's Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) discretionary program for FY 2021 focused on Areas of Persistent Poverty — namely, those areas that consistently had greater than or equal to 20 percent of the population living in poverty or were located in any territory or possession of the United States. Other funding mechanisms (including the DRCOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process) prioritize projects that fall within identified urban centers or locations with a strong population or employment base. 2. These existing data points form the basis for defining and estimating the benefits expected to result from planned infrastructure improvements (No Build versus Build comparison). For example, the most common method of determining safety benefits is through crash modification factors (CMF), which use existing quantitative research to anticipate a reduction in crashes associated with a given improvement. This methodology requires an understanding of both the rate and type of existing crashes. Similarly, many funding programs associated with transit improvements use existing ridership to determine demand for the proposed facility or improvements. 3. The adopted land -use forecast (and associated travel demand model) can also address questions likely to be asked by funding programs. These forecasts help determine the likely users of a given facility in the future, and funding applications frequently request specific forecasts for population and employment bases as well as expected demand on facilities. Typical data needs: • Crash Rates. Including specific crash types or causes and severity of crashes. • Demographics. Specific socioeconomic variables and desired geographies vary from program to program, but the focus of data collection should be on communities directly affected by the project, either through proximity to the project area or connection to the new infrastructure. ■ Delay. Many programs — especially those with any kind of formal benefit -cost analysis (BCA) — are interested in the likely travel time savings associated with improvements (for all modes). • Travel Patterns. Including existing traffic volumes, transit ridership, and/or bicycle and pedestrian counts, as applicable. These data points can be used both to set the baseline for expectations about what might change because of the project and to quantify the impact of the project in terms of affected transportation facility users. 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Planning Process Many funding programs evaluate the process by which the capital project has been identified and defined. The typical emphasis of this evaluation focuses on how the project sponsor has built support with the community, partner agencies, and/or the private sector. This support can be demonstrated through documentation of the public engagement process, as well as documented outcomes such as funding commitments or letters of support. Both elements can be much easier to strategize during project development — if a particular funding source is a likely target, project sponsors should work to understand the goals of that source or program. Often, even if the project itself is not a perfect match for the criteria of a specific funding program, the engagement or partnership building efforts of the project can offer a pathway to alignment. For example, many state and federal programs focus on the involvement and empowerment of disadvantaged communities. As the CO 52 project team engages with these communities through the PEL process, maintaining clear and concise records of that engagement can greatly facilitate future grant applications or funding requests. Demonstration of the commitment of various partners is also critical in securing funds. This can take the form of obtaining or establishing a pathway toward required approvals (such as NEPA clearances or secured right-of-way). It can also be more generalized support for the project — the more "binding" the agreement, the better. Commitment of funding support or formalized agreement (e.g. intergovernmental agreements) are valuable, but even simply thinking through possible letters of support writers can be helpful. Additionally, recent USDOT competitive grant applications have requested documentation that projects incorporate considerations of climate change and environmental justice in the planning stage and in project delivery. This would include use of environmental justice tools such as EJSCREEN to minimize adverse impacts to relevant communities. Figure 1: Example EJSCREEN Output for the CO 52 PEL Corridor : EPA EJSCREEN EPA s Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (Version 2020) =J Chart of Report EmAcolIwo* G G •• v I mile Ring around I , COLORADO, EPA Region 8(Population 25 628I Slate Percentile Reg,onal Pemenule Ei USA Pelcennle I. �ar•er a I e sc0,0la e. s s a.e, belt on Ls I ILLLw6�� 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Data Sources • Documentation that local funding sources have been or will be approved • Documentation of public engagement efforts, including summaries of the process undertaken, the participants and their roles, and any significant findings ■ Racial equity impact analysis • Project is included in regional planning and programming documents: TIP State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) State Freight Plan Local/Regional/State Climate Action Plan Local/Regional/State Equitable Development Plan Local/Regional/State Energy Baseline Study ■ Equity and inclusion program related to project procurement, material sourcing, construction, inspection, hiring, or other project delivery and implementation activities Proposed Improvements The final component of positioning for funding sources is clearly defining what the project intends to do — the physical improvements, the anticipated cost, and the expected use of the facility. This involves developing a very clear Build scenario to be compared against a No -Build scenario derived from the existing conditions analysis. The first aspect of defining the proposed improvements is establishing a project definition that is approved by the necessary stakeholders (in many cases, just the sponsor agency). This should include as much detail about the project scope as possible, but at a minimum, it is important to document the specific improvements proposed as well as the exact location and alignment of the project. Many funding sources prioritize certain kinds of improvements — for example, nearly all federal discretionary programs reward "innovative" project elements such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and transportation system management and operations (TSMO). The State of Colorado has also emphasized projects that support the goal of emission reduction, and specifically a shift toward electric vehicles. Eligibility for most funding sources also requires a clear implementation plan, focused on capital cost estimates and a milestone implementation schedule (NEPA/Preliminary Engineering, final design, right-of-way (ROVV), utilities, procurement, and construction). These details help make the case for the "shovel readiness" of a project, which is key to demonstrating the quality of the investment from the perspective of the agency responsible for allocating funds. 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Figure 2. Example Funding Table (taken from DRCOG TIP Application) Funding Breakdown (year by yeaci' *The proposed funding plan is not guaranteed if the project is selected for funding. While DRCOG will do clxrsm a1 it can to accommodate the applicants' request, final funding will be assigned at ORCOG's discretion within fiscal constraint Funding amounts must be provided in year of expenditure dollars using on inflation factor of 3% per year from .7c91 Federal Funds State Funds Local Funds Total Funding 4. Phase to be Initiated Choose from Design, ENV, ROW, CON, Study, Service, Equip. Purchase, Other FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 202S Total $ $ $ $ $0 $ $ $ $ $0 $ $ $ $ Sa $d $0 $0 $0 $0 Choose an item choose an item choose an Item Choose an Reml Clear documentation of anticipated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as a plan for paying these lifecycle costs (such as a dedicated O&M fund and/or asset management plan), is another common requirement. Finally, defining the anticipated benefit categories and level of benefit is critical to making the case of the project in most funding applications. More specifically, the ability to provide quantitative or monetized analysis results provides a stronger justification than qualitative discussions on potential benefits. The quantitative results are typically generated through a BCA based on the data sources listed below. While monetized benefits are critical to conducting a formal BCA, most funding programs also consider clearly articulated qualitative benefits as well. Data Sources • Project definition — the more specific or advanced, the better, although even a defined scope of work is sufficient for some metrics. ■ Project costs — including capital and O&M costs as well as implementation schedules. Again, specificity is helpful, but even general estimates broken down by major design elements (such as utility relocation, ROW acquisition, and overall construction costs) and a generalized cost curve (i.e. how much of the cost is expected to be incurred per year of construction) are often enough to allow for defensible BCA. • Anticipated benefits — typically in the form of forecasted demand for the improvement demonstrating how many users (auto, bike, pedestrian, transit, freight) would benefit from the project, as well as the calculations of the actual benefit such as minutes saved per user or number of crashes reduced per VMT Remaining Sections of Memo Following this introduction, the remaining sections provide descriptions of potential federal, state, and regional/local funding sources that could be targeted for specific investment categories within the corridor. Section 2 includes a matrix that provides summary descriptions of the potential sources and an indication of the' investment types (roadway, active transportation, transit, and freight) that are eligible for funding. Sections 3 through 5 provide detailed descriptions of the potential federal, state, and local funding sources and programs, respectively. For each source, a brief description is provided including eligible uses and if available, a summary of the range of funding that may be available. 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Potential Funding Source Summary Table 1 through Table 4 provide an overview of the potential federal, state, local, and private funding sources identified to date. For each source, a brief description is provided along with an indication of which investment category is eligible for the funding. • Table 1: Existing Federal Competitive Grant Programs — Provides a brief description of each program, eligible costs, key evaluation criteria, most recent or current application schedule, a summary of the range of funding that may be available, and a preliminary indication of the type of project that might be eligible. As shown in the tables, Federal competitive grant programs are largely administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the USDOT. • ■ Table 2: Existing Federal Formula Funds — Indicates which agency receives and is responsible for programming the annual formula funds (RTD, DRCOG, NFRMPO, or CDOT). Additionally, the table provides a description of the program and eligible expenses, an estimate of budgeted or programmed funding levels, and a preliminary indication of the investment categories that would be eligible. ■ Table 3: Existing State Funding Programs — The majority of funding summarised in this table is based on the CDOT Final Budget Allocation Plan for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. The table includes a description of each program and eligible expenses, budgeted or programmed funding levels, and a preliminary indication of the investment categories that would be eligible. This section also provides a preliminary review of the recently enacted Senate Bill (SB) 60 Transportation Funding legislation. • Table 4: Other Potential Revenue Sources — Provides a brief description of other revenue sources that have been considered or used in other parts of the country to support implementation of transportation infrastructure. The categories of other potential revenue sources include value capture mechanisms, one-time revenue generating event (property sale), general user -based fees, and private sector funding. 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Table 1: Federal Competitive Grant Programs ii iT Federate '- ,rCornpetitive Grants USDOT RAISE Grant USDOT INFRA Grant FHWA Competitive Highway Bridge Program FRA Consolidated Rail Infrastructure & Safety Improvements (CRISI) Description _ Projects that leverage resources, encourage partnership, catalyze investment and growth, fill a critical void in the transportation system or provide a substantial benefit. Projects that address critical issues facing our nation's highway and bridges, specifically highway and freight projects of national or regional significance. By law, the funds are restricted to states with a population density of less than 100 people per square mile. Colorado is one of the 25 states that qualify. The funds must be used for highway bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects on public roads that leverage the efficiencies associated with "bundling" at least two highway bridge projects into a single contract. Fundingfor projects that: address congestion that increase rail capacity; add or upgrade the condition, clearances, and capacity of rail mainlines; enhance capacity and service with less conflict between freight and intercity passenger rail; reduce delays and risks associated with highway -rail grade crossings; and provide more effective rail equipment; enhance multimodal connections or facilitate 'Key. Critelli • - ~ - - - Merit criteria include safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, innovation, and partnership. Within these criteria, USDOT will prioritize projects that can demonstrate improvements to racial equity, reduce impacts of climate change, and create good -paying jobs. Criteria focus on economic vitality, climate change and environmental justice, racial equity, leveraging Federal funding to attract non - Federal sources, innovation, and performance. Selection criteria include innovation, support for economic vitality, lifecycle cost and state of good repair, and project readiness. Four tracks for eligible projects: Track 1 — Planning; Track 2—PE/NEPA; Track 3— FD/Construction; or Track 4 —Research, Safety Programs and Institutes. Selection criteria include economic vitality, leveraging Federal funding, preparing for future O&M and other tifecycle costs, innovation, and performance. II l ,- . (•: =r:.'� I�0t'aaliFvnds ALa`ilab.felTT- Tca1 = a llcabTe�ro ec SchedIule _ Categories'-- — - - 3:- _: r•' _ Current application cycle: July 12, 2021 Most recent application cycle March 19, 2021 Most recent application cycle: December 4, 2018 Most recent application cycle: June 19, 2020 7 of 38 I[ Total available nationwide (this cycle): $900 million; historically the largest awards have been approximately $20 million, and the average award has been $10 to $12 million. Total available nationwide (last cycle): $889 million in 2021 funds, and up to $150 million remaining from prior authorizations; 2020 awards ranged from $6 million to $35 million (20% to 56% of total costs) in the Small Project category, and from $25 million to $135 million (4% to 60% of total costs) in the Large Project category Total available nationwide (last cycle): $225 million 2019 awards ranged from $2 million to $33 million Total available nationwide (last cycle): $312 million 2020 awards ranged from $0.2 million to $47.6 million Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Capital: Roadway (specifically improving freight and goods movement) Capital: Roadway Capital: Freight rail and intercity passenger rail 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo service integration between rail service and other modes. FTA Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Program (New Starts / Small Starts) Provides funding through a multi -year competitive process for transit capital investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Federal transit law requires transit agencies seeking CIG funding to complete a series of steps over several years to be eligible for funding. FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funds FTA Section 5339 (a) Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program Projects are evaluated and rated based on a set of defined project justification criteria (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, economic development effects, and public transportation supportive land use policies) as well as local financial commitment criteria. Most recent application cycle: Rolling application process Table 2: Federal Formula (Annual) Funds Makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for transil capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation -related planning. Makes federal resources available to states and direct recipients to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus -related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. FHWA gorrnul�� — —'iProgramrr�ed�y DItC • h w ■j �NFRMPO i I }.I • t G:'"& FHWA - Surface Transportation Program (STP)-Metro FHWA — Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program .1 •1 � r�r 4'senption•)•.E;gi`le icppengts, f. ; 1� rr .- Y Provides funds for constructing new streets or widenirg, improving, or reconstructing existing streets classified as Federal Aid Eligible (FAE) `reeways, highways, arterials, or co lecto-s_ Funds can also be used for bridge replacement; intersection improvements; projects which reduce traffic demand, such as transit capital improvements and active transportation and other projects as provided for in federal law. Provides a flexible funding source to State and local goverrments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for Programmed Funding • 2019: $58.4 M Programmed Funding • 2019: $5.2 M r I i Total available nationwide: $2.5 billion (FY 2022), including funds for New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity projects Note: FTA has told project sponsors pursuing New Starts (costs >$300 million) that maximum Full Funding Grant Agreement will cover 40% of costs. Capital: Transit Capital: Transit Operations: Capitalized preventive maintenance activities Capital: Transit Operations: Capitalized preventive maintenance activities in�g,•. 4 std at-sig T r� _'Vice ble `P`r'ojetTCat�gg -� Programmed Funding • 2019: $41.7 M Programmed Funding • 2019: $42.6 M Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation 8 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo FHWA — Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (note: CDOT also awards TAP Funding — see below) FHWA —TAP (Note: DRCOG and NFRMPO also award TAP Funding- see above) former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Provides funding for a variety of smaller -scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity. ' .-`Des-c.riptian`% EI gitile Expenses' Provides funding for projects that enhance safety and expand options for non -drivers, mitigate environmental impacts, and convert former interstate facilities to new uses. Examples include on- and off -road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non -driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities (historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to storm water and habitat connectivity); recreational trail projects; and safe routes to school projects. 1Ci•7�Reventi All'oca£onfrograms= • - . Programmed Funding • 2019: $2.4 M r . r.c•Annual'Fri dirjg • -i _.Estimates Programmed Funding • FY 2018-19: $13.9 M Table 3: CDOT Revenue Allocation Programs Capital: Active Transportation 1: 'Applicable'Pioj t'Sategones:. Capital: Active Transportation 'Description'/ Eligible Expenses r - -- _ o'rival Funding . -77�ApplicabhP�oject-Cate'go�ies'� - - - - -1Estimates7,_- ,�- r•i r rt: Construction Programs (Asset Management, Safety, and Mobility) Provides funding to maintains the quality of the pavement on state highways at the highest possible level. Department staff utilizes pavement management software and annual data collection to make recommendations on the segments of the state highway system should be prioritized for rehabilitation. Provides funding for the inspection and inventory of the statewide structures, manages all essential repairs and Asset Management: Structures critical findings for statewide structural asset programs, and evaluates permits required for oversize and overweight vehicles. Funding to implement new and innovative technology. deploy and integrating statewide Intelligent Technology Systems (ITS), incorporate automated performance Asset Management: Systems measures, and extend technical resources to CDOT regions Operations in the areas of traffic signal and ramp metering. This program also leads and/or participates in the development and implementation of arterial and freeway management strategies throughout the state.. Asset Management: Surface Treatment Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $223M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $62M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $34M Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway 9 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Asset Management: Geohazards Mitigation Asset Management: Permanent Water Quality Management Safety: Highway Safety Improvement Program Safety: Rail -Highways Crossings Program Safety: Hot Spots Safety: FASTER Safety Safety: ADA Compliance Mobility: Regional Priority Program Mobility: Strategic Projects Mobility: National Highway Freight Program Funding to design mitigation plans. review consultant designs, perform site inspections during construction, respond to rock falls, and other geological hazards -related emergencies. Other work includes responding to requests from Maintenance, Engineering, and the public when slope issues are observed. Provides funding to treat pollution in stormwater f-om CDOT roadways before it flows into Colorado's rivers, lakes and streams. Pollutants from CDOT roadways includes oil and grease, copper, any fluids from vehicles, lead and chloride. Funding for project that will achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on ail publicly maintained roads. This includes public roads not owned by the state and roads on tribal lands. Funds projects that eliminate the hazards at railway - highway crossings. The purpose of this program s to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities at public crossings throughout the: state. Provides funding to mitigate minor unforeseen issues that need immediate attention. as well as add funding to ongoing projects for unforeseen safety issues discovered during the project implementation process_ Funding for road safety projects including pavement and other asset management projects, intersection and interchange improvements, shoulders and safety -related widening, and wildlife fencing Funds ADA programs or activities including but not limited to roadways. contiguous walkways, intersections, rest areas, roadside emergency tetephones, public conveyances such as buses and light rail, and literature related to any of these. Supplements the formula -driven funding allocations to the five CDOT engineering regions with flexible state funding. This funding is used at the discretion of each Regional Transportation Director. in consultation with local elected officials and ether stakeholders in each region. RPP funds are distributed to the CDOT Regions according to a formula that is weighted on these factors. 50 percent population, 35 percent state highway system lane miles, and 15 percent state highway system truck Vehicle Mites Traveled (VMT). Funding from General Fund transfers that primarily goes to strategic construction projects. Funding to improve the efficient movement of fre ght on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN). The NHFN includes the interstates, several small segments of other corridors important to freight movement, and approximately Programmed Funding • FY2021-22: $10M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $7M Programmed Funding • FY' 2021-22: $33M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $4M Programmed Funding • FY' 2021-22: $2M Programmed Funding • FY' 2021-22: $69M Programmed Funding • FY' 2021-22: $7M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $48M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $450M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $23M Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Capital: Roadway, Freight, Transit and Active Transportation Capital: Roadway, Freight, Transit and Active Transportation Capital: Freight 10 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo 240 miles of Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Corridors to be designated by the state Suballocated Programs (Highway and Transit/Multimodal) Highway: STP - Metro Highways: CMAQ Program Highways: Bridge Off -System Transit and Multimodal: Safe Routes to School Transit and Multimodal: TAP (Note: DRCOG and NFRMPO also award TAP Funding- see above) Transit and Multimodal: Transit Grant Program Transit and Multimodal: Multimodal Options Program DRCOG and NFRMPO select project to receive funding (see Table 2) DRCOG and NFRMPO select project to receive funding (see Table 2) The Joint Highway Commission oversees the program and accepts project applications on an annual basis. The program improves public safety and reduces ongoing maintenance costs associated with aging infrastructure. The structure must be a location on a rural minor collector or urban or rural local road. Funds projects that improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists in school areas, and encourage children in K-8 to safely bicycle and walk to and from school. Provides funding for projects that enhance safety and expand options for non -drivers, mitigate environmental impacts, and convert former interstate facilities to new uses. Examples include on- and off -road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non -driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities (historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to storm water and habitat connectivity); recreational trail projects; and safe routes to school projects. Funding for projects to purchase or replacement of transit vehicles, construction of multimodal stations, and acquisition of equipment for consolidated call centers. Senate Bill 18-001 allocated $94.25 million to the Multimodal Transportation Options Fund. Of this funding, 85 percent ($80.12 million) must be used for local multimodal projects, and 15 percent ($14.13 million) must be used for statewide multimodal projects Programmed Funding • FY 2021 -22: $11 M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $3 M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $12 M Programmed Funding • FY 2021-22: $50 M Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $0 M (funding authorized in SB 18-001 totaled $94.25 M) Capital: Roadway Capital: Active Transportation Capital: Active Transportation Capital: Transit Capital: Transit 11 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Table 4: Other Potential Local Sources Property Tax NOtimeapture Sodices Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Development Mitigation / Impact Fees Real Estate Transfer Tax Land Contribution or Other Asset Sales k _ LI I 'tlon� ' L Y I r I .rrt I+'• = •r,l .7 —. Ate! For a specific project or projects, increase city-wide property tax to fund the improvements. Property tax revenues generated beyond an established baseline are pledged specifically for infrastructure -related improvements within an area or district. A one-time charge imposed by local govemments to mitigate the impact on local infrastructure caused by new development Growth in the form of new homes and businesses requires expansion or enlargement of public facilities to maintain the same level and quality of public services for al_ residents of a community Impact fees help fund expansion of public facilities necessary to accommodate new growth A tax is collected whenever the ownership of a property changes This tax typically reflects a percentage of the sale price Revenues generated from the disposition of excess land owned by counacs, cafes. or local agencies Right-of- way contributions are also possible Developer Contributions Ipitia 'Comme`rits' — ;• Current rate is 0.01% in Colorado BesGriptl,-1; � r Private developers along project alignments may pay for enhanced access/connection to transportation facilities Especially applicable to adjacent retail developments. 12 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Potential Funding Sources This section provides descriptions of potential federal funding sources that could support implementation of roadway, transit, active transportation, and freight improvement projects. The sources reflect both discretionary (competitive) and formula programs. The federal sources described in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 reflect existing funding programs. The current federal transportation authorization legislation for these programs (Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act) expired in September 2020. A Continuing Resolution was passed in October 2020 which maintained all existing transportation funding programs at their current levels through September 2021. Congress is currently negotiating transportation reauthorization legislation. Section 3.1 provides an overview of new funding programs that are in the House version of the reauthorization that could provide additional funding opportunities for the CO 52 corridor if included in the final legislation. Potential Programs in Reauthorization Bill While most of the national discussion related to increased transportation funding is tied to the "Infrastructure Bill," as noted above, Congress is also working on the multi -year surface transportation funding legislation to replace the FAST Act. More information on the House of Representative's version of the reauthorization legislation, the Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation (INVEST) Act is currently available. The following provides summaries of potential new funding programs and expansion of existing programs included in the House version of the INVEST Act that could benefit the CO 52 improvements. While the final version of the reauthorization legislation will not be available for several months, it will be important to track the programs listed below and review the final legislation for other opportunities to target over the next five years. • NEW: Section 107 - Member designated project authorizations: Authorizes projects designated by members of Congress for allocation from amounts made available under Section 103. The House version of the INVEST Act reintroduces congressional "earmarks," whereby members of a given congressional delegation submitted requests for funding for specific projects in their districts. The benefits of having a project identified through this process go beyond the actual allocated funding. Historically, earmarked funds ensured an identifiable funding stream and an advantage for any project named in federal legislation. The named projects carry the special intent of Congress which means that these projects move ahead of others in the funding queue. Thus, Congressional earmarks often indicate a money trail and preference for key projects which can also be a catalyst to attracts funding from other sources because these projects are given greater visibility and credibility in the eyes of both public and private sector organizations. The current House version of the Invest Act includes 1,475 named projects designated for funding (out of 2,383 projects submitted) if the current version of the bill is signed into 13 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo law. As shown in Table 5, 19 Colorado projects were named in the House version of the INVEST Act. The funding request ranged from $0.8 million to $10.0 million and averaged $4.0 million. While there is still a small opportunity for local projects (such as the CO 52 corridor investments) to be included in the final version of the bill through Senate negotiations, that effort would likely have to occur in the next few months. However, if Congress continues the use of earmarks in the future, the CO 52 corridor partners could work with their local delegation to name specific projects or a program of projects in future legislation. Table 5: Colorado Project Named in the House Version of the INVEST Act 16th Street Mall Reconstruction Denver $6.5 Program Aurora Bicycle and Pedestrian Aurora $0.8 Master Plan Update Big Bames Ditch Trail Improvements Loveland $0.5 Cameron Peak Post -Fire Emergency Larimer $2.0 Funding Central Corridor Rail Replacement Denver $7.9 CO 9 Widening from Iron Springs to Summit $1.0 Frisco Easter/Havana Intersection Centennial $6.0 Improvements Eisenhower Johnson Memorial Dillon $4.0 Tunnel Repairs and Upgrades Expansion of Gun Club Road Aurora $1.5 Federal Parkway Multimodal Westminster $4.1 Transportation Improvements Frisco Transit Center Frisco $6.7 I-25 Valley Highway: Phases 3 and 4 Denver $5.5 ROW Acquisition I-25/Belleview Avenue Interchange Greenwood Village $10.0 Improvements I-70 and 32nd Ave. Bridge Wheat Ridge $2.0 Replacement SH-72 (Indiana St) Widening at Arvada $1.1 UPRR State Highway 119 and State Boulder County $5.0 Highway 52 Multimodal Intersection Improvements US 36 and Community Drive Estes Park $0.9 Roundabout Wadsworth Widening: 35th Avenue Wheat Ridge $10.0 to 170 West Colfax Pedestrian Safety and Lakewood $1.8 Infrastructure Project Total Colorado Requests $77.2 14 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo • NEW: Section 1204 - Railway Crossings: Establishes a standalone railway crossing program, based on the railway -highway grade crossing set aside, raising the overall level of investment in safety projects under the bill. Requires railroads to contribute the share for projects that provide a benefit to the railroad and removes the statutory cap on these contributions. Expands eligibilities to projects to mitigate lost access from a crossing closure and strategies to prevent or reduce trespasser fatalities and injuries along railroad rights -of -way. Clarifies that replacement of functionally obsolete protective devices is eligible under the program. Allows railway crossing funds to be used toward the cost of projects selected for the FRA's CRISI discretionary grant program. • Expanded Existing: Section 1205 - Surface Transportation Program: Adds eligibilities for resilience improvements, natural infrastructure, reducing carbon pollution, bus frequency and ridership enhancement projects, and wildlife crossings. Allows for up to 15 percent of STP funds suballocated to rural areas and small cities to be expended on local roads and rural minor collectors. • Expanded Existing: Section 1206 - Transportation Alternatives Program: Provides funding for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) as a 10 percent set -aside out of STP. Increases the share of the program's funds that must be suballocated to areas of the state based on population from 50 percent to 66 percent. A state may suballocate up to 100 percent of its TAP funding if certain conditions are met and upon approval of the Secretary. Boosts the recreational trails set -aside in proportion to the increase for TAP. Requires states to provide sufficient obligation authority over the life of the bill to ensure this suballocation can be obligated in a timely manner, consistent with the requirement under STP. • NEW Section 1301 - Projects of National and Regional Significance: Establishes a Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) program, which provides more than $12 billion over the life of the bill for large highway, transit, and passenger and freight rail projects that reduce congestion on roadways and that cannot be funded through annual apportionments or other discretionary sources. Includes the authority for the Secretary to award large grants over multiple years. Directs the Secretary to make grant selections based on merit criteria specified in statute, including the extent to which a project contributes to a state of good repair; cost savings generated by the project over the life of the asset; safety, mobility, economic, resilience, and environmental benefits generated by the project; benefits to all users of the project; and the average number of people or volume of freight supported by the project. The Secretary is also directed to consider whether the project serves an area of persistent poverty; the degree to which the project utilizes innovative technologies or construction and whether the project improves connectivity between modes of transportation. • NEW Section 1302 - Community Transportation Investment Grant Program: Establishes a $600 million per year grant program to support local investments in projects to improve safety, state of good repair, accessibility, and environmental quality through infrastructure investments. Sets aside a minimum of 25 percent of program 15 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo funds for projects in rural communities and a minimum of 25 percent of program funds for projects in communities between 50,000 and 200,000 in population. Requires the Secretary to evaluate projects on their benefits to transportation safety, including reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries; to state of good repair, including improved condition of bridges and pavements; to transportation system access, including improved access to jobs and services; and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to rate each project based on these criteria. Allows the Secretary to use different weighting of these criteria based on project type, population served by the project, and other context -sensitive considerations. Instructs the Secretary to compare each project's benefits with its costs, rank projects based on that comparison, and to select grant recipients from among those projects ranked most highly. • NEW: Section 1305 - Metro Performance Program. Provides $1 billion over the life of the bill for direct allocations to MPOs to advance locally -selected projects. Authorizes the Secretary to designate a high-performance tier of MPOs based on technical capacity to manage federal -aid highway funds. Provides between $10 and $50 million per year for the MPOs designated. Projects are subject to all federal -aid highway requirements, including environmental laws, labor projections, and Buy America. Participating MPOs will report annually on the status of the program and the projects advanced with program funds to FHWA, and FHWA will report to Congress on the lessons learned from the program and provide recommendations on ways to improve suballocation of tederal-aid highway funds under STP. • NEW Section 1306 - Gridlock Reduction Grant Program: Establishes a $500 million grant program to reduce traffic gridlock in large metropolitan areas. Supports projects to reduce and mitigate the adverse impacts of traffic congestion; make better use of existing capacity; and employ innovative, integrated, and multimodal solutions to reducing gridlock. Includes eligibility for intelligent transportation systems, real-time traveler information, transportation demand management, and multimodal solutions. Dedicates half of program funds for freight -specific projects including first -mile and last - mile delivery solutions, use of centralized delivery points, curb space management, and real-time freight parking and routing. Prioritizes projects in areas that are experiencing a high degree of recurrent congestion. • NEW: Section 1309 - Active Transportation Connectivity Grant Program: Provides $1.0 billion over the life of the bill for a grant program to support infrastructure investment in connected active transportation networks. Requires 30 percent of the funds to develop active transportation networks to connect points within a community, and 30 percent of the funds to be used for active transportation spines to connect communities to one another, including nationally and regionally significant greenway trails. Supports the development of complete streets and the use of safe systems approaches to enhance safety for vulnerable road users. Includes considerations for the environmental justice and equity impacts of a project and the extent to which the project improves connectivity to public transportation. 16 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Existing Federal Discretionary/Competitive Grants As the preferred program of projects for the CO 52 corridor is defined and starts to move through the planning, environmental and design process, there may be opportunities to leverage federal funds for entire projects or specific cost elements of projects through competitive grant opportunities offered by the USDOT, FTA, FHWA, and FRA. A brief overview of competitive grant programs used to support the planning, engineering, and/or construction of roadway, transit, active transportation, and fright investments is provided below. Finally, as indicated in the descriptions, there are a limited number of competitive federal grant programs and due to the volume of applications received from across the country, grant awards are typically less than $15 million for individual projects. USDOT RAISE Grant Program (Formerly known as the BUILD & TIGER Grant Program) Description: The RAISE discretionary grant program, provides a unique opportunity for the USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants, Congress has dedicated over $9.0 billion for twelve rounds of National Infrastructure Investments to fund projects that have a significant local or regional impact. The eligibility requirements of RAISE allow project sponsors at the state and local levels to obtain funding for multi -modal, multi -jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional USDOT programs. As shown in Table 6. RAISE/BUILD/TIGER Program Size, Applicants, and Projects Funded (FY 2009-2016) 2009 $1.5 billion 1,366 51 3.7% 2010 $600 million 1,639 75 4.6°/0 2011 $510 million 833 46 5.5% 2012 $500 million 708 47 6.6% 2013 $474 million 583 52 8.9% 2014 $600 million 798 72 9.0% 2015 $500 million 627 39 6.2% 2016 $500 million 585 41 7.0% 2017 $500 million 452 40 8.8% 2018 $1.5 billion 851 41 4.8°/0 2019 $900 million 666 55 8.3% 2020 $1.0 billion 656 70 10.7% Source: USDOT , the RAISE/BUILD/TIGER program is extremely competitive with 9,700 applications submitted to USDOT requesting $175 billion in RAISE/BUILD/TIGER funds over the program's twelve rounds. USDOT has awarded a total of $9.6 billion to 624 projects, which is approximately six 17 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo percent of all applicants. Table 6 illustrates overall supply and demand for the program since it was first authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). While there have been annual appropriations for RASIE/BUILD/TIGER every FY since 2009, including the most recent BUILD Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) released in April 2021, the program is not specifically authorized in federal legislation and must be approved each year as part of the annual federal budget process. Table 6. RAISE/BUILD/TIGER Program Size, Applicants, and Projects Funded (FY 2009-2016) r - � t 'able - ai-40,MIZA 2009 $1.5 billion 1,366 51 3.7% 2010 $600 million 1,639 75 4.6°/0 2011 $510 million 833 46 5.5% 2012 $500 million 708 47 6.6% 2013 $474 million 583 52 8.9% 2014 $600 million 798 72 9.0°/0 2015 $500 million 627 39 6.2% 2016 $500 million 585 41 7.0% 2017 $500 million 452 40 8.8% ?n1R $1 5 billion 851 41 4.8% 2019 $900 million 666 55 8.3°/0 2020 $1.0 billion 656 70 10.7% Source: USDOT Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, Active Transportation, and Freight Revenue Potential: Despite the program's $25 million statutory maximum grant amount, the typical grant awarded to projects is between $10 and $15 million. USDOT rarely awards close to its maximum allowed award of $25 million to any one project. Most recent application cycle: July 12, 2021 Example Projects: The table below provides a summary of projects like what is being considered for the CO52 corridor, including an example of Butler County, PA that was successful in obtaining two grant awards for the same corridor. Table 7. Similar Projects Recently Awarded BUILD/TIGER Grants 111f Pare � _r 'r•�— I 1 � I 1•�:: I I;•T - II =rl fir' •'. _.l — -- I t. • . Prdiect S �311me•• ,Srj :1: ' --�A��I,re o) • Rol pe`''•I •_r•-� �� • fir. r ,'.l 2' I_ i ' - fiota�- ='r ��! r . r - - . . Miami -Dade County Expand and improve two existing park -and -ride facilities along the South Dade Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line. The project includes additional sidewalks, improved pedestrian access, bicycle parking facilities, a kiss -and -ride, additional parking for individuals with disabilities, and electric vehicle parking with charging stations. $9.5 M (50%) Transit 18 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Maquoketa, IA City of Blair, NB Calloway County, KY Hickory, NC Butler County, PA Butler County, PA The project will make several roadway improvements including new and resurfaced street pavement; replacement curbs, gutters, pedestrian curb ramps, and sidewalks for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); repair and replacement of the storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main; installation of a new broadband fiber-optic network; and traffic signal upgrades. This project will construct a new connection between US 75 and the US 30 in Blair, NB to bypass the community's existing downtown. The proposed corridor will be a three -lane section, configured as a "Super 2" with passing lanes constructed in the uphill direction to reduce conflicts between passenger vehicles and trucks. The project will also construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail adjacent to the new roadway. The project will widen an approximately 5.7 -mile section of US 641 South from a two-lane divided highway to a four -lane divided highway between the Kentucky/Tennessee state line at Hazel north to the Middle Fork of the Clarks River. The project will develop an approximately 1.7 -mile bicycle and pedestrian trail and a bridge over US 321, and construct a 1.2 -mile complete streetscape loop in downtown Hickory that will add designated space for bicycles and pedestrians and concurrently incorporate underground fiber cable systems. The project will realign and widen to 4 lanes the approximately 1.5 -mile Balls Bend and the approximately 0.75 -mile Haines School - Commonwealth sections of Route 228, including adding turn lanes, medians, connecting access roads, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. This project is part of a larger to widen approximately 26 miles of Route 228 in Butler County. The project will construct roadway, intersection, and pedestrian improvements along three segments of State Route 228 (Freedom Road) as part of a larger project on the 26.4 -mile corridor. Various improvements include widening lanes, adding turn lanes, converting intersections to roundabouts or jug handles, installing ADA ramps, adding multi -use paths, upgrading signals, and adding pavement markings. Improvements will be made on segments from Lovi Road to Powell Road, Powell Road to Haine School Road, and at the intersection with Three Degree Road. This project connects to the BUILD 2018 Gateway 228 project. (prior row) Source: USDOT, BUILD Grant Award Fact Sheets $3.8 M (40%) Roadway Roadway, $7.6 M Active (42%) Transportation and Freight $23 M (41%) Roadway $17 M Active (77%) Transportation $20 M (47%) $25 M (43%) Roadway and Active Transportation Roadway and Active Transportation USDOT INFRA Grant Program (Formerly known as the FASTLANE Grant Program) Description: The INFRA grant program, formerly known as the Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) grant program, provides dedicated, discretionary funding for projects that address critical issues facing our nation's highway and bridges. Most specifically, the INFRA program provides Federal financial assistance to highway and freight projects of national or regional significance. Eligible costs include reconstruction, rehabilitation, acquisition of property, environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, equipment acquisition, and operational improvements directly related to system performance. Relevance to CO 52: Freight 19 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Revenue Potential: In FY 2020, USDOT awarded over $900 million in INFRA awards to 20 projects, or an average award of $45 million. Each year, 90 percent of available INFRA funds are awarded to large projects, or those with a minimum grant size of $25 million. The remaining 10 percent of available funds are reserved for small projects, which have a minimum grant size of $5 million. Most recent application cycle: The FY 2021 INFRA NOFO was released on January 22, 2011 and the application deadline was March 19, 2021. The FY 2021 awards have not yet been announced. FHWA Competitive Highway Bridge Program Description: The Competitive Highway Bridge Program provides $225 million for highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects on public roads. Applicants must demonstrate cost savings through bundling multiple bridge projects. Funding is only eligible to states with a population density of less than 100 people per square mile; Colorado falls well below this threshold. Only state DOTs are eligible to apply. "Bundling" is defined as two or more similar bridge projects that are eligible under Section 119 or 133, awarded to a single contractor or consultant, and included as a single bundled project in the applicable TIP or STIP. Bundled projects must have the same funding category or subcategory and the same Federal share. Selection criteria include innovation, support for economic vitality, lifecycle cost and state of good repair, and project readiness. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway — capital costs only Revenue Potential: For FY 2019, $225 million was available nationwide Most recent application cycle: The most recent NOFO was published on September 5, 2018, with an application deadline of December 4, 2018. During this cycle, CDOT was awarded a $12.5 million grant to replace 14 culverts across southern and western Colorado, along key corridors providing rural mobility and connections to interstate commerce. State Highway 9 provides access for tourists to recreation destinations in the Rocky Mountains, US -24 provides access across the Rocky Mountains as a major east/west corridor and US 350 provides a connection between I-25 and US -50. FRA Consolidated Rail Infrastructure & Safety Improvements Description: The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program provides a comprehensive solution to leverage private, state, and local investments to support safety enhancements and general improvements to infrastructure for both intercity passenger and freight railroads. The CRISI program invests in a wide range of projects to improve railroad safety, efficiency, and reliability; mitigate congestion at both intercity passenger and freight rail chokepoints; enhance multi -modal connections; and lead to new or substantially improved intercity passenger rail transportation corridors. Additionally, the program includes rail safety 20 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo projects, such as grade crossing enhancements, and rail line relocations and improvements which could be targeted for the CO52 corridor. Evaluation criteria include key FRA objectives such as supporting economic vitality; leveraging federal funds to attract other sources of funding; preparing for project life -cycle costs; using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery; and holding recipients accountable for achieving specific, measurable outcomes. Relevance to CO 52: Freight and Roadway at -grade crossings Revenue Potential: The CRISI program does not have any minimum or maximum thresholds for awards. The FY 2020 application cycle resulted in 29 awards totaling nearly $320 million, or an average award of $11.0 million. Most recent application cycle: The FY 2020 NOFO was published on April 20, 2020, grant applications were due on June 19, 2020, and awards were announced on September 23, 2020. FTA Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Program (New Starts / Small Starts) Description: This FTA discretionary grant program funds transit capital investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Federal transit law requires transit agencies seeking CIG funding to complete a series of steps over several years. For New Starts and Core Capacity projects, the law requires completion of two phases in advance of receipt of a construction grant agreement — Project Development and Engineering. For Small Starts projects, the law requires completion of one phase in advance of receipt of a construction grant agreement — Project Development. The law also requires projects to be rated by FTA at various points in the process according to statutory criteria evaluating project justification and local financial commitment. Relevance to CO 52: Transit (High -Capacity Transit Corridors) Revenue Potential: The FAST Act authorized $2.3 billion in CIG funding annually through 2020. New Starts projects require a total project cost of greater than $300 million and CIG funding of at least $100 million. Small Starts projects have total project costs of less than $300 million and less than $100 million in CIG funds. Maximum CIG share of total project cost is 60 percent for New Starts and 80 percent for Small Starts. Most recently, RTD successfully pursued $92 million in CIG funds for the Southeast Rail Extension to Lone Tree. Most recent application cycle: Ongoing Existing Federal Formula Programs The following section provides an overview of FTA and FHWA formula grant programs that could be pursued separately or in combination with the previously described competitive grant programs. While there is no limitation on the number of federal funding programs that can be included in a project's financial strategy, the maximum federal funding participation that can be used on a project is 80 percent of the total capital costs. 21 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo If there is interest to pursue funding from any of these programs, CO 52 Corridor Partners will need to coordinate with the RTD, DRCOG, NFRMPO or CDOT. Use of these funds is typically identified several years in advance and is documented in the region's transportation planning and programming documents, including the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TIP. More specifically, the current TIP for DRCOG and NFRMPO programs federal funds for the 2022 to 2025 period. If FTA or FHWA formula programs are to be targeted for investment categories, the funds would have to be programmed after the current TIP period (2025), or there would need to be coordination with DRCOG or NFRMPO to reprogram and transfer funds from projects in the current TIP. Formula Programs Administered by RTD FTA SECTION 5307 URBANIZED AREA FORMULA PROGRAM Description: The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program (49 U.S.C. 5307) makes federal resources available to urbanized areas for transit capital and operating assistance and for transportation -related planning. Eligible activities for Section 5307 funds include planning, engineering, design, and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation -related studies; crime prevention and security equipment; vehicle acquisition and replacement; construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. Relevance to CO 52: Transit (passenger facilities) Revenue Potential: FY 2021 FTA apportionment: $62.9 million Formula Programs Administered by DRCOG and NFRMPO through the TIP Process DRCOG and NFRMOP program the use of federal funds on four-year cycles through the TIP. The TIP programs the federally funded transportation improvements and management actions to be completed by CDOT, transit agencies such as RTD, local governments, and other project sponsors over a four-year period within the MPO region. As required by federal and State law, the TIP must be fiscally constrained to funds expected to be available. All projects selected to receive federal and State surface transportation funds, and all regionally significant projects regardless of funding type, must be identified in the TIP. The CO 52 corridor falls within two MPO boundaries — the NFRMPO and DRCOG. These organizations are responsible for developing and approving the TIP. NFRMPO and DRCOG directly selects projects to receive federal and state funding, and reviews projects by CDOT and other agencies (such as RTD) for consistency with regional plans. DRCOG Project Selection and Programming Approach Selection Process: DRCOG selects projects in three phases: 1. Set -Asides: "Off -the -top" regional programs, most with Calls for Projects. Includes Community Mobility Planning & Implementation, TDM Services, Regional Transportation Operations & Technology, Air Quality Improvements, and Human Service Transportation 2. Regional Share: Transformative projects with benefits to the entire region; 20 percent of available funds. Submitted through subregions. DRCOG evaluates and selects. 22 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo 3. Subregional Share: 80 percent of available funds. Subregions receive targeted amounts. Subregions submit, evaluate, select, and recommend projects to the DRCOG Board The subregional model is new as of the 2020-2023 TIP cycle. It divides the region into 8 subregions according to county boundary. The subregional funding pool is distributed according to a formula weighing population, employment, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within each county. All DRCOG-member local governments who are partially or entirely within a given county boundary must be invited to participate in the subregional forum. Scoring criteria for both regional and subregional share is based on the following categories (although subregional forums may choose to alter the criteria or weighting for the subregional share): 1. Regional Significance (40 percent of score) 2. TIP Focus Area (30 percent of score) 3. Consistency with Metro Vision Objectives (20 percent of score) 4. Leveraging of funds (10 percent of share) Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation — capital costs Revenue Potential: Total funding programmed by the TIP varies from cycle to cycle. However, the 2020-2023 DRCOG TIP includes approximately $50 million in set -asides, $32 million in regional projects, and $160 million in subregional projects. NFRMPO Project Selection and Programming Approach The NFRMPO holds periodic Calls for Projects to award federal funding to transportation projects. The most recent Call for Projects was held in 2018-2019 for funding in FY 2022 and 2023. The previous Call for Projects was held in 2016 for funding in FY2020 and 2021. During each Call for Projects, member communities can apply for funding from three federal programs: CMAQ; STBG (formerly STP-Metro); and TA (formerly TAP). The NFRMPO process requires sponsors to apply for a specific federal program (as opposed to submitting a general TIP application, as in the DRCOG region). Projects are scored by a subcommittee composed of TAC_members and the Northern Colorado Bicycle and Pedestrian Collaborative. NFRMPO staff lead the discussion and the process, but are not involved in project selection. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation — capital costs Revenue Potential: Total funding programmed by the TIP varies from cycle to cycle. However, NFRMPO awarded $18.7 million in federal funds to projects in as part of the FY 2022-2023 cycle. EXISTING FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDS PROGRAMMED BY DRCOG AND NFRMPO FHWA Surface Transportation Program Description: The STBG program provides funding for projects that preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any federal -aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any 23 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. Potential project elements that could be eligible for STBG funds include: • Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements for highways; • Capital costs for transit projects; • Corridor parking facilities; ■ Improvements at intersections with high crash rates or levels of congestion; and ■ Infrastructure -based ITS capital improvements. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation — capital costs Revenue Potential: $36.1 million in FY 2018, $41.7 million in FY 2019 FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Description: CMAQ Program funds are available for transportation projects likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard, with a high level of effectiveness in reducing air pollution and congestion. More specifically, to be eligible for CMAQ funding, a transportation project must generate an emissions reduction, and it must be located in or benefit a nonattainment or maintenance area. Potential project elements that could be eligible for CMAQ funds are summarized below. Further, as noted in the list, CMAQ can be used to cover a portion of the increased operating costs associated with the introduction of expanded transit service. • Planning and engineering activities; • New or rehabilitation of existing transit facilities (e.g., lines, stations, terminals, transfer facilities) if associated with new or enhanced public transit, passenger rail, or other similar services that will increase transit service capacity; • Advanced signal and communications systems for transit; • Fuel, whether conventional or alternative fuel, if part of a project providing operating assistance for new or expanded transit service under the CMAQ program; and ■ Operating assistance to introduce new transit service or expand existing transit service. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation — capital costs Revenue Potential: $31.6 million in FY 2018, $42.6 million in FY 2019 FHWA Transportation Alternatives Program Description: The TAP is a competitive grant program that provides funding for non -motorized elements of high capacity transit projects. Potential eligible expenses for the corridor could include planning, design, and construction of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Relevance to CO 52: Active Transportation — capital costs Revenue Potential: $2.8 million in FY 2018, $2.4 million in FY 2019 24 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Existing State Funding Allocation Programs CDOT receives revenue from five primary sources: state revenues, federal revenues, grants, miscellaneous sources (including the sale of property, permits, and fines), and enterprise revenues. CDOT distributes its funds through a variety of programs, and most of its funding programs are only eligible on state-owned highways. Currently, the three largest sources of revenue for CDOT (FY 2021-2022 Final Budget Allocation Plan, April 2021) are: 1. FHWA revenue — the Highway Trust Fund ($642 million) 2. The Highway User Tax Fund (HUTF), which is comprised of a combination of federal and State motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and other sources ($547 million) 3. SB 17-267 Lease Purchase Agreements ($500 million) In addition to the revenue estimates in the FY 2021-22 Budget, CDOT will benefit from the recently passed SB 21-260: Sustainability of the Transportation System. As summarized below, this bill implements several new transportation fees and General Fund transfers, and creates or modifies four state enterprises. Final details and decisions on how the additional funds will be allocated are still being finalized, however it is likely the new funding could benefit the proposed CO 52 corridor projects. • New Transportation Fees: Creates new fees for purchases of gasoline and diesel fuel, electric vehicle registrations, retail deliveries, passenger ride services, and short-term vehicle rentals. It phases in many of the new fees over time and indexes new and existing fees to inflation. Revenue collection for the new fees created in the bill begins in FY 2022-2023. • General Fund Transfers: Authorizes the following transfers from the General Fund: $170.0 million to the State Highway Fund on July 1, 2021 $10.5 million to the Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund annually from 2024 through 2031 $7.0 million to the Revitalizing Main Streets program annually from 2024 through 2031 $100.0 million to the State Highway Fund annually from 2024 through 2028 • $82.5 million to the State Highway Fund annually from 2029 through 2031 Additionally, SB 21-260 authorizes the transfer of $380 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to transportation: $182.2 million to the State Highway Fund • $161.3 million to the Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund $36.5 million to the Highway Users Tax Fund — 55 precent to counties and 45 percent to municipalities • New and Modified State Enterprises • Community Access Enterprise: Creates the Community Access Enterprise in the Colorado Energy Office to support the widespread and equitable adoption of electric vehicles by investing in transportation infrastructure, providing grants or other financing options to fund the construction of electric vehicle charging 25 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo infrastructure, and incentivizing the acquisition of electric vehicles. Revenue from the Community Access Retail Delivery Fee is deposited in the Community Access Enterprise Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the Enterprise. Clean Fleet Enterprise: Creates the Clean Fleet Enterprise in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to incentivize and support the use of electric and alternative fuel vehicles by business and governmental entities that own or operate motor vehicle fleets. Revenue from the Clean Fleet Retail Delivery Fee and the Clean Fleet Per Ride fee are deposited in the Clean Fleet Enterprise Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the Enterprise. Clean Transit Enterprise: Creates the Clean Transit Enterprise in CDOT to reduce and mitigate the adverse environmental impacts and health impacts of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by supporting the replacement of existing gasoline and diesel transit vehicles with electric motor vehicles. Revenue from the Clean Transit Retail Delivery Fee is deposited in the Clean Transit Enterprise Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the Enterprise. The Transportation Commission is authorized to loan money to the Clean Fleet Enterprise to defray expenses incurred by the enterprise before it receives fee revenue or bond proceeds. Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise: Creates the Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise in CDOT to mitigate the environmental and health impacts of increased air pollution for motor vehicle emissions in nonattainment areas resulting from the growth in transportation network company rides and retail deliveries. Revenue from the Air Pollution Mitigation Retail Delivery Fee and the Air Pollution Mitigation Per Ride Fee are deposited in the Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise Fund, which is continuously appropriated to the Enterprise. The Transportation Commission is authorized to loan money to the Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise to defray expenses incurred by the enterprise before it receives fee revenue or bond proceeds. Colorado Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise: Changes the name and scope of the Statewide Bridge Enterprise to the Statewide Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise and authorizes it to impose a Bridge and Tunnel Impact Fee on diesel fuel and a Bridge and Tunnel Retail Delivery Fee. Revenue from the Bridge and Tunnel Retail Delivery Fee and the Bridge and Tunnel Impact fee are deposited in the existing Statewide Bridge Enterprise Special Revenue Fund. The following section summarizes how CDOT's allocates annual revenues across several funding programs. The proposed CO 52 corridor improvements would be eligible for funding under CDOT's Core Functions: Capital Construction, Suballocated Programs and Multimodal Services. As the projects within the corridor move through planning and design, it will be important to coordinate with CDOT Region and Headquarter staff to pursue funding from these programs at the appropriate time. Additionally, where applicable the categories and descriptions of the Revenue Allocation Programs should be revisited as purpose and need statements are 26 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo developed for individual investments to make an early connection between the objective of the investment and potential CDOT funding. Capital Construction CDOT's construction program includes 14 construction programs organized into three categories: Asset Management, Safety, and Mobility. Asset Management: Surface Treatment Description: The Department's surface treatment program maintains the quality of the pavement on state highways at the highest possible level. Department staff utilizes pavement management software and annual data collection to make recommendations on the segments of the state highway system that should be prioritized for rehabilitation. The main sources of funding for the surface treatment program are State Highway Funds and federal reimbursement for eligible expenditures. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway (pavement rehabilitation only) Revenue Potential (statewide): $223.0 million (FY 2021-2022) Asset Management: Structures Description: This program provides inspection and inventory of the statewide structures, manages all essential repairs and critical findings for statewide structural asset programs, and evaluates permits required for oversize and overweight vehicles. The main sources of funding for the surface treatment program are State Highway Funds and federal reimbursement for eligible expenditures. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway (bridge repairs) Revenue Potential (statewide): $62.0 million (FY 2021-2022) Asset Management: System Operations Description: This program is focused on implementing new and innovative technology, deploying and integrating statewide Intelligent Technology Systems (ITS), incorporating automated performance measures, and extending technical resources to CDOT regions in the areas of traffic signal and ramp metering. This program also leads and/or participates in the development and implementation of arterial and freeway management strategies throughout the state. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway (ITS and TSMO) Revenue Potential (statewide): $34.0 million (FY 2021-2022) Asset Management: Geohazards Mitigation Description: Mountain and canyon corridors are affected by several geologic hazards such as debris flow, embankment distress, landslides, rockfalls, rockslides, and sinkholes. The Geohazards Mitigation program designs mitigation plans, reviews consultant designs, performs 27 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo site inspections during construction, and responds to rock falls, and other geological hazards - related emergencies. Other work includes responding to requests from Maintenance, Engineering, and the public when slope issues are observed. The current inventory of recognized geological hazards throughout the state is just over 3,000. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway (recognized geohazards in the corridor only) Revenue Potential (statewide): $10.0 million (FY 2021-2022) Asset Management: Permanent Water Quality Mitigation Description: The primary goal of the Permanent Water Quality (PWQ) program is to treat pollution in stormwater from CDOT roadways before it flows into Colorado's rivers, lakes and streams. Pollutants from CDOT roadways include oil and grease, copper, any fluids from vehicles, lead and chloride. The PWQ Control Measures (CMs) that clean these pollutants from stormwater include swales, basins or ponds, and porous surfaces. Each of these CMs capitalizes on natural mechanisms, such as sediment removal or infiltrating water through the ground, to eliminate roadway pollutants from entering surface and ground water. The PWQ program is a regulatory program that is evaluated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment through CDOT's storm water (MS4) permit. CDOT Headquarters staff support Regions in assessing whether or not PWQ CMs are required on transportation projects, in tracking CMs in a statewide inventory, and in ensuring CMs are inspected and maintained to promote healthy Colorado water. The scenic byways throughout Colorado are maintained and improved through CDOT's PWQ program. The main source of revenue for this program is the State Highway Fund and federal reimbursement for eligible expenditures. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway (water quality and stormwater improvements only) Revenue Potential (statewide): $6.5 million (FY 2021-2022) Safety: Highway Safety Improvement Program Description: The primary goal of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all publicly maintained roads. This includes public roads not owned by the state and roads on tribal lands. To comply with this program, CDOT is required to: • Develop a strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities • Create projects to reduce the identified safety problems • Evaluate and update the SHSP on a regular basis Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Freight and Active Transportation Revenue Potential (statewide): $33.1 million (FY 2021-2022) 28 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Safety: Railway -Highway Crossings Program Description: The Railway -Highway Crossings Program, also referred to as the Section 130 program, is a federally mandated program for the elimination of hazards at railway -highway crossings. The purpose of the Section 130 program is to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities at public rail crossing throughout the state. Nationwide, since the program's inception in 1987 through 2014, fatalities at public crossings have decreased by 57 percent. The overall reductions in fatalities come despite an increase in the vehicle miles traveled on roadways and an increase in the passenger and freight traffic on the railways. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway and Freight Revenue Potential (statewide): $3.6 million (FY 2021-2022) Safety: Hot Spots Description: Hot Spots is a CDOT safety program that is funded in a statewide pool with planning estimates from each Region. The purpose of the Hot Spots program is to: • Mitigate minor unforeseen safety issues that need immediate attention. • Add money to an ongoing project to mitigate unforeseen safety issues discovered during the project process. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway — capital and operating costs Revenue Potential (statewide): $2.2 million (FY 2021-2022) Safety: FASTER Safety Description: FASTER Safety funding is used for road safety projects, defined in statute as a construction, reconstruction, or maintenance project the Transportation Commission, a county, or a municipality determines is needed to enhance roadway safety. Projects that have been funded with FASTER safety funding include pavement and other asset management projects, intersection and interchange improvements, shoulders and safety -related widening, and wildlife fencing. In 2014, the Transportation Commission approved new administration of the FASTER Safety program. CDOT FASTER road safety funding is now allocated to two statewide programs administered by CDOT headquarters: FASTER Safety Asset Management and FASTER Safety Mitigation. CDOT headquarters coordinates with the Regions to select projects for delivery by the regions. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway (must be defined as addressing a safety issue) Revenue Potential (statewide): $68.0 million (FY 2021-2022) Safety: ADA Compliance Description: For CDOT and its sub -recipients, ADA services or activities are any that are transportation related, including but not limited to: roadways, contiguous walkways, intersections, rest areas, roadside emergency telephones, public conveyances such as buses and light rail, and literature related to any of these. CDOT is pursuing an aggressive strategy of upgrading curb 29 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo ramps through regular program delivery, as well as committing dedicated funding toward curb ramp upgrading to achieve ADA compliance within five years. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway and Active Transportation (must address ADA needs and requirements) Revenue Potential (statewide): $21.4 million (FY 2021-2022) Mobility: Regional Priority Program Description: The objective of the Regional Priority Program (RPP) is to supplement the formula -driven funding allocations to the five CDOT engineering regions with flexible funding for use at the discretion of each Regional Transportation Director in consultation with local elected officials and other stakeholders in each region. This is accomplished through the transportation planning process. RPP funds are distributed to the CDOT Regions according to a formula based on 50 percent population, 35 percent state highway system lane miles, and 15 percent state highway system truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The RPP is funded through annual Transportation Commission allocations of State Highway Funds with federal reimbursement for eligible expenditures. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway Revenue Potential (statewide): $48.4 million (FY 2021-2022) Mobility: Strategic Projects Description: Funding from General Fund transfers that primarily goes to strategic construction projects. This category currently includes funding from: SB 17-267, SB 18-001, and SB 19-262. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, Freight, and Active Transportation Revenue Potential (statewide): $450 million (FY 2021-2022) Mobility: National Highway Freight Program Description: The National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) is a formula -based program with the purpose of improving the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN). The NHFN includes the interstates, several small segments of other corridors important to freight movement, and approximately 240 miles of Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Corridors to be designated by the state. Relevance to CO 52: Freight Revenue Potential (statewide): $23 million (FY 2021-2022) 30 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Suballocation Process CDOT administers several suballocated programs, passing funds through to local agencies to prioritize and deliver transportation improvements, including the previously described DRCOG and NFRMPO project selection processes. This includes transit grant programs and programs such as STP-Metro and CMAQ that are used for a variety of highway and multimodal improvements. The following provides an overview of the suballocated programs for Highways and Transit and Multimodal Highways: STP-Metro Description: The STP is a federally mandated program that provides flexible funding to states and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on: • any Federal -aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any public road; • pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and • transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. STP-Metro is a sub -program of STP for urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Project selection for STP-Metro funds is conducted by federally designated regional Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) comprised of local governments. As described earlier, DRCOG and NFRMPO would select CO 52 corridor projects funded with STP-Metro funds. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, Freight, Active Transportation Revenue Potential (statewide): $56 million (FY 2021-2022) Highways: Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Description: CMAQ is a federally mandated program, the objective of which is to improve air quality in nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. These include the areas of the NFRMPO and DRCOG Funds may be used for transportation projects designed to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), with a high level of effectiveness in reducing air pollution. Eligible activities include: • Establishment or operation of a traffic monitoring, management, and control facility, including advanced truck stop electrification systems, if it contributes to attainment of an air quality standard; • Projects that improve traffic flow, including projects to improve signalization, construct HOV lanes, improve intersections, add turning lanes, improve transportation systems management and operations that mitigate congestion and improve air quality, and implement ITS and other CMAQ eligible projects, including projects to improve incident 31 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo and emergency response or improve mobility, such as real-time traffic, transit, and multimodal traveler information; • Purchase of integrated, interoperable emergency communications equipment; • Projects that shift traffic demand to nonpeak hours or other transportation modes, increase vehicle occupancy rates, or otherwise reduce demand; • Complete diesel retrofits of fleet vehicles; • Development of alternative fueling infrastructure and assistance in the conversation of public and private fleets to alternative fuel vehicles such as compressed natural gas (CNG), propane, or electric vehicles; and • Expanded authority to use funds for transit operations. As described in Section 3.3.2, DRCOG and NFRMPO would select CO 52 corridor projects funded with CMAQ funds. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Revenue Potential (statewide): $51 million (FY 2021-2022) Highways: Off -System Bridge Program Description: The Joint Highway Commission oversees the program and accepts project applications on an annual basis. The program improves public safety and reduces ongoing maintenance costs associated with aging infrastructure. The structure must be located on a rural minor collector or urban or rural local road. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway Revenue Potential (statewide): $11 million (FY 2021-2022) Transit and Multimodal: Safe Routes to School Description: Colorado established the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program in 2004 to distribute federal and state funding to eligible projects that improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists in school areas, and encourage children in kindergarten through 8t" grade to safely bicycle and walk to and from school. Eligible activities include but are not limited to: • planning, design, and construction of safe school routes for children to walk and bike to and from school; planning, design, and construction of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel to and from school; and educating children, parents, and communities about safe walking and bicycling practices and the health benefits that result from walking and bicycling to and from school. Funds are awarded through a statewide competitive process for construction and education projects chosen by an advisory committee appointed by CDOT's executive director. Relevance to CO 52: Active Transportation 32 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Revenue Potential (statewide): $3.1 million (FY 2021-2022) Transit and Multimodal: Transportation Alternatives Description: The TAP is a program established under Section 1122 of MAP -21 and continued as a set -aside under Section 1109 of the FAST Act. The TAP provides funding for bicycle, pedestrian, historic, scenic, and environmental mitigation transportation projects. Eligible activities include but are not limited to: • Construction, planning, and design of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists • Construction of turnouts, overlooks and viewing areas, and preservation of historic transportation facilities • Some environmental mitigation activities, including vegetation management, and archeological and storm water mitigation related to highway projects • The recreational trails program Relevance to CO 52: Active Transportation Revenue Potential (statewide): $12 million (FY 2021-2022) Transit and Multimodal: Transit Grant Programs Description: Each year CDOT provides funding to local entities for transit projects. This funding comes from federal transit funding and state FASTER funding. The FASTER legislation authorized $15 million each year for transit funding. Of this funding, $5 million in local transit grants are awarded competitively by CDOT regional offices. Local recipients are required to provide a minimum 20 percent local match. Among the types of projects that have been awarded are the purchase or replacement of transit vehicles, construction of multimodal stations, and acquisition of equipment for consolidated call centers. The remaining $10 million in FASTER transit funding is used for statewide, interregional, and regional projects. Relevance to CO 52: Transit Revenue Potential (statewide): $62 million (FY 2021-2022) Transit and Multimodal: Multimodal Options Program Description: SB 18-001 allocated $94.25 million to the Multimodal Transportation Options Fund. Of this funding, 85 percent ($80.12 million) must be used for local multimodal projects, and 15 percent ($14.13 million) must be used for statewide multimodal projects. Senate Bill 18-001 directed the Transportation Commission to develop a distribution formula based on population and ridership for local government funding. The formula for the local distribution of funding was developed in consultation with the Transit and Rail Advisory Committee, the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee, transit advocacy organizations, and bicycle and pedestrian organizations. Generally, each funding recipient must match an equal amount to the award they receive from CDOT. However, the Transportation Commission 33 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo may reduce or exempt the matching requirement for certain local governments due to size or special circumstances. Relevance to CO 52: Transit Revenue Potential (statewide): $0 (FY 2021-2022) — no additional funding beyond initial SB 18-001 allocation. Potential Local and Regional Sources Transportation Funding Entities This section describes the transportation funding entities that are authorized in Colorado and have the authority to collect one or more of the following revenue sources: property tax; visitor benefit tax; cost assessments; charges, rates, and tolls; vehicle registration fees; and sales tax. The intent of this section is to provide an overview regional entities that could be pursued to support implementation of multi -jurisdictional projects. Additionally, there are different types of improvement districts that local property owners could establish to support local infrastructure improvements that would benefit a specific geographic location. Metropolitan District Metropolitan districts provide two or more of the following services: traffic and safety control devices, street improvements, and public transportation. These districts are governed by boards of directors and are formed by a petition and a vote. The district has the authority to condemn; form a public -private partnership; operate and maintain facilities; collect property taxes; assess costs; collect charges, rates, and tolls; and issue general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. Association of Metropolitan Districts An association of metropolitan districts is any combination of metropolitan districts that are authorized to own and operate streets and other transportation facilities. The association may establish by an IGA a new political subdivision to effect the development of transportation facilities in whole or in part for the benefit of the inhabitants of such contracting parties or others at the discretion of the Board of Directors. If provided for in the IGA establishing the association of metropolitan districts, the various metropolitan districts may be given different weights when voting. The association has the authority to condemn; operate and maintain facilities; collect property taxes; collect charges, rates, and tolls; and issue general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. Public Highway Authority A public highway authority may finance, construct, operate, or maintain all or a portion of a highway or other transportation improvements if the infrastructure is located in more than one municipality or county and therefore cannot be feasibly financed, operated, or maintained by a 34 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo single jurisdiction. The authority is governed by a board of directors comprised of at least one elected member from each jurisdiction. If provided for in the contract establishing the authority, the various jurisdictions may be given different weights when voting. This is beneficial if, for example, a 20 -mile highway corridor is spread among three jurisdictions in one 10 -mile and two 5 -mile sections. The jurisdiction that contains 10 miles of highway may be given more weight in any votes. The authority is able to condemn; form a public -private partnership; operate and maintain facilities; assess costs; collect charges, rates, and tolls; require vehicle registration fees; and issue revenue bonds. An example of a public highway authority is E-470. Regional Transportation Authority A regional transportation authority (RTA) may finance, construct, operate, or maintain regional transportation systems within or without the boundaries of the authority. An RTA may be formed with an establishing contract and a vote and is governed by a board of directors. Weighted voting is permitted if established within the contract creating the RTA. An RTA has the authority to condemn; form a public -private partnership; operate and maintain facilities; collect property taxes, visitor benefit taxes, sales taxes, charges, rates, tolls, and vehicle registration fees; and issue revenue bonds. An example of an RTA is the Pikes Peak Regional Transportation Authority (PPRTA), which was approved in 2004 by voters in the cities of Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs, El Paso County, and the towns of Green Mountain Falls and Ramah. With the approval of the RTA, collection of a 1 percent sales tax started in 2005. Based on the referendum language, the maintenance and transit portion of the sales tax is in perpetuity and the capital portion had a 10 - year lifespan. Funding is allocated 10 percent to transit, 55 percent to a defined list of capital projects, and the remainder (35 percent) goes to maintenance. There is a 1 percent administration cap, which has never been reached. Maintenance dollars are allocated among PPRTA members based upon population and adjusted with every new census. Capital dollars are roughly based on population but tend to be allocated more based on the project list. Public Improvement District A public improvement district (PID) is formed through a county petition and governed through the county's governing board. A PID may construct, install, acquire, operate, or maintain any public improvement or service if the county is authorized to perform such services or improvements under the county's home -rule charter. A PID has the authority to condemn; form a public -private partnership; operate and maintain facilities; collect property taxes, charges, rates, and tolls; assess costs; and issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and special assessment bonds. 35 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Local Improvement District A local improvement district (LID) may construct or improve any street or provide street lighting or drainage facilities in the unincorporated area of a county, or within a municipality, with municipality consent. A LID may also construct sidewalks adjacent to any streets where drainage facilities are provided. A LID is formed through a petition and resolution or ordinance and is governed by the county or city and county governing board. The LID is dissolved after completion of project and payment of debt and therefore cannot operate and maintain facilities. A LID has the authority to assess costs; issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and special assessment bonds; and collect sales taxes. General Improvement District A general improvement district (GID) is formed through a petition and governed through the municipality's governing board. The GID may acquire, install, construct, operate, or maintain any "public improvement" if the municipality is authorized to perform such services or improvements under the municipality's home -rule charter. A GID has the authority to condemn; operate and maintain facilities; assess costs; collect property taxes, charges, rates, and tolls; and issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and special assessment bonds. Business Improvement District A business improvement district (BID) may acquire, construct, finance, install, operate, and maintain public improvements, including streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pedestrian malls, street lights, drainage facilities, landscaping, decorative structures, identification signs, traffic safety devices, bicycle paths, off-street parking facilities, benches, restrooms, and public meeting houses. A BID is formed through a petition and resolution or ordinance and is governed by the municipality's governing board. A BID has the authority to operate and maintain facilities; collect property taxes, charges, rates, and tolls; assess costs; and issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and special assessment bonds. Regional Service Authority A regional service authority (RSA) can be formed through a citizen petition or resolution of the majority of counties within the territory, an organization commission, and a vote. The RSA can own and operate public surface transportation and is governed by a 5-, 9-, or 15 -person board of directors (depending on population) elected by eligible electors. An RSA has the authority to condemn; operate and maintain facilities; collect property taxes, charges, rates, and tolls; and issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and special 36 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo assessment bonds. However, to date there are no RSAs in Colorado that are transportation focused Other Potential Local Sources Temporary Mill Levy Increase for Specific Projects: Description: Temporarily increase the local mill levy for a specific transportation improvement. This approach would require voter approval. An example of this approach is Larimer County, which temporarily increased the Road & Bridge Fund Mill Levy share of the total current county- wide mill levy to implement the I-25 Improvement Project. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Tax Increment Financing District Description: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a mechanism for capturing the future tax benefits of real estate improvements, in order to pay for the present cost of those improvements. TIF is generally used to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development would not otherwise occur. TIF is a popular development finance tool generally used to address blight, promote neighborhood stability and inspire district -oriented development. TIF uses the increased property or sales taxes (increment) generated by new development to finance costs related to the development such as public infrastructure, land acquisition, demolition, and planning. The life of a district can be anywhere from 10 to 40 years, or enough time to pay back the costs or bonds issued to fund the improvements. The tax increment from a TIF district is created without raising taxes, and also without dipping into the base tax revenues present at the time of adoption. The increment thus becomes a repayment stream for debt used to finance some aspects of what is driving the increase. State law in Colorado authorizes urban renewal authorities (URAs) and downtown development authorities (DDAs) to use TIF for projects that improve blighted areas. TIF allows an authority to issue and repay redevelopment bonds by using the "increment" of increased taxes collected within the TIF district after improvements are made (Section 31-25-101 et seq., C.R.S.). Tax increment revenue may be generated from property or sales taxes. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Development Mitigation/Impact Fees Description: An impact fee is a one-time charge imposed by local governments to mitigate the impact on local infrastructure caused by new development. Growth in the form of new homes and businesses requires expansion or enlargement of public facilities to maintain the same level and quality of public services for all residents of a community. Impact fees help fund expansion of public facilities necessary to accommodate new growth. Impact fees may be assessed by cities, counties, and special districts. The governing body approves an impact fee ordinance imposing the fees, following the requirements of the Impact Fees Act. Relevance to CO 52: Impact fees may be used for permanent buildings and other physical facilities owned by the local government which have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. A local government may charge impact fees to fund the following public facilities: • Water systems and water rights 37 of 38 21656: CO 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study/Access Control Plan Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo • Roads • Wastewater systems • Stormwater control systems • Parks • Municipal power facilities • Public safety facilities (e.g. police and fire facilities) Real Estate Transfer Tax Description: Real estate transfer taxes are taxes imposed on the transfer of title of real property. In most cases it is an ad valorem tax that is based on the value of the property transferred. A majority of states and the District of Columbia provide for this tax, and the state statutes may or may not stipulate who (buyer or seller) is responsible for paying the tax. In addition, most statutes list a number of cases where the transfer is exempt from taxation. A real estate transfer tax ensures that a city/jurisdiction benefits financially from any major speculative land purchases prior to the implementation of any of the major transportation projects, as developers may seek to acquire parcels adjacent to the future alignments/locations. Revenue Potential: The Colorado transfer fee rates is 0.01 percent, the lowest in the nation among states that provide for this tax. This type of revenue source is subject to wide year-to- year fluctuations due to real estate cycles. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Land Contribution or Other Asset Sales Description: Revenues generated from the disposition of excess land owned by cities or local agencies, including right-of-way contributions. Disposition agreements by affected agencies should dedicate proceeds from sales toward specific projects. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Developer Contributions Description: Developers along or adjacent to a proposed infrastructure alignment that offer to provide right-of-way to the project to support implementation. Relevance to CO 52: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation 38 of 38 Appendix G: Alternative Matrices 1. Level 1 Evaluation Matrix 2. Level 2 Evaluation Matrix Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix G-1 Level 1 Evaluation Matrix Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 Wogs. Category Performance Measurer Gerr'Awe. Te TlN SpreYtT.Law PewW. rake/Peas ION Increase Safety Potential Lo improve safety rrN N N N Y N N N N Accommodate Increased Travel and Freight Support Mul[imodal Conn Demand ec[wnz Potential to accomm.ate protected travel and Potenb, to increase and not preclude height demand mulamodal mobility 4 Carried Forward Retained at Element Eliminated Wen of T1st St to County line Road CO Line Rd to WCR] ulld 2Hanes 4 -Lents Typical no. eaneSw-M tam _I Alternating PasNq Lem Remissible tan 2 ROY/Managed Lana t Ir Shoulder 10' Boa m shwulda IT MWd-tae Path I N V l Y L Y N NVIN N Y Y r� Y YIj _ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y IB Multi -U. Pe. N Y Y N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y 1V ...Use Pam N F. ' `V N ,__N N _ V V .. _V _� V_..1` N _V ._ Y V - —~— T Mm[I-Lke Pam Y Y Y Y I Y Y Y Y I Y Y Y t Y Y Y t Canted Fornard 10 fa j .;told IptmT] t0 M. on shoed. Y Y Y Y- - Y rY Y Y ' No Bold &10 2.Lanes N�a i0 Typical 2 HOV/Managed Lanes [0 a -Lanes Typical 10 arras ,us •shy. l N Y T�Y Y Y I N Y Y Y Y Y Carried Forward N N J N .. N CMnEb Fprnad Y Y Y Y Y Y • Y Y y N N Y Y� Y 1 Y l Y Y ry I 6 Forward Eliminated _Carried Forward Camed Forward Caned Forward Alturrrns tiarallad ekr py:writ •ae;d Ns (bike's., Al _ mlmsectmlau.,4% on D.A....) Carried Forward Eliminates �n1,IWrnla+den rtr" ercp+e+aeaec 11.,7 trafig rKcprnem ern fern... Eliminates Conliguretlon dots not accommodate access or traffic needs along the segment. Assumes - parallel bike and transit facilities (bike lanes at ntersections and bikes on shoulders.) Demand for HOV/Managed Lane would not be sufficient Median/rum Lane type to be evaluated at Level 2 Does not gave the potential to improve Bkycle Connectivity because 'the existing shoulder is the same width (101 as needed to anew rnmMteall..ontrayOr.l) WCR ] to SR 1-25 Frontage Road No Build 2 -lanes Typical .Lanes TyplraL 6 -Lanes TYpr. 10 ,D I 2 HOV/hanged Lanes I 10 I Bikes an shoulder Multl-use Path tU Blkezm shoulder When aaSrn b.ketLans•a F . a. Y Y f: H ININ Earr Ts Faawyd Y Y Y NN N N .L Y I N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y f N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YIN N Y Y • Carried Forward Eliminated - Demand for HOV/M caged Lane would not be sufficient Corned icemwd Caned Forward Ned Ian /Turn Lane type to be evaluated at Level 2. Does not nave the potential to improve Bicycle Connectivity because the existing shoulder is the same width (10) as needed to accommodate bikes on shoulders Does not have the potential to improve Bicycle Connectivity Carried Forward because the existing shoulders 10' in width which already accommodates bikes. �Jeoes no[ have the potential to improve Bkycle Connectivity 66 use ens . bHng snaulaers 1a in wistn whkn alreaey pccommedates bikes Caned Forward No aulld Northbound I-25 Frontage Rd to MP 15 a -Lanes Typlcai (Fredrick/Damn) 6 -Lan. I Typical (Reverse Cu..) 2 -Lanes I Trod YDl.I I .10' I urban urban I s. -t. I 2 HOV/Managed Lanes 10 I I 10 Pe0z on sidewalk, bike Shoulder Y Y Y Y i Y Y' Y H N N N N Bikes on shoulder Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N x N o n N N Y Y Y a Y YIY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N - f• rL r H YYYNN Y Y Y N Y N Carried Forward Carried Forward Carried Forward Carried Forward Eliminated Demand for HOV/Managed Lan would not be sufficient Carried Forward Median/Turn Lane type to be evaluated at Level 2 Does not Caned Forward have the potential to improve Bkycle Connectivity because the existing shoulder is the same width (10') as needed to Carried Forward ,accommodate bikes on shoulders. Category Increase Sassy Potential to �> aae .W. improves.... Accommodate Inc s d Travel and freight support,,„„ � Poak professed to ssed travel and tseliameme Potennalmecc freight demand multimodal al Conectbe aanrh errdeetyeh'lvef mobrldy ♦/N YrH r/N Y/N !rN cT e i'll. !IN Y/N IlN Y/N Y,il IN Z, •' w = 'S I.N IIN y S of carried Forward ate. Purpose , Bulk, BproalyLlY fePrhrA+ iBlew.m i c ;mama Generals Lanes fi u a F 6 c E o a fr 11LL n F _ _ f d rc F i '� Retained as Element o Eliminated N N N N N N N N N N - 1. A k 1 C.vs'cd F.rwxd — ---- •• 60 Bikes n shoulder Y Y r Y Y M sl •. 0 rl rr I N Y Y Eliminated almaf .e[E.• co:0744 ea, 1.a.eund gx.x.h 2 -Lanes TYper _— _ — to' u,.n �.. r• r Peak Perm. Shoulder Lane s2 Nne M Y Y d Y Y Y • Y N `Y Y NNNN N N Y Y N Fd...It: r]L-•rw eu Precluding passing reduces operational performance; limited ,afety benefit over No Build option Y Y Y �Y Y Y y Y Y Y Y N sl eclutlily passing retluces operational performance; limited rfety benefit over No Build option m WCR 19 to US B5gB Ramps — I - .. — -- — _. _ --- --. _ -- .. - .. - — — -- _ N ternaungPassingtane ie Bikes on shoulder Y Y V m r. - Y Y - N _ N - N V - Y N Y Y Y • Y Y Y N —^ ry Y - V Y Y Y Carried Forward Y �`Y Eliminated - _ I. -L- - - Revenlble Lane Bores an shoulder y_: Pi N fig.rukfsex'.rrvx xeoynentrate aece,sor fralf r rK�; • Tony [he seamen[ - — - -- i0 Bikes n shoulder Y YIN Y - Y Y — N Y- Y Y Y Y Eliminated ue to density of access points an alternative without median ile-,mrau+vd rw>area,•. ._ . __ 3 a -Lanes ryp,.. N 'a N_: r Y — V Y— V ; V Y . , -.-- _ .� l] la n n•.5,W N Carrssd Peewyd — n— — YYT- — — BNes Id a nznou-Y Y Y Car ned Forward Y•Y - ..: V "-- —._-_•-_;-- �:-.. �. ...-.-.. ..-.. ...... ..."_toi__ .. - f y --_ - .., .. - m Noeuue Urban Nene NI N N N N N N N N N I N h r• sl k Carried Forward — — -- 3 -Lanes TyPlu USBSNBRamps wWCR 3] 6 -Lanes — - -� Urban ads nsVIie Spoof si ei s •[N fl N Y -` Y Y N N —Y •• Y V N Y --,_-1_— N Y T N N N N Y N Y Y V Carried Forward -- - --- — - ----- - •- wulywdk •:r.nne, r. -• Urban g•tiv ••dklSvwN Ssdeh e V Y _--__J_ Y Y Y Carded Forward - VI Lupton) r — •� Evaluation was filled out by route perspective (SN 52), some Bypass eypess Y Y Y Y Y Y r e. r y N N Y V El lmmhxzv outcomes may vary if evaluated at regional level (per the City of Ft Lupton concern for economic vitality with a bypass s t No Build No u k k N se 0 =• N N N N Y N N N Carried Forward Typka — B es on Moulder V Y ~ Y Y Y Y N N N N • N It Eliminated !ANN,' eerhnssf td UN. e.ri NO Bu:d OE: V — — yy o ahh,.,.h h•+t�•• • Y f V Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y - Eliminatedd l ecluding passing reduces operational performance; limited Safety benefit over No Build option v 1 -Lanes —• — - - - — WCR 3s to WCR 43 Typice ... •.. >< a..dor s• — Il rvm - - — V •— — - V Y Y Y Y Y N N N Eliminated Precluding passing reduces operational performance; limited 3 }Y� Alternating Passing Lane s Al r - '- V — — — — - _ - -- • Y ..• .- safety benefit over No Build option. - - _ -. Carried Forward• m s Typka •--• .w s..` o Buss on Moulder N N N N N N r + >• Y Y Y Y r' ..r �s Isra.-. `"f� at'' -r 5x•' accommodate access or traffic needs alxq•fe �-vf 3 ',Ones I TYP.. ro B•kes on shuulde _-_ Y Y-• - I��hsYg�� V Y Y t Y �Y -. -Y Y .. •s Y T Carried Forward - - - e .......... - ..- . _. e . ..:.. ... ..... .... `N 2.r0 None - — - - TYpicai '0 B•.-. r.•..a.ldn N N N N N ... - — . — Y Y Y Yf t. N N N ti N — . -• - is 1. Y �- -- - _ N - - Y •• N I - - - }L Y J Y j Y - - Carried Forward - _-- Carried Forward -- - _--- - g - -- 6 -Lanes T.Wicu- - - •- 0 Ekes on shouts', -- ... .-.-. _ _ - _ - .. - - -• _. Perk on sidewalk 2Lanes TYF+• N/A uhke u•r rr • • - r r r r Y Y Y Y Y • V V Y Y •' e • Y V r v Y Y •yrmo imnNC - - - - - r V Y N Y Carried Forward - - - _- •• - - - 1 Lah e, Typka rv/A bike Net - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y l Y i Y - -• l / Y ?r y Carried Forward m lime B N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Carried Forward ui y $ Fun Segment 2 -Lanes NO Buildl -B -..- -• I . j Tydd — to' Bikes. should.. Y _L Y Y Y - Y 0Y Y Y Y l Y Y Carried Forward p rae`i 3 Y Y 1 I • E. rrt • a. .+. ih lh,h..s-so•wsssitows, s - Y Y V_ Y Y Y 1 .. r Y - -- • era u,rd a a ++Eiereere 'Tope tsrr.he rau- y_ _ _ — - - - In[ersectbnTYpe E�ry ...Element Nn-Traditionallnterseaion Improvements Y Y Y Y r y - .• Y I Y Y Y� Y Y .•_ Y -Y Y Y Y Y Y Y + V Y ...Linen an Efcmtn[ 770c tufJscr x.Y:Yx'd sn e•rel: - - _- --- Grade Separated Interchange .-- :,a inel el 55cmen[ ::mnN a+a:g'xc es:CT.: - —_-- -_ nn.. i Rar. Y h Y i Y Y ,- •-- .•-Y I Y r Y ztamed an ah Eemras.; 77 al farmer a -alp., ntr.ee; tieh Berner T Transit Accommoda do. N h N — • : N v Y N V y '• ' N N Y Y Y Y• N Y Y N V . kenos -7 as an norm, Retained as an Element Toe[ fun ror anolyzN hnlean• Transportntln Technology (Active Traffic Awnagementl - _ c IY To be further analyzed in Level 2 Other Elements Elements F - - - .: hunr. tare.asr _ _Y l _ y N N N Y l V f N Y rl N e• e n N N T N N R _ Y N N Y N r-u'nee r.4.E� Ft...te as an Sersiee: Tp 0_e rx:rr_r...rice n pees 7 Elemeh t ae1 • ". Pa•N To be further and -y. ee in Level 2 E'''''t . .Elsm..1 Enhanced Bdes ike/Petrian Crossings _ Y T N N_ •N N N - .N N N N N N N _ I N _ — c ' Y Y N Y N N N a FMatlwC as 4.,f cr..7 Pcituc: ss 4. Elmr.ent -re be further hve'tiy:ee m,s.� : — _ .h r.:yx 4.11,4.41.4._ he rxtrcr aney:. n Lcw• 7 - [c]c ..Pr a r.•m Prrrna wr..P,.-.ae Mau _ _ ti as rl •a !. N Y Y Y T f t e f I [r C as•,c3 n xi Elemm: fie r a-a:Y-�d N 1.e4i Appendix G-2 Level 2 Evaluation Matrix Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 fir:=_ - - - _ _-- I--•-- - • - Appendix H: Project Categorization Table Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 CO 52 PEL Categorization of Potential Projects Worksheet Overview 'Categorization Tab Potential projects for the CO 52 corridor are listed in arbitrary order from west to east. A Project ID is assigned to each project for worksheet cross-references purposes only. Based on its estimated effectiveness in addressing each element of purpose and need, each project is rated with a score of 1 to 5 for each respective element. A low to high range of estimated cost is provided for each project. Ease of implementation is summarized for each project, regarding impact on environmental resources, alignment with local community support, and need for right-of-way. 'Score Definitions Tab Definitions and assumptions of the rating methods are described for each topic 'Intersection Improvements Tab Details of the potential improvements at each intersection are summarized Improvements on roadway segments are grayed out 'Funding Sources Tab Typical funding sources are briefly described including eligibility criteria 'Funding Categories Tab For each potential project, its expected eligiblility of funding categories are identified Instructions On the Categorization Tab, select all of the rows and columns of the project list (Rows 4 through 55, and Columns A through M) Choose Sort & Filter, Custom Sort, (Do not check 'My data has headers'), Sort by Column of Interest: Column E: Operational Improvements Score Column F: Traveler Safety Score Column G: Multimodal Improvements and Safety Score Column H: Overall Need Score Using the Project ID Reference Numbers, use the Funding Categories Tab for identifying potential funding sources. Alternative to Instructions OMR) On the Categorization Tab, select any cell within the body of the table. From the "Home" tab on the Excel Ribbon, click on the Sort and Filter button (1) and choose Filter (2) - Skip if drop -down arrows are already present in the Header (Row 2). In the Header (Row 2), click on the drop -down arrow in the column you wish to sort by (3) and select the sort method (4) To restore the table to the default order, sort the Project ID column from Smallest to Largest (5). rt Delete Format Cells Autu5um - r-' - M Fdl Sort & Find & Anal;2e '' Clea Filter - SelecL - Dale Editi _ SortSmalles- toLargert ` Snrt I .arrgect tc 4mallect Custom sort... Fitter (Ctrf•-SAift.0 Turn on filtering for the selected cells. Then, click the arrow in the column header to narrow down the data, (' Tell me more FiltFr 2 so Operational improvements Srnre Parpoce R NPeri MPacnremrnts Traveler Safety Score IS 1 1 5 1 Muldmooa l infrastructure 8 :Slimy Sr., •Dverell Need Score 5 11 4 3 z. Sort Smallest tc Lar3ect L — J. Scrt Largest to Smallest Sort by Color Number Fll*erf 4 L7 (Select All) oz O 4 D5 O 6 O7 08 R9 n ,o ProJect ID 0 z .`. Sowt Sm5Ilest to Largest Scrt Largestte Smallest 3 Scrt byCcicr Segnent 5 0 P&N Measurements Score Operational Improvements (Quantitative score ) 1 Would not improve intersection LOS or segment travel time 2 Low potential to improve intersection LOS (1 peak hour letter grade) 3 Moderate potential to improve intersection LOS (2 peak hour letter grades) or segment travel time (5% to 15% change) 4 Above average potential to improve intersection LOS (3 peak hour letter grades) 5 High potential to improve intersection LOS (3 peak hour letter grades) or segment travel time (>15% change) Traveler Safety (Qualtitative score) 1 Not expected to improve safety. 3 Expected to have a positive safety impact. 5 Improves safety by addressing an identified safety issue. Multimodal Infrastructure and Safety (Qualitative score) 1 Does not provide multimodal infrastructure or safety improvements 2 Provides minor improvements such as widening of existing shoulders that are already four -feet or greater 3 Provides shoulders of at least four -foot width where no multimodal facilities already exist 4 Provides on -street bicycle lanes or other dedicated improvements 5 Provides separated bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, such as multi -use path Ease of Implementation - Brief Summary of Key Data ROW, Environmental, and Locai Support 5 Substantial challenges associated with ROW (involves acquisition of a structure), Environmental, and/or Local Support 3 Moderate challenges associated with ROW (ROW line close to a structure), Environmental, and/or Local Support 1 No anticipated challenges associated with ROW, Environmental, and/or Local Support Cost Attributes Cost Range Highest cost items are roughly quantified. These items included at least pavement removal, proposed pavement, excavation and embankment, detour paving and structures (box culvert, bridges, and walls). A percentage of cost was applied to the other items that were not quantified including clearing and grubbing, minor drainage, and mobilization. An overall contingency of 40% was applied, in addition to 8% for a Force Account. The cost also assumed right-of-way, design, and N E PA. FUNDING SOURCE Project Type RAISE Grant INFRA Grant Competitive Highway Bridge Program Surface Transportation Program (STP)-Metro Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program All (would have to be packaged) All (would have to be packaged) All bridges (would have to be packaged) All intersections, multimodal, and segment projects All multimodal and congestion -related projects Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) All multimodal projects Asset Management: Surface Treatment Only rehabilitation -focused segment projects Asset Management: Structures All projects affecting existing bridges Asset Management: Systems Operations All intersections Asset Management: Geohazards Mitigation Assumed not applicable at the PEL information level Asset Management: Permanent Water Quality Management Major drainage improvements (not culvert replacements) Safety: Highway Safety Improvement Program Intersections Safety: Rail -Highways Crossings Program Rail -highway crossings intersections and reverse -curve (would need to be refined on site - Safety: Hot Spots specific basis) Safety: FASTER Bridge Bridge projects Intersections and reverse -curve (would need to be refined on site - Safety: FASTER Safety specific basis) Safety: ADA Compliance Intersections Mobility: Regional Priority Program All Mobility: Strategic Projects All Mobility: National Highway Freight Program Intersections Highways: Bridge Off -System None Transit and Multimodal: Safe Routes to School Proximity to existing schools Transit and Multimodal: Transit Grant Program None Transit and Multimodal: Multimodal Options Program Multimodal Property Tax All Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District All Development Mitigation/Impact Fees All Real Estate Transfer Tax All Land Contribution or Other Asset Sales All Developer Contributions All 9vefa 7D 1 `Cy iW.ark Segment] 11'1 a',mem.. Pa Le.etchtm ea Ntsiea gl leribeen laeau! CO 119 LO County Lne Rd cwooma NNrwnwn grwpwwtrlLL. icing t or � em v " •Meal 1..0.a18diaim ... A. Icsalsef4ry Ilr.,.. i/i4tiM'1. • arwa Nod. $'... 11 it three Historic_ ices and Open Space No antimated challeng County Owned ROW and/or Conservation easements "••�' ••� L 41.200.000 : 50,300,000 f Segmentl CO 119 ro Monarch MCI Use Iran 1 d Three Historic Film antl Open Space No amcmated challenges [C.µlr rT.-xrd b SAN ar•irn- r„ynrral rr retrm.+:P ':•%'fu's • !.rx:M, I Segmeml CO 119 to USA] r•e•As• ..t •s r:lv •.-r+nar.e, .t 1 Y • Open space lootee near.+st street intersection, CO W Historic No anticipated chinrenges .v .- • C1Pr aro.,Sotnosx..ps.rasr-ergs - `• ] .517,011 $ 15X1rA•: • Legmeml (.01190 U528) )9[M1 Ave .,. •.n.e..: On-xr r -t. S -x•n 1p.r�er :r. e�ada _+, ntr.•: •..-�..-•....r.. .ncapons, ard White Rock Ditch, and Co 52, County awned !.+.,•urwi•S s...Ne. County Owned ROW ancd/or Conservation easements 5 9,000,000 5 10,900,000 Sgmem S 00119 43.28) Mover St/95th Ave and Fage naaat, LO 5e -.tom Naar... ne•, County Owned ROW and/or Conservation easements $ 8,300,000 $ 10,100,000 S Segment VS182 to 4--x.00 u5.v -1U52B2-Option] • • + Johnson -ballet Farm antl Open space, sensitive noise re:eptors Noa ,sv,recNmg n •County Owned ROW antl/or Conservation easements . 11,810,0001 14,400,000 1 3e8meM3 Sri 1Z110 Co.nea games lu5't8/ Option 2 r4' -'44.4".• -Tratlinwwrn a attionl l P 11 Johnson-Valler Farm and Open space, sensitive noise receptors eoenhal.. C052 Histare Substantial challenges r.•. �w HIT•va-9l+te'••�rtl•. r••••=�••:er S .•FeV'r rr. N•0a_•s.1 ..1r•.n •0s 0c•ry, ]:!PDF.. a • Segmre3 Rsr Wc. Ctt. r_•A1 sew.mi.-y=«--..•,.r f [ Polentla l for raoental nose receptors rmenuce..ee.r,..1.1, • ROW line close to structure 1 13,100,000 $ 28,300,000 D Segment 2 County LineRd to WCR I wtersectlon lmPovemenis d s a 13 C••• ',otr r«s Mem,. t,lirebry rkll •... e••.n... •. 5 10,3w 0005 1 2,5W,WU SO .. ..uw[n1 wCrt norsection p omens 1 c 10 ..c .m. Habitat se e sensitive • •• d crt•t:..r ,_`• GI,: +n em�sottwcY -•gn r41W ^•,m=�oe�..n�,•• f • u,W9 5 I]f]iO2D 11 5•gm.•4:sk - • .. rrr WSNr unty Line Rd to WCR) 1 • -•-� •shoulder Widening 1 • �- s ..r •+. .ti s-, .. .�..r ••,.!. •e. •. k4.•...V..e5e•,lein RCN, hm PO •o oriel.•. . 30,400,000 S 3],100,000 .• 5rmin a 25 SR FP "NCR: rat Ise.. Improvements r + 4 11 CO 52Historicand relsele al home historic, bald eagle habitat, "� .... .. ... •rr•. rya l•.,a• r mo Nv.•r.eJ meeeh. .r y.. 30,302.000 . 12,50E, U 13 Segment 21/CR 2 to 125 58 FR R1 to 1-2,11 b Lane vvioening VI ,,o.+YFNn g 1 t • 10 r. .. .....,.rs _ with outdoor s sting I, Bald eagle and red ytri Moderate chat en8es -+e,rre.t•�•na S •+rOFYf DS 14 m.•-r 4g' 1. Ni,A, S,• -xi INE,11 n•1 2.hsr ,c F.r. l[•nl•"•I ra widening Shoulder Widening 1 s a re e1F•n+Fa rr...trUs ei L mime, C.-+ Cox 41tte nh nal,lirali • ..a, .s...., ..t. Omer hike « m...•r s+�..n rvry.ltr.•r vs>...t. i door Moderate chalen8es ' '--,••.maws+ S 21'Yt...K . t+.174 -. Segment2 M I. s4 loar •etrP .R.1 Silver Birch Rd (York) tR-..>-.H4_n-re ..1 t r e CO 52 and Neh on Farm H stone, red -tall hawk habitat. south n ,n w a,dsl ,a-1:s1us:•5 .X.0.O. 16 f.gm'if3 ,.ver Birch 1117M1 to WCR 15 :� •8=11iW Inl ersechon p ement s a e CO 52 UP (den hranchrsgment) and Sharpe Farmstear Historic. sensit ven ise rmeectors No anticipated challenges a. •cua,we Meer r S :O:IL•f]! 5 12,200,000 12 Sean nt2 .. '''''F'F'44$1,NMSNI.3 r.r•-x. L b'Yt •Cr�ire w.. nt_rsection Improvements = • 11 Co 52 Historic. sensmve noise receptors, openspace a no trait la mitt matte L. mm NO anticipated challenges $ 10,200,000 2,500,000 la 'egmente -thewMr, r.). WCR 15 WCR 15 c,.Remsie mew ea, ' • t 9 CO 52 Historic sensitive raise receptors No anticipated challenges h...a _•.trJ ..•.e R•• . •1:0,00T•i •P.n 0.0 [• iegment2 . ow Birch Norkl t0 WCR 15 Sliver Birch (York) to WCR 15 0 -lane Widening.rn ihmeder widmi, t a 12 C052 Historic. sense tune raise receptors _ No anticipated challenges tin•meirs,0•.••+r. 5 19,800,000 $ 24200,000 20 21 S -gm •-c] Y.2rt, o'WC415 Segment2 NCR 15 to WCR 19 xem0...•. t-Otm: . .r•rn•,-•r• .cn=r,•rot N..ra•ea•s •MRC-e.rmli—. t ! '051• -•Nara. —e Moderate Cnarrenges toe ROW acquisition depends on supereleva lion design, but is expected to he substantial WCR 1) improvements may include realignment/consolidation 5 26 000.000 : 31,200,000 Vilma, Nwmiws' No anticipated crwrrenges Amount of ROW acquisition depends on superelevation design, but is expected to be substantial WCR 12 improvements may include realignment/consolidation 5 26500000.: 32,400,000 22 aegmr.wr NCR 5 to WCR WCR 15 to WCH 19 .2 -lane Resunacrng I. NM, Pricemm Imi.r.m1 r f [ rp .,.,s,a••c t�•r.e. Moderate cnarlenges No anticipated challenges $ 19,200,000 3 23,400,000 23 Segment3 lbp V5 a5 NCH l8 to u5 n5 - sh„rdde5.ywed.mirg Y 5 30 cf„?•d ••• ry• . . .•.••rs.r,.. •.-; a<•xrrc =V't--+'s .•c.n. s•r r. .r. ••a ••.• �Fel No an mated challenges . 13,000,WU:� 1510116C01510116C0NCo 24 Segmnt3 a '� H . . 'N L4 S0-o•;S14 •21ane Resurfacing n •.rgI .n ml 1 l • Co 52 Historic open spat_, park, sensnwe noise receptors, norrential for•.elans. oil wells Moderate challenges lo anticipated challenges 5 rl MIt•p::5 29,100,0001 •r legmnt 3 try P5 to Denver Ave �ihrough Fort Lupton - ne Heurtacrng 1 . CO 52 Historic se noise receptors (homes a. burn el ,uestanhal chalenge ,No anticipated challenge $ 5300,000:: 6,500,000 26 le/r Mr[ 3 JS 85 t0 Denver Ave Ihrougti wit upton � w H W et. mat d . ] 1 13 Cost Historic sensmve rorse receptors homes ant ounnesset he c y.4. Mquisi on of tructure 5 •.1:U,00U : 2.000,090 22 Swem NV .. wsR ]! Denver Ave to WCR �•. Co52 Historic potential Mr wetlands, sensmve noise a .n s. e,ed oil wells Ypotential ••o.,mg afN!^••�4sr �e t••�.-�• 5 5,400000 $ 6,500,000 .g Yg1,0..." rerr in 0enver w w6 31 0..•••. ens. rp N.f.,i. icing .-. ..,.-....,- -,.. . S Y v C052eHistoric Mr wetlands, sensitive note .tree r,.• «. e.e o.... s Moderate challenge lo anticipated challenges $ 8,300,000 : ]0,1M MO 29 Segrnent3 J1 ns MLR 19 [avert Heplacement T 1 ICO 52 to COtor wetlands `Co Ne, Nr ges No anticipated challenges 5 :.`NC:XG 5 ]-iCO]- 30 Segment 3 ]o d US H5 .WCP 14 •n.ersectonlImprovements + 14 52 Historic potential Mr wetlands .c 1y lA $ 12,900,000 31 NCR em,3 NCR 1q.U<a5 WCR 2 Co 52 Historic sensmve rase receptors, scattered of wells Me.M.•e.• impact to commercial property, but no impact to structure . 9,300,000 5 1].400,000 e. Segment 3 NCP 19 to US 05 red than Underpass of 0585 Itirnddal Connections - t r t CO 52 Historic open space, park, sensitive noise receptors ooennal for wetlands. of wells 4-'• '14' g No an cPated challenges a 3,500400,L a MO,W^_ 33 Lelnir:l JS B5 o Denver Ave �s+i M1S:.tn.Y^g• ,nersectidn Improvements . a 15 space.copen spa. park, sensitive noise receptors, 000M alsfor weClands.Or wells 1,,. rr+-r•qm Possible impacts t0 commercial storefronts No structure impacts anticipated • IIs=s 1: S !3.]L 0110 _ 34 Swim, J885 •a lhsn Tm �Lr ..H Tr ,wimymhon improvements ] . • 15 Co 52 Historc open space, park, sensitive noise receplors, •=•-a� { ° im a[ ossole impacts to commercial store Moors NO structure impacts anticipated $ 2,300000 $ 2,800,000 35 Segment, r_c•5 ee ersection Improvements a S 12 Co 52 Historic senstive moe receptors tia sa..gm possible impacts to corn merclal store fronts No structure impacts anticipated $ 3,200,000x1 3,900,00 6 39 Segment US 85 to Denver Ave 5egnent3 Denver Ave to WCR 31 rand Ave toDenver A ra.,',AYAR, .o—ret•ci WCR 3V : mersecoon Improvemen 44 .Structure Replacement V.0 II LA t6 u:s5 _ , ..itru.ore Widening Segment6 (WCR II -�u WCR a[I,R • a. .. .v..Y+•: WO! 31 to WCR L9 r 6 veCol »0r. ihn was to commercial sro. rr.r 2,100,0010 4 2,5110,000 ee^1.1 v.pa • 1, vCan-,-.;r CO Lge 00.9 ll.00CR is rm. I. 1tin a0 -lane Resurtacing !boulder Widening _ .g •r•..w.,. a 61.223. , ntersecnon Improvements 2,300,000 $ tl,900,000 6,300,000 5 19,900,000 6,10,03 S 56,300,000 21,900,000 ! at, 0,000 .rwin.lo•num,r.rwe-..wi r -w•0 y..t YowrVn• impacts snouted FOv-•,.s!r,0. •.—stY• nceis receptors, oil wells 30,000,000 5 12,200,000 • 10,300,000 a Segment �WCR31t6 WCA I 1.0 • WCRd ntersecuon 0mprovemen ,sterseCtitro Improvements R e- loleussv., Improvements tst Mulnmodal 9. Connections lot wetlaands. •. •W. 4.3 57 .00 in, 'No challenges INo amlcipatelt challenges -�.,., _, +Ioe. ••per_ 9,000,000 9,200,000 rIl 5 1,300,000 k vnenru 4. 'Prop 20,00 5 900,000 el tow {a xC ]! .•Iww7r tow4ar3,.,a. try A.A040,000 5 130,200,000 0O52 2,300,003 wtn 55-Upuon 1 Intersection Improvements e t4 m ITradWonal ...oration! WCR 59 -Option 2 [u >7 Ia•plea O279 Nes, Ken,. xpl -i4l0 1etenl3 e• CO 52 • 6,004[0 .wrar NIval.. O52 srs uttere Replacemen CO No challenges a.2NO—eal_n._h l0,Cap,00 S 12,003,000 6,200,000 9,100,000 Project ID 1 Segment I al _ .-, 3 i u i « w N 3 $ p u Segment identification SubSegment CO 119 to County Line Rd Loddism CO119 to County Line Rd Improvement 2 -lane Resurfacing Shoulder Widening Project Racommendtbonf• 1MCTptrtil/n lmpfOYCtTerK Ltetadk Roadway Project _ 2 CO119 to County Line Rd CO 119 to Monarch Rd Multi -Use Trail Roadway Project 3 CO 119 to US 287 71st Ave Intersection Improvements Ttmeng project to realign 71st to rigrt•anglc and add northbound right -turn lane. Signalize imerserttnn when Warrant: arc Mel. Pedestrlin/8%Vile Ion PrtsveMeni(s) • Include bike lanes through dte intersection lo.ted left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. 4 CO119 to US 287 79th Ave Intersection Improvements Currently signarired NO required opacity Improvements; however, CRn1tder adding mid -turn lanes 45 condi Pons warrant. Pe dell na n/htrycle improve -DI eels.' •Fronde thcycte crossing imp rovernorrs cast -west and north -south -Evaluate have* detection far nn•shoulder alternative and potential signal for mu'truse path all a mauve •Improve Bossing for tuft -tuning bicyclists .Include bike iinei m- Ih rough the',Meloe located left of right -turn larks for on•shoulder alternative. 5 CO 119 to US 287 Hover St/95th Ave Intersection Improvements Currently signalised. Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: • Add second through lane in each direction on CO 52 (secondary through lanes terminate) Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvenent(s) •Evaluate bicycle detection fzr on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative. •Improve crossing for left -tuning bicycists -Include bike lanes through the Intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. 6 US 287 to County Line Rd U5 287 - Option 1 intersection Improvements IlradmvnaI Configuration) Bar Condition (7radiihnal nrrerucr an improvements}, Dual lilt -rums on all approaches, two -through tarn, cltanneltlyy right -turn lanes (CO 52 secondary through lanes terminate in 2•Lane alternative -O. - Stgndicant queuing, in partrular doe to hoary souttibound left -turn movements 1550 • Boo vphl, resen in hunlenerkigndleek rnmlitians. Grade Separated lmefSertirH' WautC unprove operations red even minimal Footprint options have signdirant infrastructure needs. Pad mt+wn/Bfyyele Improvereeni{S) •Evaluate bicycle detection fpr on shredder alrematwe and potent.' signal to multiuse path ailednative. •Indudc hike lanes through+he rnter..ecuen located sett o: right -turn lanes for on-.rwuid er ahemawr. 7 US 287 to County Line Rd US 287 - Option 2 Intersection Improvements (Non-Traditional Configuration) Continuous Flaw Inter:ederi was modeled and could suhctannai'ly improve operations 1Lfy5 F to LOS Ci- Pedestrian/Bicycle tram oven' eiers1 •Fvatuate hrvide detection for on•shoukfer Aherne twe ale! potential slpma' for multiuse path alternative. •Indudc bike lanes through •he Intersechon'pgted real of right -turn lanes Ina on•showldet alternative. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 County Line Rd to WCR 7 County Line Rd to WCR 7 County Line Rd to WCR 7 County Line Rd to WCR 7 WCR 7 t I-25 SB FR WCR 7 to I-25 SB FR I-25 NB FR to Silver Birch (York) Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 County Line Rd WCR3 WCR 5 County Line Rd to WCR 7 WCR7 WCR 7 to I-25 5B FR I-25 NB FR to Silver Birch (York) Silver Birch Rd (York) Colorado Blvd Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements 4 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening Intersection Improvements 6 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening 6 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Currently signalized. Assuming 4 -Lane cross section (2 -Lanes west of intersection): • Add second through lane in each direction on CO 52 (secondary lanes to terminate on 2 -Lane approaches) • Maintain separate left and right -turn lanes - Add dual southbound left -turns, maintain single northbound left -turn lane, add right -turn lanes - Add seond through lane in each direction on CLR (secondary lanes terminate beyond intersection). Now: Significant growth projected at this location Widening CLR provides more. bandwidth for CO 52 movements Narrower CLR cross sections would likely lead to significant side- ssreet delays without providing dual left -turn lanes at 0O 52, which would also necessitate widening an CLR to provide receiving lanes. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement(s) •Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative. •Fo: multiuse path alternative, prowde bicycle crossing rmprovemepts for eastbound brcydists to transition from multiuse path to shoulder ]rergatron Ditch Expected to remain unsignalized Add eastbound right -turn decel, and accel lane on eastbound CO 52 for northbound to eastbound right -turn movement. Add westbound left -turn lane. Note: Lane recommendations per CDOT access code PedestrianlBlcrcic Improvernrntry1 Include hiititi Fstrr•prai!_Ihpiat,i eron locfed Icfr n,r•'¢hr-rurp lanHn�ror onohauingr_;elernatirr. kgnalixe mtersectron when warrants are met {currently unsignalized) ',Minting 4 -Lane Cross Section: -Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes. • Add left -turn and right -turn lanes on WCR 5. Pedrss r+a n/Bicycle Ins provementfs3 • Include hike lanes through the mrersevwn located left of ngh Hur,. lanes For on•shouider alternative. Roadway Project Curren:Iv signalized. Assuming4-Lane cross section to west, 6 -Lane cross section to east: •Add eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes- - Westbound right -turn lane -drop - Eastbound right -turn lane -add Pedestrian/RLrtcfe Imryrova mend • Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative and potential signal for multiuse path alternative •Inctu de bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder altemative • Improve blcycie connections to the north Currently sign afited Assurynng 6 -Lane cross section to west, 4 -Lane cross section to east: • Provide eastbound dual left -turn lane (Add left -turn lane and northbound receiving lane (terminates)- -Add northbound right -turn lane. - Eastbound right -turn lane -drop • Westbound right -turn lane -add, - Expand northbound and southbound storage to accommodate queues. aeries: ria of Olcvcis :mar ovement(s ) • Evahl ate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative • rn dude bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians •Install turn islands and provide pedestrian accessibility improvements at intersection. Curve ntlynynalL:ed Aswmrng 4 -Lane Cross Section: -All approaches to have dual left -turn lanes, two thru lanes, and a channelized right -turn lane- Redestnanl&cycle Improve merrrt:l •Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative - •Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder alternative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians •Consider tunnel or ped/bike bridge for Old Railroad Trail, 17 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 Glen Creighton/Frederick Way Intersection mprovements Currently signalized Assuming 4 -Lane Cross Section: -Add southbound left -turn lane. - Extend northbound storage and modify lane designations for one left -turn, shared left-turn/thin lane, and right -turn lane (maintains split phasing) - Maintain eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes. Note: Proximity to WCR 15 suggests westbound right -turn auxiliary lane between intersections Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement(s) •Evaluate bicycle detection for on -shoulder alternative •Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of right -turn lanes for on -shoulder altemative or bring bikes to the intersection and have them cross with pedestrians •Future connection to proposed off-street paved trail to the north •Provide pedestrian accessiblity improvements at intersection 18 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 WCR 15 Intersection Improvements Signalise mterse Mon wham warrant: are rnet(currently vnagnahzed]. Assuming 4 -Lane Goss Section - Secondary i hrough la n o terminal. east of in mix -olio.,.,- 2 -Lane a ll ern Ritre'i • Add northbound Ieh-turn lane • Add soul hhewn d left -turn and rq;hi-turn lanes - Maintain westbound rrghi-1 urn lane Pedestrian/ Bicycle improve meet(%) •rnclude Luke lanes through the micrsechon tetated left or right -turn lanes for on Lhoulder utlernatrve •Prov,de pedestrian accessibility improve menis at mtersemon •Fur ury connection to propCcd off•si reel paved trail ii CM n. • tna.sll dMorut vilihillty Un C SO'+lmentt. 19 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 Silver Birch (York) to WCR 15 4 -Lane Widening Shoulder Widening Roadway Project 20 WCR 15 to WCR 19 Reverse Curves - Option 1 Realignment (4% Superelcvatlon) Roadway Project 21 WCR 15 to WCR 19 Reverse Curves - Option 2 Realignment (06 Superelevation) Roadway Project 22 WCR 15 to WCR 19 WCR 15 to WCR 19 2 -Lane Resurfacing Shoulder Widening llnteriml Roadway Project 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WCR 19 to US 85 WCR 19 to US 85 US 85 to Denver Ave try 85 to Denver Ave Denver Ave to WCR 31 Denver Ave to WCR 31 WM 19 to US 85 WCR 19 to US 85 WCR 19 to US 85 WCR 19 to US 85 US 85 to Drover Ave US 85 to Denver Ave LIS 85 to Denver Ave US 85 to Denver Ave WCR 19 to US 85 WCR 19 to US 85 Through Fort Lupton Through Fort Lupton Denver Ave to WCR 31 Denver Ave to WCR 3] WCR 19 WCR 19 WCR 23 Pedestrian linderpass wen of US 8S US 85 Interchange r, rand Ave full on 5troc[ Grand Ave to Denver Ave 4•Lane Widening Shoulder Widening 2 Lua• Resurfacing Shoulder Widening(Irtteriml 2H.ano Resurfacing Urban 4•Canc Wrdening Urban 4 -Lane widening Urban 2•larie Resurfacing Shoulder Widening Llntormj. Culvert Replacement In progress] Intersettion Improvements Intersection Improvements Mul[modeI Conn onions inter sertion Improvements In [enaction Improvements n ter;{r;I Inn I prOvcmenl5 MuurmodaI Ped Connections Roadway Project Roadway Project Roadway Project Roadway Project Roadway Project Roadwav Project Roadway Project Sign aheu rn[ersectign when warrants are met lcutrently unslgr„tlrtod) Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: • Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes • Add northbound and southbound left -turn lane Note High volume for 2 -Lane facility Consider adding auxiliary thru lane at intersection in 2 -Lane alternative RM estron/airvcir Im provement(s) • Intlude u•ke lanes through the intemen inn located let of ripjtt•turn lanes for on,houtder altemn[sve Say+xlrre rnreraeninn when warrants are met (rurrently untignaliiedi Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes Add northbound and southbound left -turn lane !vote. High volume for 2 -Lane facility Consider adding auxiliary thru lane at intersection in 2 -Lane alternative Pedestrian/0icycle Improvement(s) :Include bike lanes through the intersection located left of reels -turn lanes lnr on -shoulder at[ernatrc= Roadway Project Cur m ntty Sign:t6)ed Assuming 2 -Lane Cross Section: Widen bridge west of interchange to 4 -Lanes to extend eastbound storage and westbound auxiliary lane Add westbound thru lane under bridge to allow for northbound dual -left -turn lanes Consider adding northbound right -turn lane on ramp • Extend westbound left -turn lane storage through Grand Avenue intersection (Grand Avenue to RIRO) Iniertecnon pranmity h=twenn US 85• 6. -and. and Fulton w ill require cocrdmauon. Currently unsiynali:ed, elisnt intersection within 250.1 of US 85 ramps Restrict access to 3/4 movement (not recommended) or RIRO (recommended) Accommodating left -turns from sidestreet would require signal to be combined with US 85 signal due to proximity (not recommended) Hole: Assumed RIRO in models due to excessive delay for side -street movements Traffic rerouted to Fulton Avenue Pedestria nl&cycle Improvement(s) . Atu Riuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements Inter•-ccnon piVat,mity between US 85• Grand. and Fulton will renuue coardmauwn. 5lgn slim Int er5M.Cnnn;when warrants are met (currently unsy,nalrtcd) Assummg 2 -Lane or 4 -Lane Cross Section: • Provide left -turn lanes from Fulton Street and a southbound right -turn lane to accommodate redirected traffic Note Location has the potential to meet signal warrants with or without traffic redirected from Grand Avenue v=dectrranlRltycle Improvement(s) ..Multiuse path and pedestrian crossing improvements Intersection ',mammy between US 85, (id DM and Full on will require CO. dinatmn • Insrall multi MP path crossing improvements *Consider a bicytie signal at snjnalrted intersections for the proonsed multi use oath Lan the north side 37 I Denver Ave to WCR 31 WCR 295 lmcrurPon Improvements an certify ldnugnalard Assum mg 7 -Lane CfG5s &ea is. ft Add eastbound and we stbo J n d sigh:loin tangy &lend ea4lhound and **Mound le;tt•torn lanes • Add northbound and northbeund 1.•h•furn lanes WM' Per CDDT Access Caen Prete:I na n/eucrc,c Improvers ent{sl *Multiuse path and 0ed estr 1i if uu5yi I improvements 38 WCR 19 to US 85 Strpctum D -t7-1 {&tags Oder South Platte) Structure Tlealarrment Su 'saws W'denim RwrlwaY ProjeCt 39 ao 41 42 43 44 45 46 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 31 to WCR 43 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 31 to WCR 43; Holly to WCR 49 Through Hudson WCR 31 WCR 37 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 41 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR 31 to WCR 49 WCR e5 Railroad Pedestrian Crossing 4.ta no WI d-emng flume) Shoulder Widening 24a ne Resurfadng !Amider Widening 2 -Lane Widening Urban int c+snYrn Imps orrmeni� Intersection Improvements Interwcuon Improvements (tn Progress) Intet:enmrs Improvements MunrmodaI Ped Connections 1 Roadway Project Roadway Project Roadway Project Currently tin signah:ed Aw.umrrlg. 2 -lane Cross Section: Ado southbound right-tum lane • Extend lanes to Access Code standards P�•deslrn.n,rgicvclr hs+pro.-mrnHyr •Multiuse path begins to the west Bicycles on shoulder to the east • Pt°vide bicycle [torpor. mpro.cmenta for Castbound bt_rytIrbytpIra ns n pn from multiuse path to shoulder currently unsignal iced rssum,ng 2 -lane Cross Section: Add eastbound and westbound left -turn and right -turn lanes Add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes tlirie Per CDOT Access Code P,00stoanld,tycfc tmpriyc rne. 5} • Include bike lanes through the intersection Ipca tcd lett of tighl•tun+ lanes tot on shoulder atlername Ped est., n(RKyele Improvem ent1}} . rnriyde hike rents shrou¢h L rjatemenor. IOC -t req 1eh of Neht•ryrn r2r iw on,houldei ahenratrr. SEyalual, bi rte detection for on-svouleler_a iternatrde Currently Vr.Pehelr,cd tasumrrtg 2 -Lane Cross Section: Add eastbound right -turn Add westbound left -turn Note Per CDOT Access Code Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement(s) •Prur.de uo iing+mnrovements • Ensure Like facility crosse,.trxeks at 66 - 96 degree=. •Include srPrliar treatment for westbound bicyclists as the canting path on Ilse South udo for easbound bKydisa- •Pntential to utilize exnnng trail on the south side of 52 Iwouhf require wa yfu+dingiguiding westbound hlcydrsts to usr existing cros:mgs at lierch it and Hodson Dip 47 `• N i ? c oa 3 WCR 49 to CO 79 WCR ;9 to CO 79 2.lane Resur=acing Sfqulder Widening RoadwaY Preiea 48 WYF 49 ro CO 79 WCR 53 rnrersenion i•nprwernrnrs iurrentiy tlnsrgriaGred assuming 2 -Lane •:-r cos °,.e[lron -Add emitxuaw light -turn . Add westLourid Left. turn Note; Per COOT Access Code Pedestrun/arytk Imyrovemrntl:l -ardude Like lanes rhr.0 the 'thereon Han located felt ol nght•sum lames for on -shoulder alternative 09 WCR 49 to Co 79 WCR 59 • •)prron 1 tnxnecssnn • nstra.cmenes UT.Idnianal Lennie,' anon L Rase {anMion: Stop Centroll<d.nth ear-thmami shared left-non/dim tans and mgrs -r urn Fans, we- t4ovnd letignrn Lane, westbovrrr) accef tang for northbound loft -turn movemtnf Slgnaliranun: Ours net meet warrant, lout recRmrnendedI unsrpraklred: Cons derafinn for northbound and southbound left -turn lane could negaterely impact sigh: distance or create conflict vet': roman; trucks Visibility Improvemenit Consider overhead span wire cow r Him signal lmainllne yellow, srdestreet red) of otter into rscrtion visibility rmprwemenrs. Peet tn&ii-an(ck Improyem_ st .rnstsll bicycle trossrng neatnents fu leh•turn_ arrro/alt of CO 52 5P WCR 49 to CO 7‘) WCR 55 • 7ptrpn ? intersect Wn T.ruyyc l ntnlr IRaundaboarti Rptindappyt Single lane high-speed r aurniabout woold allow for f+gnrtkant safety improvements whdea rming con ystenr operation throughout file day Pedestrian/&Lytle lm proven, -ntfsl •Install bleecki trussing rreatnrnrs Ica lettAionsanru/off of CO 52 5.1 WCR 49 to CO 79 CO 73 in lerkp ien'•nprpptmCnt5 Vlore: ROW :nd Irr43an/tn KTYCij lfrr$anen ditch ns.reSl ROW issues Cyrrentty LI rKrgnall:e'a Assumlr S.}. Law Criss: 5.11 n- - Alkd title, per auras code yrndmg e'+alttal me el ROW al1C,WIS Note: No operahonal deRncncies romd. f ed estrrardgioscle Ian provrim -rat i:y •Prbide pedc5Vtan a[tassibl fly rmprbyCmen:: p Se` WCR 4$lu Co 79 Sndgc AL MP 3Z 825 Sirutlure RerdaLCTM1en! Raadway ProfeR Funding Reference Federal Competitive Grants Number Description Key Criteria Schedule Total Funds Available / Applicable Project Typical Award Categories - 1 2 3 USDOT RAISE Grant USDOT INFRA Grant FHWA Competitive Highway Bridge Program Projects that leverage resources, encourage partnership, catalyze investment and growth, fill a critical void in the transportation system or provide a substantial benefit. Projects that address critical issues facing our nation's highway and bridges, specifically highway and freight projects of national or regional significance. By law, the funds are restricted to states with a population density of less than 100 people per square mile. Colorado is one of the 25 states that qualify. The funds must be used for highway bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects on public roads that leverage the efficiencies associated with "bundling" at least two highway bridge projects into a single contract. Merit criteria include safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, economic competitiveness. state of good repair, innovation, and partnership. Within these criteria, USDOT will prioritize projects that can demonstrate improvements to racial equity, reduce impacts of climate change, and create good -paying jobs. Criteria focus on economic vitality, climate change and environmental justice, racial equity, leveraging Federal funding to attract non -Federal sources, innovation, and performance. Selection criteria include innovation, support for economic vitality, lifecycle cost and state of good repair, and project readiness. Current application cycle: July 12, 2021 Most recent application cycle: March 19, 2021 Most recent application cycle: December 4, 2018 Total available nationwide (this cycle): $900 million; historically the largest awards have been approximately $20 million, and the average award has been $10 to $12 million. Total available nationwide (last cycle): $889 million in 2021 funds, and up to $150 million remaining from prior authorizations; 2020 awards ranged from $6 million to $35 million (20% to 56% of total costs) in the Small Project category, and from $25 million to $135 million (4% to 60% of total costs) in the Large Project category Total available nationwide (last cycle): $225 million 2019 awards ranged from $2 million to $33 million Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation Capital: Roadway (specifically improving freight and goods movement) Capital: Roadway Funding Reference Number FHWA Formula Grants: Programmed by DRCOG & NFRMPO Description / Eligible Expenses Annual Funding Estimates Applicable Project Categories 4 FHWA - Surface Transportation Program (STP)-Metro Provides funds for constructing new streets or widening. improving, or reconstructing existing streets classified as Federal Aid Eligible (FAF) freeways. highways. arterials, or collectors. Funds can also be used for bridge replacement: intersection improvements; projects which reduce traffic demand such as transit capital improvements and active transportation and other projects as provided for in federal law. Programmed Funding 2019: $41 7 M Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation 5 FHWA — Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Provides a flexible funding source, to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requir rments of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Au Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonanainment areas) and for farmer nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas) programmed Funding 2019: $42.6 M Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation 6 FHWA — Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (note: CDOT also awards TAP Funding — see below) Frovides funding for a variety of smalfer-scale transportation projects such as pildestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails. safe routes is s hoot protects. community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity. Programmed Funding 2019: $2 4 M Capital: Active Transportation Funding Reference Number FHWA Formula Grants: Programmed by CDOT Description / Eligible Expenses Annual Funding Estimates Applicable Project Categories 7 FHWA —TAP (Note: DRCOG and NFRMPO also award TAP Funding- see above) Provides funding for projects that enhance safety and expand options for non -drivers, mitigate environmental impacts, and convert former interstate Facilities to new uses. Examples include on- and off - road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non -driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities (historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to storm water and habitat connectivity); recreational trail projects; and safe routes to school projects. Programmed Funding FY 2018-19: $13.9 M Capital: Active Transportation Reference Number CDOT !Revenue Allocation Programs Description 1 Eligible Expenses Annual Funding Estimates Construction Programs (Asset Management, Safety, and Mobility) Applicable Project Categories $ Asset Management: Surface Treatment Provides funding to maintains the quality of the pavement on state highways at the highest possible level. Department staff utilizes pavement management software and annual data collection to make recommendations on the segments of the state highway system should be prioritized for rehabilitation. Programmed Funding FY 2021-22 $223M Capital: Roadway 9 Asset Management: Structures Provides funding for the inspection and inventory of the statewide structures, manages all essential repairs and critical findings for statewide structural asset programs, and evaluates permits required for oversize and overweight vehicles. Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $62M Capital: Roadway 10 Asset Management: Systems Operations Funding to implement new and innovative technology, deploy and integrating statewide Intelligent Technology Systems (ITS), incorporate automated performance measures, and extend technical resources to CDOT regions in the areas of traffic signal and ramp metering. This program also leads and/or participates in the development and implementation of arterial and freeway management strategies throughout the state.. Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $34M Capital: Roadway y 11 Asset Management: Geohazards Mitigation Funding to design mitigation plans, review consultant designs, perform site inspections during construction, respond to rock falls, and other geological hazards- related emergencies. Other work includes responding to requests from Maintenance, Engineering, and the public when slope issues are observed. Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $10M Capital: Roadway y 12 Asset Management: Permanent Water Quality Management Provides funding to treat pollution in stormwater from CDOT roadways before it flows into Colorado's rivers, lakes and streams Pollutants from CDOT roadways includes oil and grease, copper, any fluids from vehicles, lead and chloride. Programmed Fundirg FY 2021-22: $7M Capital: Roadway 13 Safety: Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding for project that will achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all publicly maintained roads. This includes public roads not owned by the state and roads on tribal lands. programmed Fundirg FY 2021-22: $33M Capital: Roadway 14 Safety: Rail -Highways Crossings Program Funds projects that eliminate the hazards at railway - highway crossings. The purpose of this program is to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities at public crossings throughout the state. Programmed Fundirg FY 2021-22: $4M Capital: Roadway 15 Safety: Hot Spots Provides funding to mitigate minor unforeseen issues that need immediate attention, as well as add funding to ongoing projects for unforeseen safety issues discovered during the project implementation process. Programmed Fundirg FY 2021-22: $2M Capital: Roadway 16 Safety: FASTER Bridge Funding for bridge replaement projects Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $?M Capital: Bridges 17 Safety: FASTER Safety Funding for road safety projects including pavement and other asset management projects, intersection and interchange improvements, shoulders and safety- related widening, and wildlife fencing programmed Fundirg FY 2021-22: $69M Capital: Roadway 18 Safety: ADA Compliance Funds ADA programs or activities including but not limited to roadways, contiguous walkways, intersections, rest areas, roadside emergency telephones, public conveyances such as buses and light rail, and literature related to any of these. Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $7M Capital: Roadway, Transit, and Active Transportation 19 Mobility: Regional Priority Program Supplements the formula -driven funding allocations to the five CDOT engineering regions with flexible state funding. This funding is used at the discretion of each Regional Transportation Director, in consultation with local elected officials and other stakeholders in each region. RPP funds are distributed to the CDOT Regions according to a formula that is weighted on these factors: 50 percent population, 35 percent state highway system lane miles, and 15 percent state highway system truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $48M Capital: Roadway, Freight, Transit and Active Transportation 20 Mobility: Strategic Projects Funding from General Fund transfers that primarily goes to strategic construction projects. Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $450M Capital: Roadway, Freight, Transit and Active Transportation 21 Mobility: National Highway Freight Program Funding to improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) The NHFN includes the interstates, several small segments of other corridors important to freight movement, and approximately 240 miles of Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Corridors to be designated by the state Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $23M Capital: Freight Suballocated Programs (Highway and TransWMuftimodal) 22 Highway: STP - Metro DRCOG and NFRMPO select project to receive funding (see Table 2) 23 Highways: CMAQ Program DRCOG and NFRMPO select project to receive funding (see Table 2) 24 Highways: Bridge Off- System The Joint Highway Commission oversees the program and accepts project applications on an annual basis The program improves public safety and reduces ongoing maintenance costs associated with aging infrastructure. The structure must be a . location on a rural minor collector or urban or rural local road. Programmed Funding FY 2021 -22: $11 M Capital: Roadway 25 Transit and Multimodal: Safe Routes to School Funds projects that improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists in school areas, and encourage children in K-8 to safely bicycle and walk to and from school. programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $3 M Capital: Active Transportation 26 Transit and Multimodal: TAP (Note: DRCOG and NFRMPO also award TAP Funding- see above) Provides funding for projects that enhance safety and expand options for non -drivers, mitigate environmental impacts, and convert former interstate facilities to new uses. Examples include on- and off - road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non -driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities (historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to storm water and habitat connectivity); recreational trail projects; and safe routes to school projects programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $12 M Capital: Active Transportation 2� Transit and Multimodal: Transit Grant Program Funding for projects to purchase or replacement of transit vehicles, construction of multimodal stations, and acquisition of equipment for consolidated call centers. programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $50 M Capital: Transit 28 Transit and Multimodal: Multimodal Options Program Senate Bill 18-001 allocated $94.25 million to the Multimodal Transportation Options Fund. Of this funding, 85 percent ($80.12 million) must be used for local multimodal projects, and 15 percent ($14 13 million) must be used for statewide multimodal projects Programmed Funding FY 2021-22: $0 M (funding authorized in SB 18-001 totaled $94.25 M) Capital: Transit Funding Reference Number Existing Taxes Description Initial Comments A Property Tax For a specific project or projects. increase city-wide Funding Reference Number Value Capture Sources ro • e tax to fund the improvements. Description Initial Comments B Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Property tax revenues generated beyond an established baseline are pledged specifically for infrastructure -related improvements within an area or district. C Development Mitigation / Impact Fees A one-time charge imposed by local governments to mitigate the impact on local infrastructure caused by new development. Growth in the form of new homes and businesses requires expansion or enlargement of public facilities to maintain the same level and quality of public services for all residents of a community. Impact fees help fund expansion of public facilities necessary to accommodate new growth D Real Estate Transfer Tax A tax is collected whenever the ownership of a property changes. This tax typically reflects a percentage of the sale price. Current rate is 0.01% in Colorado E Land Contribution or Other Asset Sales Revenues generated from the disposition of excess land owned by counties, cities, or local agencies. Right-of-way contributions are also possible. Funding Reference Number Private Sector Funding Description i Initial Comments F Developer Contributions Private developers along project alignments may pay fxr enhanced access/connection to transportation facilities. Especially applicable to adjacent retail developments. LA ',Won't] tgnrr.n. II.,. mg u :p 1Kg+en:z 1 Ea .t- 4 13 y,^r.,:1 n.B f= • -Lk., Nw�..g imLc•shlm- -.weeper-2, 19 Segment Sher Birch IVorRI to WCP 15 MOW Segment 2 Silver Birch Work) to wcR B L9 21 segment z wcR ss to wcP 39 4Cr.+r 1 .3 Segmentto u3 W [P ]9 s P5 }i � :egwr•a ] .� 26 Segmen[3 y]Y. WL's 19 to USW -s•l'•'C.-.sow AA Air -Orel., 2 -me row slasisk !L Segment US Bs to CienverAve i:, w. f • 2e xememt3 TiMrAf•al-WA., 1: penve� Ave m wCP 9t Iegmen[ 3 W[R ssrous gs v Whys: 1r Ls � SI u. Segment 3 WCP ]9 ro U5 BS 2 -Lane Resurfacing sM1oylder wry .i 'SKI IS I L1 r , r. T 33 s .ment 3 ` USWNto Denver Ave 34 • «e Improvements Segment 3 US BS to Dower Ave c Improvements G 1,rolr 4r SegmDenveent vem WCR 31 segment 3 WCR W to US B6 AC+3L •o ,si• 21 3[rr N.Pier yNr- mo °° I�erR3] 8ment4 row R49 ix3l ro wOrna; nary m vvCR a9 Iw ro cng ISM1 'Shoulder Widening r j . i. 'Segment.: �5e�n't •e wre as 'Through Hudson T me �urh,., Widening . a r r r — . �w[p :WM. IW'CR 31 'Intersection Improvements r r I r r r s r r i 43 -: ..• ...,, IWCR 3, 'Intersrcddn improwmenR I 44 -- — 46 Segmerrt4 WC0.44 ° WCR 41 '•v..Kre ImProwments r r . . . �ge`�� me R9k°ro.dur 69 Segment4 Iw[R3k nW[R.9 IWCR45 1 I r r Railroad Pedestrian Crossing Mul[modal Ped Connection • r •.epw,4. .xa 4R k.0 iwcR a5 to [ors "2-ure xewrraang Snar as w,den,n9 %inn%! Wm e, , jNCR 53 <.r.n . m.,lr r r r r •1 . ., ..,m.M, ~ 9-Opdpnl .e tGnlmpmwmenR ,roa'n ' r r t . • s r • a r . . I , . 4-�• .J ss,8r4a-rn9 en m:t ]h NCR 59- Option l Intersection lmpowmen[s l Roundahourl • a . r s r r . a r S] yu MI -Ors Improvements I,N"•.e and l..,gaxon lssuecl • • - •1 -IM....,[01•1 ., _ .p. a5 MA... CV., mgearmY3:tl2a ..�. .._ti..ar._...� r r e r a I r Appendix I: Agency Coordination and Public Engagement Report 1. Agency Coordination and Public Engagement Report 1A. Action Item and Decision Log 1B. Biweekly Updates 1C. Communications Coordination 1D. Meeting Notes 1E. Coalition Updates 1F. Resource Agency Letters 1G. Public Open Houses Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix I -A Action Item and Decision Log Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix I Biweekly Updates Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from C0119 to CO 79 Appendix I Communications Coordination Planning and Environmental Linkages Study CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix I Meeting Notes Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix I -E Coalition Updates Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix I Resource Agency Letters Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 Appendix I -G Public Open Houses Planning and Environmental Linkages Study I CO 52 from CO119 to CO 79 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN REPORT CO 52: Co 119 to Co 79 November 2021 Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 4 Colorado Department of Transportation 10601 W 10th St Greeley, CO 80634 Prepared by: CO 52 PEL/ACP Project Team CDOT Subaccount #: 21656 Muller Project Number: 20-010.01 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Access Control Plan 1 1.2 State Highway 52 Coalition and PEL/ACP Development 2 1.3 Access Control Plan Limits 2 2 POLICY AND PURPOSE 3 2.1 Purpose 3 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 3.1 Existing Access Condition 4 3.2 Existing Road Network 6 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes 7 3.4 Existing Speed Limits 8 3.5 Existing Traffic Operations 8 4 FORECASTED CONDITIONS 11 4.1 Traffic Volume Forecast 11 4.2 2045 Level of Service (LOS) Evaluation 12 5 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION 13 5.1 Agency Coordination Engagement and Findings 13 5.2 Public Coordination and Engagement Findings 15 6 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 20 6.1 Implementation Strategy 20 6.2 Access Control Methods 21 6.3 Access Recommendations 23 7 AMENDMENT PROCESS 25 8 LITERATURE CITED 26 List of Figures FIGURE 1-1-1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP 2 FIGURE 3-1. FULL MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 4 FIGURE 3-2. 3/4 MOVEMENT INTERSECTION 4 FIGURE 3-3. RIGHT -IN RIGHT -OUT INTERSECTION 5 FIGURE 3-4. ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION 5 FIGURE 3-5. GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION 5 FIGURE 5-1. PROJECT COMMUNICATION 13 FIGURE 5-2. VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE #1 POSTCARD 15 FIGURE 5-3. VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE #2 POSTCARD 17 FIGURE 6-1 ACP PROCESS 20 FIGURE 6-2. ACP PROCEDURE 21 FIGURE 6-3. ACCESS CONSOLIDATION: AFTER 21 FIGURE 6-4. ACCESS CONSOLIDATION: BEFORE 21 FIGURE 6-5. ACCESS CONVERSION: BEFORE 22 FIGURE 6-6. ACCESS CONVERSION: AFTER 22 FIGURE 6-7. ACCESS ELIMINATION: BEFORE 22 FIGURE 6-8. ACCESS ELIMINATION: AFTER 22 FIGURE 6-9. ACCESS RELOCATION: AFTER 23 FIGURE 6-10. ACCESS RELOCATION: BEFORE 23 FIGURE 6-11. PARALLEL ACCESS ROUTE: BEFORE 23 FIGURE 6-12. PARALLEL ACCESS ROUTE: AFTER 23 List of Tables TABLE 3-1 EXISTING AND 2045 NO ACTION DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SELECT LOCATIONS 8 TABLE 3-2. EXISTING (YEAR 2019) AND 2045 NO ACTION TRAVEL TIMES 9 TABLE 4-1: EXISTING COUNTS AND 2045 DAILY VOLUME FORECAST it TABLE 4-2. 2020 AND 2045 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) 12 Appendices APPENDIX A. CO 52 ACCESS INVENTORY TABLE 0 APPENDIX B. ACCESS CONTROL PLAN MAPBOOK 0 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Access Control Plan An Access Control Plan (ACP) is a long-range planning document that designates preferred access locations in accordance with the State of Colorado Highway Access Code (State of Colorado, 2002) along a highway corridor that will improve safety and mobility for the traveling public. The consolidation and location of accesses can eliminate and/or greatly reduce the number of conflict points on a roadway, improving corridor safety. Congestion reduction can be achieved by consolidating access locations which causes side road traffic to concentrate at a single location to enter and exit the highway, reducing congestion and improving mobility. ACPs for state highways are binding agreements adopted by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the local authorities through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Access along Colorado State Highways, such as Colorado State Highway 52 (CO 52), is typically administered by CDOT on a case -by -case basis, as prescribed by the State Highway Access Code. The State Highway Access Code prescribes that CDOT nr a Inral authnrity may develop an ACP for a segment of highway that defines access locations, level of access, and traffic control for future conditions. An ACP provides CDOT and the local authorities with the opportunity to develop a single transportation plan that considers multiple access points along a segment of highway as a network rather than as individual access points. Corridor -specific issues such as intersection spacing, traffic movements, circulation, land use, topography, alternative access opportunities and other local planning documents, may be considered in developing the plan. ACPs do not define capacity improvements, off -network improvements, or funding sources for access improvements. However, in combination with a Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL), these elements can be considered in conjunction with the ACP. Each of the signers of the IGA agree to abide by the ACP. ACPs are living documents that can be amended in the future through the amendment process prescribed in the IGA. The CO 52 ACP is being completed from Milepost (MP) 0.00 (at the intersection of CO 52 and CO 119) to MP 41.94 (at the intersection of CO 52 and CO 79). This process is concurrent with the CO 52 PEL. PELs are a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiative that were created to support transportation decision -makers to consider environmental, community, and economic goals early in the transportation planning process so that projects can be implemented in the future under the NEPA process in a streamlined manner (FHWA, 2015). Through the PEL process, stakeholders can identify a corridor vision, define the purpose and need for the PEL process, and recommend future transportation improvements that reflect the needs and goals developed of the corridor. CDOT signed a Partnering Agreement with FHWA and several other federal and state agencies to encourage the use of a PEL approach in an effort to expedite transportation project implementation under NEPA, while adhering to agency procedures for project reviews and comments (CDOT, 2009). The PEL and ACP processes shared the following components in their development: • Understanding of existing corridor conditions • Understanding of future operational needs ■ Coordination with stakeholders • Identification of partnerships and opportunities Additionally, public engagement was conducted together for the PEL and ACP, allowing the public to learn about, submit comments, or ask questions about either process at the same time. 1.2 State Highway 52 Coalition and PEL/ACP Development The State Highway 52 Coalition (SH 52 Coalition) formed in 2018 when local agencies along the corridor recognized the need to coordinate along this stretch of CO 52 where growth and development is leading to increased congestion and safety issues. Local agencies along the corridor include Boulder and Weld Counties, Erie, Frederick, Dacono, Fort Lupton, Hudson, and Keenesburg. These local agencies were integral to the PEL/ACP, providing input and feedback throughout the project process. This PEL/ACP provides an understanding of transportation problems along the corridor, a collaboratively developed vision for the future corridor, and potential projects to implement that vision. 1.3 Access Control Plan Limits The ACP is focused along 42 miles of the CO 52 corridor between CO 119 north of Boulder in Boulder County and CO 79 east of the Town of Hudson in Weld County (Figure 1-1). CO 52 interchanges with I-25, US 85, and I-76 in Weld County. CO 52 is a major east -west connection corridor for the region, which is experiencing an increase in residential and commercial development. The corridor provides critical access from residential and rural areas to business centers, as well as commercial freight from industrial centers along the corridor. flli ox! e acyl.l91 ITraffic Signal 44aao.ac.,,sxg a„zc,v,Obwn, Figure 1-1-1. Project Location Map 85� k dvr r,,,sri 9uPs,m:e ExxIng 9a, lw,re ; School/Caeca 2 POLICY AND PURPOSE 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the ACP is to identify the location, type, and movements for future access points along the corridor in order to provide reasonable access to adjacent properties while maintaining safe and efficient movement for all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians). The proposed future access points should accommodate developing technologies and strive to complement adjacent community context. According to the State Highway Access Code, CDOT is required to provide reasonable access when alternative access to the public street system does not exist and is not obtainable. The State Highway Access Code also allows CDOT to modify existing access points by restricting access movements in order to improve safety and traffic operations. Changes in access are discussed in Section 2.6: 'Changes in Land Use and Access Use' of the State Highway Access Code: "The Department or issuing authority may, when necessary for the improved safety and operation of the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or relocate any access, or redesign the highway including any auxiliary lane and allowable turning movement. The permittee and or current property owner will be notified of the change." (State of Colorado, 2002) 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Data derived from the CO 52 PEL Existing Conditions Report provided a vital understanding of existing conditions along the corridor. The ACP used the information collected to evaluate existing and future traffic conditions along with local agency growth and development plans to recommend future access conditions. 3.1 Existing Access Condition More than 700 access points between MP 0 and MP 42 were identified and mapped using Google Earth. Each access point was labeled by the hundredth mile and an "N" (north) or "S" (south) designation denoting the direction of the access. In addition to the location, the intersection configuration was documented as either Full Movement Access, 3/ Movement, Right-in/Right-out (RI/RO), Roundabout or Grade Separated. The project team visited and verified access types and locations in August 2020. Figure 3-1. Full Movement Intersection Figure 3-2. 3/4 Movement Intersection Figure 3-3. Right -in Right -out Intersection Figure 3-4. Roundabout Intersection Figure 3-5. Grade Separated Intersection 3.2 Existing Road Network All access points identified within the study area are either a Public Way or Private Driveway. Per Section 1.5 of the State Highway Access Code, 'Public Way' is defined as "o highway, street, or road, open for use by the general public and under the control or jurisdiction of the appropriate local authority of Department and includes private roads open to the public"; while 'Private Driveway' is defined as "an access that is not a public street, road, or highway." Additionally, the State Highway Access Code recognizes that all sections of the study area are classified as one of the following: Regional Highway (R -A), Rural Highway (R -B), Non -Rural Principal Highway (NR -A) or Non -Rural Arterial (NR -B). According to the State Highway Access Code, Regional Highways (R -A) are governed by the following characteristics: ■ Capacity to handle medium to high travel speeds and relatively medium to high traffic volumes in a safe and efficient manner. • Provides interregional, intra-regional, and intercity travel needs. ■ Prioritizes providing service to through traffic movements over providing direct access to adjacent properties. • This category is normally assigned to National Highway System routes, significant regional routes in rural areas, and other routes of regional or state significance. Rural Highways (R -B) are governed by the following characteristics: • Capacity for moderate to high travel speeds and low traffic volumes • Provides for local rural travel needs • This category may be assigned to low volume minor arterials, secondary collectors and local highway sections that do not normally provide for significant regional, state or interstate travel demands. ■ These highways typically provide for rural transportation needs including, farm to market, farm to farm, and may include high speed rural frontage roads. Non -Rural Principal Highways (NR -A) are governed by the following characteristics: ■ Capacity for medium to high travel speeds and medium to high traffic volumes over long distances in a safe and efficient manner. • Provides for interregional, intra-regional, intercity, and intra-city travel needs in suburban and urban areas. • Provides service to through traffic movements rather than direct access to abutting properties. • Typically assigned to National Highway System routes, and other routes of regional or state significance. Non -Rural Arterial(NR-B) are governed by the following characteristics: • Capacity for moderate travel speeds and moderate to high traffic volumes • Provides service over short to medium travel distances for intercity, intracity and intercommunity travel needs • Appropriate for short sections of regional highways passing through rural communities • Typically assigned to short sections of regional highways that pass through rural communities • Allows for more direct access to properties along a highway For most access points that meet the established signal warrant criteria, the ACP maps note that the point has the potential to become a full -movement intersection, which may warrant signalization. According to the State Highway Access Code, signalized intersections along NR -A and R -A highways should be spaced 0.5 mile from each other. Due to preferred spacing requirement not all access points that meet the signal warrant criteria are appropriate locations for future traffic signals. 3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes in 2019 typically ranged from 12,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day in the western portion of the CO 52 corridor. East of I-25, traffic approaches 25,000 vehicles per day. Near Fort Lupton, there are approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. East of I-76, daily traffic ranges from nearly 2,000 vehicles to about 4,000 vehicles per day near CO 79. Overall daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on CO 52 between SH 119 and CO 79 was about 308,000 VMT in 2015. In 2045, the daily VMT on CO 52 is projected to increase to about 534,0000 VMT, a growth of 74 percent over 20015 VMT. In terms of growth in traffic volumes by general location, CO 52 in Boulder County is expected to carry about 18,000 to 30,000 daily vehicles —a projected growth of about 40 to 55 percent over 2015 conditions. The most dramatic growth is projected in Weld County between Colorado Boulevard and US 85, where traffic is projected to increase by over 90 percent in some sections. In the eastern -most section, the traffic west of I-76 is projected to grow substantially over current levels, generally by 6,000 or 7,000 vehicles per day. East of I-76, volumes are projected to increase by 1,500 vehicles per day or less. Based on the projections of increasing traffic volumes, it is apparent that access points will need to be modified to accommodate corridor growth. Existing and 2045 No Action daily traffic volumes at select locations are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Existing and 2045 No Action Daily Traffic Volumes at Select Locations Location _ - - -- _ - - `� = . -a.,,.._-..1... ` } - - �- =C harge - _ - { 1_ ,+3 2020 Est. Count 2045 No Action CO 119 to 95th Street 12,400 18,200 5,800 47% 95th Street to US 287 13,000 18,000 5,000 38% US 287 to County Line Road 19,000 26,700 7,700 41% County Line Road to I-25 19,600 29,900 10,300 53% I-25 to Colorado Boulevard 25,200 36,900 11,700 46% Colorado Boulevard to Ridgeway Blvd 15,800 29,600 13,800 87% Ridgeway Boulevard to WCR 19* 11,800 18,900 7,100 60% WCR 19 to US 85 11,600 21,600 10,000 86% US 85 to Rollie Ave 11,500 18,400 6,900 60% Rollie Ave to WCR 31* 11,500 18,700 7,200 63% WCR 31 to WCR 37* 10,300 16,600 6,300 61% WCR 37 to I-76 9,200 15,900 6,700 73% 1-76 to WCR 49 4,000 5,400 1,400 35% WCR 49 to WCR 59 3,100 4,100 1,000 32% WCR 59 to CO 79 2,000 2,800 800 40% *No count in this section, estimated based on upstream and downstream counts. Sources: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020: HDR, 2021 (2020 observed traffic count),(future volume) 3.4 Existing Speed Limits The posted speed is generally 55 miles per hour (mph) west of WCR 19 and 65 mph east of WCR 19. As CO 52 crosses urban areas such as Dacono, Frederick, Fort Lupton and Hudson, the posted speed limit ranges from 25 mph to 40 mph. 3.5 Existing Traffic Operations 3.5.1 Travel Times Existing traffic volumes are creating areas of congestion along the CO 52 corridor. Lack of adequate capacity at major intersections controlled by traffic signals is a major contributor to the congestion issues. The result is delay to the traveling public with lengthy queues at multiple locations along the corridor. With growth in future traffic volumes by year 2045 ranging from 30 percent to nearly 90 percent along the highway, travel times are projected to increase throughout the corridor under No Action conditions, especially along its western half. Existing and future travel times and travel time indices along the corridor are illustrated in Table 3-2. A travel time index measures the actual travel time compared to free -flow travel time with a value at or just above 1.0 indicating free -flow or near free -flow conditions while higher values indicate greater congestion. Table 3-2. Existing (Year 2019) and 2045 No Action Travel Times Location Length/ Free Flow Travel Time I • - --I • •, TraveTTi�ne In lylin'utes1Trave�Tirtie ndex) 1 1 .S. I.. ; _ ' - - — _ _ _ _ _ _ , — AM Peak I If-- lPM Deak.V L_ . —7 ��L `_ '►- r J►�l'w J1I` —, ; i- I _� • —_ `, r __ - --l"' - - a ;x r • Ex jps.:: - q( eY ar, - .: • I I"' y . .1� I�11 r �-_` —�7-11:::'=-.7..7.4"11.n% 42045aNr !Y o�, •fit. - i IAct10 is iP tinter L � - ^Fxi Ing i.. J t ear + •:-.r _..I F ��i1 se r�.� .:'204ST pi ',Action- I � L'_ !-E Ir N I I 11 .' —M -- 9 �Tiang ri I ' r - .I I, _ . 4I Eastbound CO 119 to County Line Road 7.2 mi/8.6 min 9.2 (1.1) 9.8 (1.1) 7% 10.7(1.2) 16.6 (1.9) 56% County Line Road to WCR 19 9.2 mi/12.4 min 14.0 (1.1) 23.0(1.9) 65% 15.1(1.2) 25.7(2.1) 71% WCR 19 to WCR 31 6.0 mi/ 12.1 min 13.7 (1.1) 16.5 (1.4) 21% 13.3(1.1) 14.8(1.2) 12% WCR 31 to WCR 49 9.2 mi/13.0 min 13.5 (1.0) 13.5 (1.0) 0% 13.2(1.0) 13.2 (1.0) 0% WCR 49 to CO 79 10.0 mi/7.2 min 7.5 (1.0) 7.5(1.0) 0% 7.4 (1.0) 7.4 (1.0) 0% till. 1 _ MOr�'ii' 53:3 min I IL -6.8 11 - MEW!. 22 •, • 'l�. � � - T —"-k _ _ _ . ... -rte.. -.. _ �Il — I1' i � i_ _x_IC 7..-=-- -i` •- ._. - .. I - ^ - -- Westbound CO 119 to County Line Road 7.2 mi/8.6 min 11.2(1.3) 18.3(2.1) 64% 9.7(1.1) 11.3(1.3) 16% County Line Road to WCR 19 9.2 mi/12.4 min 16.3(1.3) 26.6(2.1) 63% 13.5(1.1) 77.3(1.8) 66% WCR 19 to WCR 31 6.0 mi/ 12.1 min 13.4(1.1) 14.8(1.2) 10% 13.2(1.1) 15.8(1.3) 20% WCR 31 to WCR 49 9.2 mi/12.7 min 13.3(1.0) 13.3(1.0) 0% 13.3(1.0) 13.3(1.0) 0% WCR 49 to CO 79 10.0 mi/7.3 min 7.5(1.0) 7.5(1.0) 0% 7.5(1.0) 7.7(1.1) 2% i` _• _ 5E I � �r AVQ I 2r � � W r4�.70'3• �I .. • fY . Sources: INRIX, 2020: CDOT StateFocus Model Version 1.4, 2020: HDR, 2021 Overall free -flow travel time along the 41.6 -mile project corridor is just over 53 minutes in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Existing (year 2019) travel times during the AM and PM peak hours are 57.8 and 59.5 minutes in the eastbound direction and 61.7 and 57.1 minutes in the westbound direction, respectively. Current travel time indices range from 1.1 to 1.3 in the western portion of the corridor, and 1.0 east of WCR 31. In the year 2045 No Action scenario, travel times for the entire corridor are expected to increase by 22 percent to 31 percent during peak hours. The western half of CO 52 is expected to experience increases in travel times of up to 71 percent during the peak hours. Travel times between WCR 19 and WCR 31 are expected to increase 10 percent to 21 percent in both directions during the peak hours. Travel times east of WCR 31 are expected to experience minimal increases in travel times at 2 percent or less in both directions during the peak hours. 3.5.2 Accident Analysis In order to appropriately assess the current safety conditions of the corridor, a Safety Assessment Report was developed to identify, evaluate, and plan safety improvements on public roads. The report is based on the analysis of five years of crash history, a review of aerial imagery, and video log reviews. Intersections and roadway segments were analyzed to identify patterns related to crash type, severity, direction of travel, road conditions, distributions, time of day, and behavioral attributes. The pattern of crashes fell under three leading categories: rear end collisions, broadside collisions, and approach turn collisions. These patterns were identified due to the diagnostic analysis indicating a greater than 90% significance when compared to similar facilities statewide. The study identified that all three collision patterns occurred predominantly at intersection or intersection -related locations. In total, there were 553 rear end collisions, 191 broadside collisions, and 172 approach turn collisions within the five-year study period. The most broadside collisions involved northbound and southbound vehicles on CO 52 compared to the most approach turn collisions involving westbound and eastbound vehicles on CO 52 with the cause being misuse of current intersection design and technology. The Safety Assessment also studied the project corridor under five divided segments. The segments were evaluated under intersection vs non -intersection crashes and the crash type distribution. The outcome of the diagnostics are as follows: • Segment 1: CO 119 to County Line Road with a total of 342 crashes. • Segment 2: County Line Road to WCR 19 with a total of 812 crashes. • Segment 3: WCR 19 to WCR 31 with a total of 260 crashes. • Segment 4: WCR 31 to WCR 49 with a total of 141 crashes. • Segment 5: WCR 49 to CO 79 with a total of 48 crashes. 4 FORECASTED CONDITIONS 4.1 Traffic Volume Forecast Existing traffic (2020) was modeled in the future condition (2045) for the corridor under No Action and Build conditions with the recommended alternative. Future traffic volumes are shown below in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Existing Counts and 2045 Daily Volume Forecast _ '� — "— - 7.-- r r - _ _ 1 � `� iJy Taff s - c Volumes. -Wa� - e n - _ � . �+ 0-- "um-- wr_ - _ - _ �1 _ _ _ Illr �- - -0.1-.."Mr---T- 20 � _ E --dr R 1 , i, , , n r 11111711 - l• 20 _ - ryo CO 119 to US 287 CO 119 71St St 12,200 17,200 18,100 71St St Monarch Park PI 11,400 16,300 17,200 79th St Somerset Dr 12,400 18,100 19,000 95th St US 287 13,000 18,700 19,600 28,700 US 287 to 1-25 US 287 115th St 19,000 26,500 CR 5 CR 7 1a,Ann ?9,300 42,500 CR 7 W125 Frontage _ 19,800 34,300 46,500 I-25 to US 85 E 1-25 Frontage CR 11 (York St) 25,100 36,200 50,300 Colorado Blvd Glen Creighton Dr 15,800 30,800 41,700 Glen Creighton Dr CR 15 12,600 13,8UU 33,500 CR 15 (Ridgeway) CR 14 11,800 18,900 26,600 CR 19 CR 21 12,000 20,900 30,600 CR 23 US 85 SB Ramps 11,600 21,300 30,000 US 85 to 1-76 US 85 NB Ramps Grand Ave 13,600 19,300 22,600 Grand Ave Fulton Ave 12,500 17,300 19,000 Park Ave Denver Ave 11,400 18,400 19,400 Denver Ave Main St 10,500 17,500 18,500 Harrison Ave Rollie Ave 13,700 16,900 17,600 Rollie Ave CR 29.5 11,500 18,800 19,900 17,900 CR 35 CR 37 10,300 17,100 CR 12.5 W1-76 Frontage 9,200 16,200 16,700 1-76 to CO 79 1-76 NB Dahlia 7,000 9,200 9,300 Cedar/Hudson RR Xing 6,600 8,800 8,900 Beech St Cherry St 4,000 5,400 5,400 CR 49 CR 51 3,100 4,100 4,100 CR 59 CR 61 2,000 2,600 2,600 CR 67 CO 79 2,000 2,800 2,800 CO 79 East of CO 79 1,300 1,800 1,800 1Red text indicates segments with 4 -Lane cross sections (all others 2 -Lane) 4.2 2045 Level of Service (LOS) Evaluation Level of service (LOS) is a mechanism used to determine how well a transportation facility is operating from a traveler's perspective. Typically, six levels of service are defined, and each is assigned a letter designation from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F the worst. Table 4-2 2020 and 2045 Level of Service (LOS) below summarizes the results of the LOS for alternatives considered in the PEL. For a full summary of how the alternatives were developed and evaluated, please see Section 4 of the PEL. Table 4-2. 2020 and 2045 Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) -� �; � , Signalized 1' r�+�-� I, f,' •Intersection _ --,., — __-_ + =, -z i ►. —� � 2� . - .. Estimate 2045 • N_o Auction - S _ - . . � -•1i L I � "4-7r4.§-= 2045 � iddlg�Lane "AY �i�,Line_- ~`�1OS ' ` - -_riI to Y _ _ __- " LQS . -II i,!DELAY _ r DELAY .i SH119 F / C 100 (30) E / F 60 (400) D / F 40 (90) 79TH ST B / B 10 (10) C / C 20 (20) C / C 30 (20) HOVER/95TH C / D 30 (40) D / F 50 (320) D / D 40 (40) US 287 F / F 140 (120) D/ F 50 (380) D / C 40 (30) COUNTY LINE RD E / E 70 (80) F / F 380 (650) C / E 20 (60) WCR7 B / C 20 (30) F / F 210 (280) C / C 30 (30) W I-25 FRONTAGE B / B 10 (10) E / E 70 (60) D / F 40 (80) SB I-25 B / B 20 (20) D / E 50 (60) C / D 20 (50) NB I-25 C / B 20 (20) D / F 50 (80) E / D 60 (50) E I-25 FRONTAGE B / B 10 (20) D / F 50 (80) E / E 80 (60) YORK/SILVER BIRCH B / B 10 (10) F / F 80 (110) D/ D 40 (40) FLYING CIRCLE A/ B 10 (10) E / F 70 (100) B / C 20 (30) COLORADO AVE D / D 40 (40) F / F 260 (400) D / D 40 (40) GLEN CREIGHTON/FREDERICK C / C 30 (20) F / F 110 (130) D / C 50 (30) SB US 85 B / B 20 (10) D / B 50 (10) C / C 30 (30) NB US 85 B / E 20 (70) F / F 90 (90) B / C 20 (20) MCKINLEY AVE A/ A 0 (10) D/ E 40 (60) A/ C 0 (30) US 85 BUS/DENVER B / C 10 (30) F / F 110 (130) C / E 20 (60) ROLLIE AVE B / B 10 (20) F / F 190 (190) B / D 20 (40) 5 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION The CO 52 ACP Public Involvement strategy followed the CO 52 PEL Agency and Public Coordination process which included engaging the SH 52 Coalition, the CO 52 PEL/ACP Technical Team, stakeholders and community members. The communication process used for the CO 52 PEL/ACP is shown below in Figure 5-1. PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS Project Management Team (PFIT) c000eeE ?� Ter: f rn ical Team urn COOT, FHWA Project Team MULLER ABCH ARMLAND r]� Local Agencies along the Comdor - Boulder and Weld Counties. Towns of Erie, Fredenck, Hudson, and Keenesburg. Cities of Dacono and Port Lupton • Project Stake hofders SFi 52 Ceeilt;prs Elected Officials Aims Community College. Bicycle Colorado. BNSF Railway Company, Bustang Express Bus Service. Colorado Motor Carriers Association, City of Boulder, City of Broomfield. City of Longmont, Colorado Department of Public Hearth and Environment, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Community Cycles Cyclists 4 Community, Environmental Protection Agency, Glens- Coalition, IBM, Niwot RTO, State Flistoric Preservation Office, Union Pacific Railroad US Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Public Engagement Figure 5-1. Project Communication Public, Corridor Users 5.1 Agency Coordination Engagement and Findings 5.1.1 Agency Involvement The Technical Team (TT), composed of local agency representatives, provided technical input to the project team. The TT identified relevant materials that could be helpful to the Project Team, and supported development of the corridor vision. The TT was also responsible for coordinating with their respective agency's CO 52 Coalition member to inform them of the project status, help articulate problems, and evaluate solutions for the corridor. The TT included representatives from: • Boulder County ■ Weld County • The City of Dacono ■ The Town of Erie • The City of Fort Lupton • The Town of Frederick • The Town of Hudson • The Town of Keenesburg • CDOT The project team met with the TT on 14 separate occasions to discuss project updates for both the ACP and PEL study. The dates of these meetings are listed below: ■ May 28, 2020 • July 23, 2020 ■ August 20, 2020 ■ October 29, 2020 • December 3, 2020 • January 28, 2021 ■ February 22, 2021 • April 22, 2021 • June 24, 2021 • July 22, 2021 • August 31, 2021 • September 16, 2021 • October 18, 2021 • November 11, 2021 In addition to meeting with stakeholders and agency representatives during the full -group TT meetings, the project team met with representatives from each local agency throughout the process to discuss existing access points and the future conditions of each location. The local agency meetings and dates are listed below: • Fort Lupton: May 13, 2020; August 4, 2020; February 23, 2021; April 1, 2021 • Hudson: May 14, 2020; March 17, 2021 • Weld County: May 20, 2020; November 6, 2020 • Dacono: May 22, 2020; April 20, 2021 • Frederick: June 5, 2020 • Erie: June 22, 2020 • Keenesburg: June 23, 2020 • CDOT: July 28, 2020; August 13, 2020 ■ Boulder County: June 8, 2020; June 8, 2021; April 19, 2021; May 12, 2021; July 12, 2021 5.1.2 Additional Stakeholder Meetings Public involvement included individuals and corridor users. In addition to connecting with the general public, the project team also connected with local schools, community groups, HOAs, businesses, and more. A list of individual meetings with those groups can be found below: • Glen's Coalition HOA: July 8, 2021 ■ Coordinated access concerns discussion with Dacono, Erie & Frederick: July 27, 2021 • Boulder Cycling Organizations: July 20, 2021 • IBM Technology: August 5, 2020 • Aims Community College: August 19, 2020 • BNSF (Railroad Company): July 2, 2020; September 9, 2020 • CMCA (Colorado Motor Carriers Association): July 24, 2020 • Colorado Parks and Wildlife: August 26, 2020 5.2 Public Coordination and Engagement Findings The project team used several tools to engage with the public throughout the course of the project which included one-on-one meetings, virtual public meetings, email blasts, newsletters, postcards, and more to provide the public with the most current information. 5.2.1 Public Events and Information Project Website: CDOT hosted a public facing website throughout the course of the study, which provided status updates on the study's progress, information on how the public could submit comments or get involved with the study, informational materials, completed reports and study documents, and answers to frequently asked questions. The website is available at www.codot.gov/projects/co52-pel-acp. Virtual Public Meetings and Open Houses: The project team hosted two virtual public open houses over the duration of the project. Due to COVID- 19, the project team made the decision to host virtual engagement activities for the public in lieu of in - person events. The virtual open houses were hosted on a website platform separate from the general project website. In order to get the word out to all relevant populations along the corridor, informational postcards with an invite to the virtual open house were mailed to adjacent property owners before each event. Details of the events were also given to members of the Coalition and Technical Teams so that they could decide within their agency how they could best get the event information out to their communities. Links and details of the events were also posted on the project's main website. Public Meeting #1- August 2020 The first virtual public meeting was posted online between August 24 and September 17, 2020. This provided ample opportunity for as many stakeholders as possible to interact with the materials on their own schedule and time. The event had various goals and success metrics. COLORADO =ir -7:T.,1 Department of Transportation Colorado State Highway 52: Planning & Environmental Linkages Study and Access Control Plan You're rhvrtedf a 52 Virtual Public flHgagemekt fl What: Online Public Engagement Opportunity Pio: CO Hwy 52 Users When: August 24'" through September 17'" How: Online at tivwwco52pelcom/publicmeeting If you have any questions about the project or the upcoming virtual public engagement, please contact us at 720-336-0187 Figure 5-2. Virtual Open House #1 Postcard The key goals were: • Inform stakeholders of the project's goals and activities • Receive input from stakeholders on their interests and concerns • Establish relationships and lines of communication with stakeholders for on -going interaction The two key success metrics were: ■ Through inclusive access, receive high levels of participation • Identify site -specific locations With the goal to provide the same level of engagement as would have been expected during an in -person meeting, the website included a number of interactive opportunities for the public to provide input including: ■ Two topic -specific surveys ■ Social Pinpoint Interactive Map • Social Pinpoint Interactive Comment Wall • Opportunity to send the project team emails or call the project hotline The open house was the first broad introduction of the project to the public and was translated into Spanish. Over 800 individuals viewed the site, and 126 new contacts were collected during the online public event. Public Meeting #2 - August 2021 The second open house focused on updating the public on progress made in both the PEL and ACP, as well as presenting the proposed alternatives evaluated to date. The event was online between August 30 and September 20, 2021. The content of the meeting focused on educating the public on existing conditions data that was evaluated since the last public meeting, as well as detailing the alternatives evaluated in each segment of the corridor. Half of this virtual meeting website was dedicated to describing the process, purpose and draft of the ACP. The website allowed for the public to review the access plan and provide comments on individual access recommendations. In preparations for this event, 3,200 postcards were mailed directly to adjacent property owners along the corridor. COLORADO Department of Transportation Colorado State Highway 52: Planning & Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study and Access Control Plan (ACP) August 30th through September 20th Online at https://www.co52pel.com/publicmeeting The PEL Study: After 'gathering data arid public Input, the project team; has developed- 'potential Improvements to --address safety and congestion on. CO 52. Join our Online Open i House to vl•ew our progress and. provide icoinme'nts; ACP Notification: Join our Online Open House to learn glint an Access Control Plan, 'how it benefit's' CO 52;. and review maps of :the proposed. ,future cond.itions'of.all access. points biting, C0.52. Come see how the plan ,can benefit your community! IF you need assistance accessing the pub is meeting materials, please call 720-336-0187 Version en espenol disponible en el sitio web Figure 5-3. Virtual Open House #2 Postcard The key goals were: • Provide access to previous Public Open House information and materials • Inform stakeholders and the public about progress on the PEL & ACP ■ Share the input from the previous open house event and additional input received to date • Provide property owners along the corridor with the updated access recommendations from the ACP • Display results of the Alternatives Evaluation • Collect additional public feedback and input per segment The two key success metrics were: ■ Through inclusive access, receive high levels of participation • Receive a high number of unique visitors to the site, visiting multiple pages of the site With the goal to provide the same level of engagement as would have been expected during an in -person meeting, the website included a number of interactive opportunities for the public to provide input including: • A survey to better understand user interests • Interactive proposed access map • Interactive Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Map • Ability to comment on section -specific alternatives ■ Opportunity to send the project team emails or call the project hotline The open house was translated into Spanish. Over 1,000 individuals viewed the site, with 57 of those completing a sign -in form. The open house received 237 survey responses, 9 comments on the ACP materials, and 12 phone calls. Per individual requests, 5 sets of hard copy materials were mailed to participants. Organization Updates & Communications Packets In March of 2021, the project team distributed communications packets to 23 identified organizations along the corridor to provide updates about the project and offer an opportunity for organizations to provide input. Organizations were identified with the assistance of local agencies. Many organizations responded with appreciation of the information, some requested additional information, and one organization (Glens Coalition) requested an in -person meeting with the project team to provide an update and hear the group's interest. Organizations that received communications packets included: • Aims Community College • Apple Farm HOA • Arnusch Farms • Boulder Chamber of Commerce • Colorado Motor Carriers Association ■ Community Cycles ■ Coyote Creek Subdivision HOA (for Century Communities Portion) ■ Cyclists for Community ■ Erie Chamber of Commerce ■ Fort Lupton Chamber • Fort Lupton Parks • Fort Lupton Recreation Center • FRICO • Glens Coalition • Henrylyn • IBM/CU • Keenesburg Chamber • Latino Coalition • Legend Ridge HOA • Boulder County Oil & Gas • Boulder County Parks & Open Space • Venus Bike Club • Vesta Email Distribution List & E -Blasts The email distribution list was developed throughout the PEL process. The study ended with 482 email addresses on the distribution list. Email blasts included: Quarterly Newsletter #1: July 23, 2020 • About the ACP • Public Meeting Info Quarterly Newsletter #2: November 23, 2020 • Existing Conditions Report • August Public Engagement Report • What's Next (Alternatives, Level 1) Quarterly Newsletter #3: March 25, 2021 • Project Status Update (Level 1, Level 2) • Access Control Plan FAQ • Website Update Quarterly Newsletter #4: August 26, 2021 • Online Open House Information for PEL and ACP • Importance of the PEL Emails & Voicemail Comments The study provided stakeholders multiple ways to provide comment and ask questions (beyond during presentations, meetings, and the survey), including via phone, email, and a website comment form. In total, 53 comments were received from stakeholders. 6 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 6.1 Implementation Strategy Beginning in May of 2020, the project team started meeting with stakeholders to identify access needs and concerns for their areas of the corridor. In August of 2020, the project team then held their first virtual open house to collect additional feedback on the existing conditions of the corridor. Figure 6-1 below outlines the ACP process the project team used and identified the timing of the open house events. CO 52 Access Control Plan (ACP) Process Project Begins Publie Engagement: e-Newsietters. Postcards. COOT Webslte. Spanish Iransratran. One -Oil -One Stakeholder Nlee[Ing :. Public Meetings Virtual Open House #1 Virtual Open House #2 Access'Olscussions with Stakeholders (cleAtifY, AFcRss POII54 Access Plan and.lntergovernmental Agreements (IGA) Development Deliverable • • MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV JAN MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV 2020 2021 Figure 6-1 ACP Process The ACP process also includes the development of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for all agencies along the corridor. The ACP was reviewed and approved by all the local agencies and CDOT before being signed and completed in the Fall of 2021. The steps taken to complete the ACP and IGA are shown below in Figure 6-2. Access Control Plan (ACP) Procedure Develop draft ACP based on PEL recommendations, input from local agencies, and CDOT Present draft ACP to public at 1st Virtual Open House Revise ACP recommendations based on public input and final PEL recommendations I Figure 6-2. ACP Procedure 6.2 Access Control Methods Once access locations were identified, each access point was either shown as 'No Action', or given an access control method based on the future condition of the corridor: Access Consolidation Before l•'■■■ lis -- � :•- S II � - �I After III MI'I' Ilil;_• 1. -- .ice. I' 111111 I � I Figure 6-4. Access Consolidation: Before Figure 6-3. Access Consolidation: After • Consolidate adjacent access points into one location • The number of conflict points are reduced Access Conversion with Median Treatment Before I� I,111111. 1, ow; iTim .,■..� . Figure 6-5. Access Conversion: Before • Restrict some or all turning movements • Reduce the number of conflicts between left turning vehicles and through vehicles on the highway After P Access Elimination Before Figure 6-7. Access Elimination: Before Figure 6-6. Access Conversion: After After Figure 6-8. Access Elimination: After • Access to local properties through secondary roads • Consolidate number of access locations where vehicles may enter or exit the highway • Reduce the number of conflict points Access Relocation Before After Figure 6-9. Access Relocation: After Figure 6-10. Access Relocation: Before • Access to local properties through secondary roads • Consolidate number of access locations where vehicles may enter or exit the highway • Reduce the number of conflict points Parallel Access Route Before '� �' Figure 6-11. Parallel Access Route: Before • Provide access to properties via a new access road (such as a frontage road) • Reduces the number of access points along the highway After Figure 6-12. Parallel Access Route: After 6.3 Access Recommendations The ACP is a long-range plan for this corridor. Implementation will occur over the long term and may be phased dependent on if/when the following actions occur: • A safety need is identified • New development or redevelopment occurs • Funding becomes available • Traffic needs arise If an access point is identified with safety or operational concerns, local agencies and CDOT will work together to develop an access improvement. Types of access improvements may include turn movement restrictions, relocation, or removal of access for an access point. The most common triggers for ACP implementation are redevelopment or new development at an access point, or a traffic volume increase of more than 20%. In any of these instances, a new CDOT access permit is required per the State Highway Access Code. The local municipality and CDOT would need to work with the property owner or developer to update the access point to the access recommendation shown in the ACP table (Appendix A) and map (Appendix B). It is important to note that there may instances where the recommendation shown in the plan cannot be implemented due circumstances beyond the property owner or developer's control. In that scenario, the property should not be developed in any way that would prohibit implementation of the recommended access change shown in the map and table. An example of this would be dedication of right-of-way for the construction of a cross access. Interim access to a property must be maintained until the ultimate access configuration can be achieved. A publicly funded project by any combination of Towns, Cities, Counties, and/or CDOT is another way that implementation of the ACP is possible. Any future public project along the corridor shall include the access changes shown in the ACP, as long as those changes can be built within the fiscal constraints of the project. In this scenario, costs incurred in order to complete the access recommendations will be borne by the project and not the property owner. At no time can or will CDOT and the local municipality land lock a property. Reasonable access must be maintained and/or provided for a property if no other access is available. A right-in/right-out access would be considered reasonable. CO 52 has numerous accesses that serve agricultural ditches. The ACP shows these accesses as being removed. It is important to note that such removal will only occur with the support and agreement of the appropriate ditch company. Coordination among the property owner/developer, the appropriate local municipality and CDOT is critical to the success of the plan. Partnering of the local municipality and CDOT will ensure all projects (both public and private) are designed to not preclude the ultimate implementation of the plan. Throughout the development of this project, the message has been consistent. If nothing changes, then nothing changes. The second part of the message is, when change is proposed, the property owner will be included in those discussions. As stated before, at no time will CDOT remove access to a property to the effect that a parcel would be landlocked without access. Reasonable access will be provided directly or indirectly to CO 52. 7 AMENDMENT PROCESS If there is a need or desire to change the recommended access for any access point along CO 52, one of the participating municipalities of the IGA must submit a request to CDOT for an amendment. Any costs associated with completing and documenting the amendment will be the responsibility of the initiating agency. The amendment request must be agreed upon by all affected agencies (of the IGA). The property or properties that are considered to be 'directly affected' must be located within an Agency's jurisdictional boundaries or within the boundaries of a legally recognized planning area, such as a Growth Management Area. In order for an amendment to be considered approved, six of the nine agencies that are parties to the IGA must vote to approve the amendment proposed. More information on this application and approval process, such as the documentation required for submittal of an amendment request and the public noticing requirements, may be found in Exhibit B of the IGA. 8 LITERATURE CITED CDOT. (2009, June). Planning and Environmental Linkages Partnering Agreement. Retrieved from Planning and Environmental Linkages Handbook: https://www.codot.gov/programs/environ menta I/pla n ning-env-link-program/pel-ha ndbook- january-2016/view HDR. (2021, October). Traffic Forecasting & Screenline/Parallel Routes Analysis Memo. FHWA. (2015, October). PEL Benefits: Measuring the Benefits of Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). Retrieved from Environmental Review Toolkit: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_initiatives/pel/PEL_Benefits_report.aspx INRIX (2020, March). INRIX 2020 Global Traffic Scorecard.Available at: https://www.bostori.com/wp- content/uploads/2.021/03/2020 NM Scorecard-6046893ec91f4.pdf Muller Engineering Company. (2020, December). PEL Safety Assessment Report. PTV Vision. (2012). VISSIM 5.40 - User Manual. State of Colorado. (2002). 1998 State Highway Access Code, Complete with March 2002 Revisions. Retreived from CDOT referneces website: https://www.codot.govibusiness/permits/accesspermits/references/601 1 accesscode march 2002 . pdf Appendix A. CO 52 Access Inventory Table CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 0.02-N&S 0.17-N 0.17-S Restricted Access Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed Description UP Railroad Crossing New full movement access allowed to align with 0.17-S N. 71st Street 0.41-5 0.48-N 0.48-S 0.59-5 0.82-N 0.82-5 0.94-S 0.97-S 1.1-5 1.12-S 1.2-N&S 1.23=N 1.24-N 1.66-N 1.69-N 1.69-S 1.82-N 1.93-N 1.93-S 2.1-S 2.17-N 2.17-S 2.24-S 2.37-N 2.37-S 2.49-5 2.65-N 2.65-S 2.67-S 2.86-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Removed once criteria met* Dry Creek Parkway. Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Monarch Park Place New full movement access allowed to align with 0.82-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met N. 79th Street. Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 1.69-5 Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Somerset Drive New full movement access allowed to align with 2.17-N Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Legend Ridge Trail New full movement access allowed to align with 2.65-N Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Page 1 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Restricted Access Description Existing full movement access to be restricted 2.86-S 3.1-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.15-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Remove immediately 3.15a -S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Remove immediately 3.16-N&S Full Movement Access No Change N. 95th Street 3.38-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 3.38-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 3.51-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.66-N Full Movement Access No Change 3.66-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 3.66-N 3.79-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 3.91-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed on both sides of highway 3.91-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted acc:ess allowed on both sides of highway 3.97-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.13-N Full Movement Access No Change 4.13-S Full Movement Access No Change 4.14-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.15-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.2-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.41-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 4.41-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 4.43-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.58-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.67-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change US 287 4.73-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.75-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 4.92-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 4.92-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 5.17-N Full Movement Access No Change 5.17-S Full Movement Access No Change 5.34-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.34-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 2 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 5.42-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.42-5 Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 5.53-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.61-5 Removed once criteria met 5.67-N 5.67-5 5.73-N Full Movement Access No Change Full Movement Access No Change Full Movement Access To Be Removed N. 115th Street Removed once criteria met 5.75-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.81-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 5.82-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed 5.92-N Possible Restricted Access Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed 5.92-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met 6.01-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed 6.11-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed 6.15-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed 6.19-N 6.19-S 6.3-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 6.19-S Full Movement Access No Change Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.31-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.44-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.44-S Existing full movement access to be restricted 6.65-N 6.65-S 6.68-5 Full Movement Access No Change Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 6.65-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.7-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.72-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 6.92-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 6.92-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 7.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.04-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.2-N8L5 Full Movement Access No Change County Line Road Page 3 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing C! ndition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 7.22-N 7.23-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.39-N Full Movement Access No Change 7.39-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 7.39-N 7.42-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.56-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.56-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.67-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.68-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.73-N Full Movement Access No Change 7.73-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 7.73-N 7.79-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.8-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 7.93-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 7.93-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 8-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.02-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.05-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.12-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.13-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.13-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.14-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.17-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access could be allowed on the north. Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 to be planned by the Local Municipality. 8.17-S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 3 8.21-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.37-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.37-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.38-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 8.42-N&S Full Movement Access Restricted Access WCR 3.25/Highland Place Page 4 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 8.67-S 8.68-N 8.72-S 8.77-N 8.79-N 8.81-5 8.91-N 8.91-5 8.99-N 8.99-5 9.14-S 9.15-N 9.16-5 9.19-N&S 9.47-N 9.47-S 9.68-S 9.69-N 9.69-S 9.92-5 9.93-S 9.98-S 10.06-S 10.19-N&5 10.3-N 10.33-N 10.36-N 10.4-5 10.42-N 10.42-S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access Description Full movement access allowed to align with the access on the opposite side of CO 52. Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 to be planned by the Local Municipality. Full movement access allowed to align with the access on the opposite side Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met WCR 5 Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Existing restricted access on the north could be full movement New full movement access could be allowed on the south to align with 9.69 - Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access could be allowed on the south Removed once criteria met WCR 7/Aggregate Boulevard Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Puritan Lane. Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Page 5 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 10.46-5 Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 10.48-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.56-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 10.56-S Restricted Access To Be Removed Existing restricted access may remain until such time as the property redevelops. Then access to be removed. 10.69-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 10.69-5 10.69-5 Full Movement Access No Change Glacier Way 10.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-25 Frontage Road/Puritan Way 11.08-N&S Full Movement Access , No Change Southbound I-25 Entrance/Exit Ramp 11.27-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Narthound I-25 Entrance/Exit Ramp 11.45-N&S Full Movement Access No Change I-25 Frontage Road 11.65-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.71-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed. CDOT and Local Municipalities to 11.71-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed. CDOT and Local Municipalities to 11.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.83-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.85-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.86-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 11.97-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 11.97-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 12.08-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.1-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.17-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.19-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.19-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.2-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.23-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change Silver Birch Blvd/York Street 12.34-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 12.55-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Ex sting full movement access to be restricted 12.55-S Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 12.71-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met. This access is to remain until such time as a suitable industrial„ internal road system provides alternate access. Page 6 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 12.83-N&S Full Movement Access 12.92-S Restricted Access 13.08-N 13.19-N&S Full Movement Access 13.41-N 13.41-S Full Movement Access 13.57-N Full Movement Access 13.58-N 13.58-S Full Movement Access 13.59-N Full Movement Access 13.74-N&S Full Movement Access 13.77-N Restricted Access 13.86-N 13.86-S 'Full Movement Access 14.02-N&S Full Movement Access 14.3-N 14.3-S 14.38-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access 14.38-S Full Movement Access 14.39-N Full Movement Access 14.39-S Full Movement Access 14.49-S Full Movement Access 14.62-N 14.62-S 14.77-N Full Movement Access 14.9-N Full Movement Access 14.95-N Full Movement Access 14.95-S Full Movement Access 14.96-S Full Movement Access No Change No Change Possible Restricted Access No Change Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access No Change Possible Restricted Access Restricted To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Flying Circle/William Bailey Avenue Right-in/right-out access at this location to remain - Permitted New restricted access allowed WCR 13/Colorado Boulevard New restricted access allowed Cherry St. Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met New restricted access could be allowed Forest Ave. Existing full movement access to be restricted to RI/RO Removed once criteria met Glen Creighton Drive/Frederick Way Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed RI/RO only Existing full movement access to be restricted to RI/RO Ridgeway Boulevard New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Removed once criteria met WCR 14. Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met 14.97-S Full Movement Access 14.98-N Full Movement Access 15.16-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met WCR 17. Full movement access removed once new full movement access near 15.25 constructed as part of curve realignment. Page 7 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 15.25-N&S Existing Condition Future Condition Description New full movement access allowed on both sides of highway. Exact location to be determined by CDOT and Local Municipalities with consideration of realignment of CO 52. If this location is implemented, close 15.16-N and 15.36-S. Possible Full Movement 15.36-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed WCR 17. Full movement access removed once new full movement access near 15.25 constructed as part of curve realignment. 15.56-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.63-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.68-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.7-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.78-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 15.91-N Full Movement Access No Change 15.91-S Full Movement Access No Change 16.18-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 16.18-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 16.42-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 19 16.43-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.43-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.45-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.57-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.68-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 16.68-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 16.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.76-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 16.94-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 16.94-S 16.94-S Full Movement Access No Change 17.05-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.19-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 17.19-S Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 17.25-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.26-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 17.44-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 21 Page 8 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 17.62-N 17.69-N 17.69-S 17.73-S 17.77-N 17.94-N 17.94-S 17.96-N 17.97-N 17.98-S 18.14-N 18.19-N 18.19-S 18.42-S 18.44-N&5 18.62-S 18.68-N 18.68-S 18.77-S 18.79-N 18.81-N 18.85-N 18.86-S 18.88-N 18.88-S 18.93-N 18.93-S 19-5 19.03-N 19.18-N 19.18-S 19.27-5 19.33-5 Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 17.945 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted. Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met WCR 23 Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 17.945 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement to be restricted Existing full movement to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Page 9 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 19.36-N I Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 19.36-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.42-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 19.42-S 19.42-S Full Movement Access No Change 19.47-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.6-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.62-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.67-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 19.7-N Full Movement Access No Change 19.7-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 19.7-N 19.92-N&S Full Movement Access No Change US -85 Southbouncl Entrance/Exit Ramp 19.99-N&S Full Movement Access No Change US -85 Northound (Entrance/Exit Ramp 20-N Restricted Access No Change Ac:ess restricted to Right Out Only 20.03-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Grand Avenue - RI/RO 20.03-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access So.ath Grand Avenue - RI/RO 20.04-N Restricted Access No Change 20.05-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.06-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.06-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.07-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.08-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.08-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.09-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.09-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Page 10 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 20.1-S 20.11-N 20.12-S 20.13-N 20.13-S 20.15-S 20.16-N 20.16-S 20.18-S 20.19-S 20.2-N&S 20.23-N 20.24-S 20.25-N 20.26-S 20.29-N 20.32-N&S 20.35-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. The access to remain median is installed. Fulton Aveneue Description until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised until such time as the property redevelops or a raised The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. McKinley Avenue The access to remain until median is installed. such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised Page 11 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 20.35-S Existing Condition Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Full Movement Access 20.39-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Park Avenue 20.42-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.42a -N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.42-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.43-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.43-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.45-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Denver Avenue 20.47-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.48-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.49-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Main Avenue 20.5-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.52-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.53-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.53-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 20.55-N&S Restricted Access No Change UP Railroad Crossing 20.59-N Full Movement Access No Change Pacific Avenue 20.62-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installedl. 20.63-N Restricted Access No Change 20.64-N Restricted Access No Change 20.66-N Full Movement Access No Change Harrison Avenue - North Page 12 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 20.66-S Restricted Access 20.69-N Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction 20.75-N&S Full Movement Access No Change 20.82-N Restricted Access 20.88-N Restricted Access 20.91-S Restricted Access ,20.94-N 20.95-S Restricted Access Restricted Access 21.07-N 21.07-S Full Movement Access 21.23-N Full Movement Access 21.27-S Full Movement Access 21.36-N Full Movement Access 21.37-N Full Movement Access 21.46-N Full Movement Access 21.46-S Full Movement Access 21.53-N Full Movement Access 21.53-S 21.55-S Full Movement Access 21.7-N Full Movement Access 21.73-N Full Movement Access 21.73-S Full Movement Access 21.74-N 21.74-S Full Movement Access 21.95-N&S Full Movement Access 22.08-S Full Movement Access 22.12-S Full Movement Access 22.21-N 22.21-S 22.39-S Full Movement Access No Change No Change No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed Description Harrison Avenue - South The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Rollie Avenue Right-in/Right Out access to remain - Permitted 3/4 restricted access to remain - Permitted 3/4 restricted access to remain - Permitted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 21.07-S (Purman Ave) Purman Avenue Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Coyote Creek Drive New full movement access allowed to align with 21.53-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted WCR 29.5/College Avenue Removed once criteria met Access at MP 22.119 and MP 22.388 to be removed. New restricted access allowed between them. Location determined by CDOT and Local Municipality. New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Page 13 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 22.43-5 Existing Condition i Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met 22.46-N Full Movement Access No Change WCR 31 22.46-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 22.46-N 22.47-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.47-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.49-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.5-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.52-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.6-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.71-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 22.71-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 22.87-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.91-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 22.96-N Full Movement Access No Change 22.96-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 22.96-N 22.98-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.07-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.21-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 23.21-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 23.35-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed . Removed once criteria met 23.35-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.42-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.46-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.46-5 Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.52-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.69-N Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 23.69-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 23.76-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.86-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 23.95-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.95-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 23.99-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.07-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 24.12-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 14 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 24.19-N 24.19-S Full Movement Access 24.32-5 Full Movement Access 24.44-N 24.44-S Full Movement Access 24.45-N Full Movement Access 24.69-N 24.69-S Full Movement Access 24.83-S Full Movement Access 24.84-N Full Movement Access 24.87-N Full Movement Access 24.88-S Full Movement Access 24.89-N Full Movement Access 24.9-S Full Movement Access Future Condition Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Description New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met New full movement access to align with WCR 35 allowed WCR 35 Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met 24.97-N 24.97-S 25.02-S Full Movement Access 25.04-N Full Movement Access 25.07-N Full Movement Access 25.21-N Full Movement Access 25.21-S Possible Full Movement Access _Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access 25.4-N Full Movement Access 25.46-N&S Full Movement Access 25.49-S Full Movement Access 25.5-N Full Movement Access 25.72-N 25.72-S To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met WCR 37 Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed 25.96-N 25.96-S 25.98-N Full Movement Access 26.01-S Full Movement Access 26.08-N Full Movement Access 26.22-N Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Page 15 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 26.22-5 Existing Condition - Future Condition Possible Restricted Access Description New restricted access allowed 26.46-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.47-N 'Full Movement Access No Change 26.47-5 - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 26.47-N 26.49-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.49-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.61-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.64-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.69-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.69-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.72-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 26.72-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Existing full movement access to be restricted 26.73-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.85-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.87-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 26.96-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Remove once criteria met 26.97-N Full Movement Access No Change 26.97-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 26.97-N 27.11-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.17-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.22-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 27.22-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 27.46-N&5 Full Movement Access No Change WCR 41 27.56-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.56-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 27.75-N Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 27.75-5 Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 28.04-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.04-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.06-N Full Movement Access No Change 28.06-5 Full Movement Access No Change 28.19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 28.2-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 16 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 28.28-N 28.28-5 28.31-S 28.46-N&S 28.72-N 28.72-S 28.81-5 28.94-N 28.94-S 29.02-N 29.05-S 29.1-N 29.2-N&5 29.32-N&S 29.36-S 29.39-5 29.41-S 29.42-N 29.42-5 29.43-5 29.44-S 29.45-N&S 29.47-N 29.49-N&5 29.5-N&5 Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Restricted Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Restricted Access Restricted Access Future Condition Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change No Change No Change Description New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met WCR 43 WCR 12.5. Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met I-76 Frontage Road New full movement access allowed to align with 28.94-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Right-in/Right Out access to remain - Permitted I-76 Southbound Entrance/Exit Ramps -76 Northbound Entrance/Exit Ramps Completed with 2021 I-76 Interchange project Completed with 2021 I-76 Interchange project The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. The access to remain until median is installed. such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised such time as the property redevelops or a raised Cedar Street/Hudson Drive The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. BNSF Railroad Crossing BNSF Railroad Crossin 29.51-N&S Restricted Access BNSF Railroad Crossing Page 17 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 29.55-N Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Description The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.57-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Ash Street 29.6-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.61-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.64-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Beech Street 29.67-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.68-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.71-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Cherry Street 29.74-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.74-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.78-N&S Full Movement Access No Change Date Street 29.79-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.79-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.81-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.85-5 Full Movement Access No Change Evergreen Street 29.88-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.89-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. 29.9-5 Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installedl. 29.91-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. Page 18 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 29.92-5 29.94-N 30-N 30.01-S 30.05-S 30.06-N 30.07-N 30.14-N 30.14-5 30.19-S 30.2-N 30.2-S 30.5-N 30.5-S 30.6-S 30.62-N 30.63-5 30.76-N&S 30.78-N 31.01-N 31.01-S 31.04-5 31.12-N 31.22-S 31.31-N 31.31-S 31.45-5 31.58-N 31.58=S 31.68-N Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Future Condition Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed The access to remain until such median is installed. The access to remain until such median is installed. The access to remain until such median is installed. The access to remain until such median is installed. Holly Street Holly Street Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Sunrise Acres Street New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Oak 5treet/WCR 47 Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Description time as the property redevelops or a raised time as the property redevelops or a raised time as the property redevelops or a raised time as the property redevelops or a raised Page 19 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID I Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition Description Removed once criteria met 31.71-S To Be Removed 31.74-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 31.86-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 31.86-S 31.86-S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 49 31.88-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.17-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.24-N Full Movement Access No Change George's Road 32.24-S Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 32.24-N 32:29-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.36-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.36-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria mett 32.39-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.39a -N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.47-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Re-noved once criteria met 32.58-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 32.58-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 32.72-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.8-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 51 32.81-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.82-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.85-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 32.86-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.09-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 33.09-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 33.39-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.45-N Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 33.45-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed 33.55-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.57-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.8-N - Possible Full Movement New full movement access allowed to align with 33.8-S 33.8-5 Full Movement Access No Change WCR 53 33.82-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 33.83-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Page 20 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 33.86-5 Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed Removed once criteria met Description 33.91-N Full Movement Access 33.91-S Full Movement Access 34.03-N 34.03-S 34.25-N Full Movement Access 34.37-5 Full Movement Access 34.42-N Full Movement Access 34.43-S Full Movement Access 34.45-5 Full Movement Access 34.61-N 34.61-S 34.85-N&5 Full Movement Access 35.03-N Full Movement Access 35.13-N 35.13-5 35.3-N 35.3-S Full Movement Access 35.31-N Full Movement Access 35.54-N 35.54-S 35.77-N Full Movement Access 35.77-S 35.79-5 Full Movement Access 35.8-N Full Movement Access 35.82-N Full Movement Access 35.85-S Full Movement Access No Change No Change Possible Full Movement Access Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access Possible Full Movement Access No Change To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access No Change Possible Full Movement Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Banner Lakes New full movement access allowed New full movement access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed WCR 55 Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed New full movement access allowed to align with 35.3-S Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed New full movement access allowed to align with 35.77-N Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met 36.05-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.19-N 36.19-S 36.22-5 Full Movement Access 36.27-N Full Movement Access 36.34-N 36.34-5 Full Movement Access Possible Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met • New full movement access allowed to align with 36.34-S Page 21 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 36.4-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.62-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.63-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.64-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.66-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.66-S Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 36.81-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.86-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Re-noved once criteria met 36.89-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 36.92-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 59 36.99-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.09-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.2-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 37.2-5 Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 37.29-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.41-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.43-N Full Movement Access No Change 37.43-5 Full Movement Access No Change 37.66-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 37.66-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 37.91-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 37.92-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 61 37.97-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.18-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 38.18-5 - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 38.27-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.44-N - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 38.44-5 38.44-5 Full Movement Access No Change 38.45-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.6-5 Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 38.68-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 38.68-5 Full Movement Access Restricted Access Ex sting full movement access to be restricted 38.95-N&S Full Movement Access No Change WCR 63 Page 22 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition 39.01-N Full Movement Access 39.18-5 Full Movement Access 39.2-N 39.2-S Full Movement Access 39.41-N Full Movement Access 39.41-S Full Movement Access 39.45-N 39.45-S Full Movement Access Future Condition To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Restricted Access Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed Possible Full Movement Access No Change Possible Restricted Access 39.72-N 39.72-S 39.92-N Full Movement Access 39.94-N Full Movement Access 39.95-N&S Full Movement Access 40.19-N Full Movement Access 40.22-N Full Movement Access 40.22-S 40.26-S Full Movement Access 40.29-S Full Movement Access 40.36-N Full Movement Access 40.39-N Full Movement Access 40.39-S Full Movement Access 40.44-N Full Movement Access 40.45-N Full Movement Access 40.45-S Full Movement Access 40.55- S Full Movement Access 40.7-N 40.7-S Full Movement Access 40.75-S Full Movement Access 40.81-N Full Movement Access 40.82-S Full Movement Access 40.83-N Full Movement Access 40.84-S Full Movement Access 40.88-S Full Movement Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed No Change No Change To Be Removed Restricted Access Possible Restricted Access To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed To Be Removed Description Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New restricted access allowed Existing full movement access to be restricted Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met New full movement access allowed to align with 39.45-S New restricted access allowed New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met WCR 65 Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Existing full movement access to be restricted New restricted access allowed Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Removed once criteria met Page 23 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID 40.96-N&S Existing Condition Full Movement Access Future Condition No Change Description WCR 67 41.16-N - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 41.16-S - Possible Restricted Access New restricted access allowed 41.18-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.19-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.2-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.21-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.21-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.22-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.25-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.27-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.28-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.3-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.33-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.35-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.44-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.45-N Full Movement Access No Change 41.45-S - Possible Full Movement Access New full movement access allowed to align with 41.45-N 41.5-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.6-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.65-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.7-N Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movement access to be restricted 41.7-S Full Movement Access Restricted Access Existing full movernent access to be restricted 41.71-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.76-S Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.77-N Full Movement Access To Be Removed Removed once criteria met 41.79-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed) 41.79-S Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed 41.81-N Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed Page 24 of 25 CO 52 Access Inventory (CO 119 to CO 79) Access ID Existing Condition Future Condition Description 41.82-N 41.83-N 41.83-S 41.84-N 41.85-5 41.86-N 41.87-S 41.89-N 41.91-N 41.91-5 41.94-N&S Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Full Movement Access Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction Conditional - To remain until necessary restriction No Change The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a rasied meain is installed The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed. The access to remain until such time as the property redevelops or a raised median is installed CO 79/WCR 69 ""Removed once criteria met" criteria is defined as the redevelopment of the property the specified access serves or an increase in traffic utilizing the specified access by 20% or greater Page 25 of 25 Appendix B. Access Control Plan Mapbook W Dry Creek Pkwy IBM Drive BOULDER Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 r • Mdeposls (1/10 mi) Ex:sting frafrio Signal (31143 Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out 0.5 -- __- -171_ - -- Approx Cxisnng CO 57 ROW Corridor Preservation Footannt — — Parallel Imgation Access Key •l•:: • - 44 A� - COO •-- r 75 I50 300 cJ0 00 Q New Full Movement Access Pagel of 50 - -' Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 pd Lift i10dD��Lb 60 4er a ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal tatlx ,3 Access 'dent Her RI/RD Right-In/Right-Out _ „mum -: fozea �• �, O. - -- Asp= Existing CO 57_ ROW — — Car idor Preservaticn Footprint — — Par del Irngation Access Kcy • - -• -_.-- IS IOC -CM • - - d • ISO 300 00 600 Page 2 of 50 Somerset Dr a� .. - r- - -._ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 — - —- ---- - -r itigN • Mileposts (1/10 aril) Existing Ralfic Signal GalaQ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 57_ ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrrgatlon • Ct tIO0 -- . = - 52 I' -ffErF3 ooc Access Key. • NOAction- NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional^ Page 3 of 50 to u, z Legend Ridge Trail Macr — nom Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) AExisting Traffic Signal 3 Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out --- Ape ox Existing CO 57_ ROW -- Cor idor Preservation Footprint — — Par Ilel Irrigation = •3 52 �- �_ -_ Laggrgi--. • WM a A Accesses to bo removed •' as soon as possible Access Key • NoAction -— - NOAction -: • 1 Existing Full Novemert to Restricted Access O Existing Full Novemert Access - Conditiona" N in Z d 5 ISO 300 500 300 O New Full Movement Access Page 4 of 50 __�— —11ECEff Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 - -+-: - _- - - - - • }" Q 2 . • Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROVV Existing Traffic Signal Corridor Preservation Footprint (313343 Access Identifier — — Parallel Irrigation RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Access Key • No Action - NoAction -r. : Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" VEN . -- —aggs. d 0 75 150 300 600 0U Page 5 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook 6Q. 4' CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts Cl/1D mi) Existing Traffic Signal Cff,-3 Access Identifier RI/R° Right-In/Right-Out 6 (001 -4 -. ... a,s 2 Possible Park-n-Ride/T nsit Stop Location to be determined at a later date - -- Appi ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Cor idcr Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation. At[ess•fey • NoAction- NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Exsting Full Movement Access - Conditional" 0 Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed d '5 150 i. 000 U00 O New Full Movement Access Page 6 cr :5 5 E _ • -EfEafa Access Control Plan A Mileposts (1/1D mi) Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Existing Traffic Signal My.@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor?reservaocn Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation - :WM - _ r 5.5 t:4 sz Access Key • No Action - NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional` @Eva_ -� -� - - •--io _e e r -MO F 3 - • . EffiCi PLWO :CO Page 7 of 50 Access Control Plan . Mdeposts cl/l0 mo Mapbook Fxisting Traffic signal (35]..a Access Identifier CO 52 PEL / ACP RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out CO 119 to CO 79 - - _ - r 125- ..- - - - _ -�. — - -' -elEN - -- Appicx Exisl:ng CO 57_ ROW — - Car dor Preservaucn .Footprint — — Par; Ilel Irngann Access Key --- - - ----- _ --- = _ - :s;s - s a60 O New Full Movement Access 'esl• ... .'.t :....... Page 0 of 50 _t4 _ eat �' — - -- ----- --31M- _ _ 3_ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mlleposts E1/10 mij Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 RighTln/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corrioor Preservation Foolprint — — parallel Irrigation Access Key _ • L'n n BOULDER COUNTY r= - �4 @ - - 52. - uggo WELD COUNTY ---.... 1 7.5 tl 0 75 :50 300 &00 &Ca Page 9 of 50 Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5north of CO 52 To be planned by the local Municipality. - 7.5 NM 'NE90 AE =' — gin@ _.E120 WV- - Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL i AC13 s�Yd CO 119 to CD 79 ♦ Mileposts(1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Garjef3 Access locnllher RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Access key. --- Appiox Existing CO 52 ROW Condor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation e 0 f c4ti - - � © cl•Em f}�i cc _- COM - _ - S.� a '5 10 300 000 300 -ef NcW Full Movement Access Page 10 of 50 3 — — _ — r _ Hi9h 4/7c/ Access Control Plan Mapbook pr CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 8.5 Internal road system required between WCR 3 and WCR 5 north of CO 52 To be planned by the Local Municipality. 5 sz ♦ Mtleposs (1/10 mi) 0 Existing traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 RightIn/Rlgho-0ul • Golet.. - -- Approx Existing CO E2 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foolprint — — Parallel Irrigation • . 024.= 0 0 Access Key i : A:: 4 Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed Q Welt DEM _ •. U 3 m 150 60C 300 Page 11 of 50 Billings Ave .LOP. V • • ►��F 6a _ ce Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO119 to CO 79 • Mllepos[s Cl/10 mQ F.xisiing Traffic Signal coN3 Access Identifier 171/00 Rlgnt-In/Rlyht-Out 0ffk© � 33C1 9.5 .. — �u ▪ — _ _ fMf73 - — � �� - -- Approx Ex sting CO S2 ROW -- Condor PreservaLrn Fo lorint — — Parallel Irnga:ion n cress Key G Q` ••••' Ci.�a. _ f ;gc - _ d 0 ;roc 10 ooc • Exr ling Reslncled Access [e Full Movement • New Pull Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 12 0150 WCR 71Aggrega[¢ Blvd ' Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 3C1 f ff]�kL7 - ci - -- a- �? • • .10.5 0 -0 • �rIra* time • Mileposts (1/10 mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW 0 Existing Traffic Signal Corridor Preservation Footprint MO Access Identifier -- Parallel Irrigation lel/FIO Right-In/Right-Out APEc ss Key • NoAction -t.�, „ ..•�, No Action I • Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' 52 © Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed /..r, -:I, � Imperial SE rimer New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access c 1 1, lr r, ., zi Page 13 of 50 Imperial St Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 11 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mQ Existing Traffic Signal aar-a Access loentifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Ou; Access {LI --- Apsi ox Existing CO 52 BROW • -- Cor id, Preservation Footprint • -- Parllel Irrigation A C7rridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through the 1-25 interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies uncerway, existing NEPA documents, or are uncer construction 1101,10023 •0 •5Z- A• ----- 21.5 —WOAD: 2ffum ISO hU0 UV O New Full Movement Access I Page 14 of 50 tai O 'o • 9ataK3 'MOO Access Control Plan • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Mapbook Existing Traffic signal Gals@ Access Identdiei CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out t 12 ter_ --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Silver Birch Blvd u9s90 mac] O C4 m• * Access Key • No Action • No Action- . Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access 2.5 - APM421 I - _9gtimt , 0 Page 15 of 50 Colorado Blvd se Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mdeposts (1/10 m Ex sling Traffic Signal (J ;,-, Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Righf-Out • v m U C .T LL --- Apc ox Fxisiing CO 57 ROW — — Cor idor Preservallc Foolpnnf — — Par Wel Imgalion • i3 ' RVRO 61° St Access Kay • ...I '....�, i. .. 13 maxim.i---- 0e' Colorado Blvd Railroad Ave 0 75 150 300 eau -= - ;00 New Full Movement Access Page 16 01 50 a' L a Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 7"St • Mileposts (1/1D mi) AExisting Iraffic Signal Ga@ Access leentdier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out %OM INIMI 13.5 - - r+ d rrina RURO "DACON_O - -- Approx Existing CO E2 ROW — — Corridor Preservation Footurin'l. — — Peiallel Irrigation Access Key • '.s. .; •..II v•., Frederick Way — MUM_ A• Glen Creighton Dr FREDERICK RI/R0 skinp Mac Davidson Cir Ridgeway Blvd O New Full Movement Access Page 17 of 50 Penrose Blvd 14 emicom Access Control Plan • Mileposts D/10 m1) Mapbook Existing Traffic Signal Gal,3 Access Identifier 9 CO 52 PEL / ACP RRIMRight-in/Right-OutOut CO 119 to CO 79 99kBW C4 9 egel 19.5 '.L 9;9} - = W--- -- -- - 9 -- - -- Appiox Existing CO 521 ROW Cor dor Preservation Fo tprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access%cy ▪ NO Action- No Acton : ., Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional' Corridor Preservation Footpnnt allows for centerline realignment of CO 52 and the realignment of WCR 77 o 75 LSD d' :fee c New Full Movement Access Page 18 of 50 / / Access Control Plan Mapbook 9 CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out Carrekt AM,srrubon Foorprrnt afRarrs fo.- =mterUnr+rarrallT 1 of f:r `+7 drip the rnar.Inmanl nl W�.R r7 --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation 15.5 Access Kew No Action, - NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access 0 Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional' C4 008 /' / 0020 �1 w +nag /5 I50 300 600 recr 300 Page 19 of 50 • �6 • Access Control Plan Mapbook asat;;I) CO S2 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (l/10 rr i) Existing fraffic Signal 0043 Access Identifier RVRO RignPln/Right-Out —05113fl - -- App ox Existing CO 52 ROW Con dcr Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Ke., - [ ,tootI - - - Timm- _ �+ - oval = .. a. ..... .. .. ........ I�_ ... . 932421: - �4 C3 0 '5 150 - n00 • 00 O New Full Movemenl Access Page 20 of 50 cc U 3 i�cr wOi,t„ef 0 • Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 17 • Mileposts (1/10 ml) Existing 1 rafflc Signal Ga.@ Access ldenuher RVRO Righl-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO E2 ROW Corridor PreservationFootprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key _JCL 0 0 N cc U 3 • 0 25 I50 500 1+ `"' - 1` •"'"''""' ' ••- �•• O New Full Movement Access Page21 of 50 I t. Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 miJ Lxishng ire Ric Signal Qiale.3 Access Identifier RI/RD Right-In/Right-Out • :wrorkon_ _ o 0 0 i7oo B • a .Tam. - -- Appiox Ex sung CO 52 ROW — Car idor Preservation Foolprini — — Par Ilel Irrigation Access Key • NoAction • - No Action - Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Novemeol Access Cendiliona y� Y : m N CC U 3 d 300 so0 Page 22 of 50 n 3 C•1 N CL U 3 Access Control Plan Mapbook fp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 18:68=N —ilaeger g12:93 • Mdeposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal (OA Access Identdier RI/RO RIgh Pin/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW — — Corndor Preservation Foolprint — — Parallel Irrigation MO= -_-- InClaes _ - Access KeL • No Action - NoAction- Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access p Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional* d 0 l5 150 300 500'; s00 Page 23 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook lap CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 - - - -- .. 7y. - _ I- - 19.5 - -` • _ C4 O._x 3 Mfor@ ♦ Mtleposts (M10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal rja•4 Access Identifier RI/Ma Right-In/Right-Out - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Con dor Preservaecn Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation ACCESS Key • NoAction - No Action - Existing Full V vemen: to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access - Condlllanal' 521 A CCe.n.a� a grin Fool:wot is x.01 :none Onnsegl: 1pe OAS d5' nrnchaege new since esn arse E.. or nnded re:An Erie OE EecIteuan Arrtac nave Cu/rein',Wages imetc-nay. es,seng> .'A dacrrinrrME:,,.K 1M uncer cu.!, aJion: 3'a St 2n° St Rog' r -put Only RI'RO g' fT_ iL9 Tidb n!1,%a -..� COr C- a• t�.o a*R' _ GC y--yy�--- D p G Q C RUM) faiLka 2.114g Aijauej. area a c m 00 4) New Full Movement Access r....... r•.: ' Page 24 of 50 V St 20 St a m a 3i, st 2' st Harrison Ave WIZ EM.5- 5 •- Wems - 71,Ml1 m u % "'°1 %��r�� rr,x,0 . -- [E 1;3J.i,�1 f��kii'{'y1TLg� r'7 rH .1r_ Z `.'r{:1 RI/R0 -. rSI#j - z7.! ' sC! g dz ts"�1;.w 2s'EANC:1 T;GWif'; 5•Lag..'1 gr Elff.e 'rI1ftIZI t L�•sr: m� A xi4•r i_ ._. --._ - o= � O ---G=--_ zo.5oo_.„.7 00--s----t - 0-- --4 -- --_ -� 1 `• �a�c o�=�+ _=yo- 000 _'� - �� - ' ' Qa ��----'-_r -:� -:•----_-•_-_ -_--F - 00 0 Q fl`Q • Q Pae 3 aFs�'6�3 �g- bIdII LE xilEL F' We.T'3 'n n - - — _? i.tro-.- —_ . . N_.�-_ .__ mme =; r' -fr3 : t 3 .: MOW f goy t7�. �1 � ' ?��ri Rum)SCCA g111- i MIL* 944-W F9_RT LUPTO Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Qal,@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out J Q a Y > d C a c - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corndor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation d Access Ky • Ne Action No Action - Existing Full Movement to [Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Connllicnal' Q 0 H x Q d a cc d 0 75 i50 .. bu0 J00 Q New Full Movement Access Page 25 of 50 - Coyote Creek Dr FORT LUPTON Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP �' CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mdeposts(1/10 m) Existing Frail c&pal WM Access Identfiei RI/RD Right-In/Right-Oct _'-- Virginia Dr --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corr dor Preservation Footpnn[ — — Para lel Ir igation Trail Blazer Rc Siiverado ►n Access Key Elk_11174 41ENEI - fiLLNO !:f - 21:5 — • - - O- ffice - . ffflgo moo - X44 rO 47. EGEO fiLM • 0 rL'+ MUM - 01mu Ei _- d '5 ISO 300 I 300 ® New F II Movement Acc_ss Page 26 of 52 e U 3 I fREC]ir.l g mm -.°• ', ---- • ■ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP C0119 to CO 79 o� N C U 3 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 9 — _e - —14 =--Syr= '-.—=_ -- r fjll I - -- A.pprox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key 52• • No Action - No Action- ,; Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional^ :r0 mac main - - O D- C+ Oe '225 J5 150 d 300 Page 27 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook cO CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Gal.?,Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out •tS.SEPLI °.- - EgRE_ - , FAL7si - -- Ap ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Car idor Preservation Footprint — — Par Ilel Irrigation Access NoAction- M, �•rr, No Action Existing Full Movement to Restricted Acce s O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditions' -M ... -0- - aI Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Q New Full Movement Access Existing Restricted Access to be Removed r., t n r _ rhr: n;l. _ -rrl woro i, 7�m r New Restricted Access C,0,! n. ,.,.y. Page 2B of 50 EfiNEI -W:0E I 23.5 -ffiligiSZE Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 A Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-OW WOO +-= --►3 0.524 -- = -- - -- Apprax Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Foolprint — — Parallel Irnga:.on • Access Key -6-- - 24 -O--- arm ct - gags Ka C.+ d 0 /> i50 300 60G GI New Full Movement Access Page 29 a! 50 _ _tom+_ MED@ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 gain MOO • EWA M cc 3 - ♦ Mi eposts (1:/10 mg Existing Traff c Signal QaEj Access Idenli ler MAO Right-In/Right-Out 24.5 - -- App -ox Ex sting CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Pa a lel Irrigation Access Key _ _ 0_ +. - - a - � zma8 "-mac -gua _ _ 25 O _ •mego 00 600 .r et New Full Movement Access Page 30 of 50 _s__ SCI �- QS@ Access Control Plan Mapbook a ci CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 _ RI:amp Q * t'at Z5.5 .- eiga M U Access Key • MIleposts(1/1D mi) --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW . •.;,, ,q;. ,;• . Existing Traffic Signal -- Comdor Preservation Footprint Gal.@ Access Identifier — — Parallel Irrigation , RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out �r • •• , © Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed d ' -o-- -: Ria9 0 75 150 300 600 300 Page 31 of 5D goo M•f1)- Y i�9 MO • Access Control Plan Mapbook asp CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • • Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out Mileposts CI /10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Slag - - App ox Existing CO 52 ROW — Corr dor Preservation Fo tprint - Parallel Irrigation .e ceSS Key • EASNA • CI z6.5 — t'� -C) - NoAction- fo -!"uFr n [ Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional• s� - -- • - - - . � . sM3 Bowles Canal Rd CI Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed Existing Restricted Access to be Removed ,t, -coos to eohs •,'h Cu,r, ac z;fccnLr,AO H„rbm,oy c:a�orner.v,30ie c� p,orrfe, oncT,-,u r.. Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access if - t cbr, ky.. In ey, ,. Page 32 of 50 ce U Signal instalation part of existing safety improvement project - le - `27 MEN Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 . Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Gala@ Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out — �3 - te@ --- App= Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — parallel Irrigation -4 . Access Key • No Action - - NoAction- , Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional• • 52.. 7 ce U ,27S 75 150 000 "300 Page 33 of 50 Beebe nura/ Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 — Mad= ♦ Mi eposts (1/10 mi) Existing frail c Signal Gale@ Access Identifier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out 5z. --- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corr der Preservation Fo torint — — Par lel Irrigation A:cess Kery ▪ No Action-! i, No Action 1 .i 4, Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full M ovemen:Access - Conditional' . -______________ — .me -SaiNa 75 150 300 000 Seer Page 34 of 50 M cc c.) 26.5 Access Control Plan Mapbook p CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 X21 . r grace A Corridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through the I-76 interchange area since this area Is excluded from the PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RURO Right-In/Right-Out Access Key - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation WCR 1214 ▪ NoAction - NoAction ' Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional" 0 75 150 300 1" -300' Page 35 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 A Corridor Preservation Footprint is not shown through the /-76 interchange area since this area is excluded from the PEL Exclusion Areas have current studies underway, existing NEPA documents, or are under construction • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Qa"Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 5" Ave 8" Ave N U HUDSON r ?g0.0 gAZ,b J ;i � G - T_ s 2k'Y3kc rtilErc - -- App ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Cor dor Preservation Footprint — — Par Ilel Irrigation rr r ii C 5" Ave 4' Ave ca d- U Access rte • NoAction- NoAction- .. 1 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movemeit Access - Conditional^ 1s 3 _s,,-lg� .. - 2994-N C;: �� T •— C D 0 75 150 300 500 300 © Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed O New Full Movement Access Existing Restricted Access to be Removed ..�. r;i .._• - Page 36 of 50 ce U 3 Cr3S T3 €IXIag ME:Ef N P T Access Control Plan Mapbook CP CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 Sunrise Acres St • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Galeg Access Identifier RURO Right-In/Right-Out Cook Ct - -- Approx Exisiing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key 30.99-N gilt(DC3— - 6 *� i moo ow n a U d 0 7S 150 100 1 1,00 G00 Page 37 of 50 --- -- -•- - - -- -- 31. gag kJ grdi Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CC K--, - CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) t Existing Traffic Signal WA?, Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out E'agind - - - -- App ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corndor Preservation Footprint — — Par Ilel Irrigation • -- -= — — 437.5 0 -- Access X_ f— • No Act on- i t nd FAcv�nrenr No Acton -I. c,pny Res L:1rn Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Nbvemen- Access - Conditions, Q New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Cal r,.nd Local Murur e^fpCllon fF prf-Ind7tyht-G,C w `+l Page 38 of 50 cc N 01 O a c� - • a s U Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 :2 �J • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Q(,li.fg Access Identifier RI/R0 Rlghl-In/Right-Out 604N €4IIMB 8A332] EMDO Q d - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation €1223,10 Access Kev ■ u3c s _ + 32.5 Pc�3 d 300 Page 39 of 50 moa- olBsu 3 Egimo Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 a U 3 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out X33 - -- App ax Existing CO 52 ROW Cor idor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation --a�Ce1Cf Access .Key ago — _ _. -e - o_€�b € atil 0 75 150 30a 600 coo Q New Full Movement Access Page 40 Cr i9 Banner Lanes Stale Wiltllde Area rC.cLti -" - — REM - Access Control Plan Mapbook a*" CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 -€2049 gliKa61- Q t±� r -- 4:� - � • Mileposis (1/10 n) Exrs't.Ing Traffic&pal M.@ Access Idenliher RI/R0 Right-In/nigh; Our. M U 3 --- A.pprox Ex sling CO 57 ROW — — Corridor P,eservanon Foolpnnt — — Parallel Irngaiion Access Key 34 • - Q 5z' € EM• 0 oa O New Full Movement Access Page 91 of 50 - -= -- - - Bfl - wogs &Too Access Control Plan Mapbook a 0 CO 52 PEL / ACP r CO 119 to CO 79 � 4:5 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mr) Existing Traffic Signal j Access ldent fier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Out C --- App ox Exishng CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel lrnganon Access Kty - • CC U 3 .a D 75 1$0 300 600 !00 Page 42 of 50 Access Control Plan Mapbook P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 via% goo- �II • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Gal.@ Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out 5 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW -- Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation -041{0- 35:5— — — - -agEW- Access Key _ • O 4',-, BIM € ]5 15C 600 '•...d �r• 2.00 © Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed 4) New Full Movement Access [.. i ... _.x•:11. �:_.. h. ...: I�=: •':. �:. law is ;. �..:'=+.: f._.-_. Page 43 of 5C N ce U 3 011:0fl g1MQ Access Control Plan Mapbook I CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mQ Existing l raffle Signal Q..^O Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out - -- App ox Existing CO 52 BROW -- Cor idor Preservation Footprint — — Par Ilel Irrigation +ecceas xev • -- _ — - -_ •ir161 a = C - `_ -CCQ-- - • • r - �... _ - W 3 MO N IX U nee I Page 44 of 50 ce U - - 37 ' CF: Q — e €3238 EONS en ce U 3 Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 .* • — � - - - Yrt• - 52.: r - - 9 WO - @ elea_ - - - - - • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal (13143 Access Identifier RI/R0 Right -In/ Right-Ou I - -- Approx Existing Co 52 Row — - Corridor Preservation Footonnt — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • No Action-, , No Action • - Existing Full Movement to Restrmed Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional - d 300 600 500 Page 45 of ip Access Control Plan Mapbook C P CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts Cl/10 m1) Existing Traffic Signal d3OF$ Access Identdier RI/RO Right-In/Right-Ou1 --- A.ppiox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Condor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation — _—__ =OEM_ == _ — — Access !-Cly— • No Action No Action-: E 4 Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access - Conditional` CJ • s tl 150 300 500 00 Page 46 of 50 CC U Access Control Plan Mapbook CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 MEW 0 Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Qali:Q Access Identifier RI/R0 Right-In/Right-Out • 52 - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation — —• _- Access Key • NoAction- r .. No Action- .. .. $ Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional" v� d 75 150 300 600 r66, 300 Page 47 of 50 _ - -Cr - O — ass arm mcgo Access Control Plan Mapbook lap CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts EV10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal ca.:3' Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/Right-Out - -- Appiox Existing CO 52 ROW Cor dor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation — sz - MENL - tiegEaCre Access +icy • No Action a No Action- • . .. -.. Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access O Existing Full Movement Access -Conditional' rn U A: ._.... Page 48 of 58 •�y.;-' —air" - - — - Q�3 �k3' crszo - 3 - — - p n, sE3 .i,J- matcaimo 00,21_ Access Control Plan Mapbook g CO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 • Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Ga.@ Access Identifier RVRO Right-In/RigheOut - -- Approx Existing CO 52 ROW Corridor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation Access Key • No Action-! ••/• iri )4 No Action ,.i e; Existing Full Movement to Restricted Access Q Existing Full Movement Access-Contlnional• • Gi New Full Movement Access New Restricted Access Page 49 of 50 -ZATRI• WW1 •-_ — . . Access Control Plan Mapbook PCO 52 PEL / ACP CO 119 to CO 79 ♦ Mileposts (1/10 mi) Existing Traffic Signal Access Identifier Fd/R0 Right-In/Right-Out • _ . 43.-3f21_ -c12LB - - - - - WNW - 31[[3.0 -� 41.5 - o--_ - 6 - 52tWef OW- -_ =Crw - --- App ox Existing CO 52 ROW -- Cor idor Preservation Footprint — — Parallel Irrigation ACCess Key NoAction - '?I i�r it-m^iz No Action -r irn E [sting Full Moveme t to Restr cted Access O Existing Full Movemert Access -Conditional' - <sicrkki.fir - + a !, da-kni . - W _ �-'. G. -a�s�� a��C sup- @.cook,: ..723 oD Existing Full Movement Access to be Removed ip New Full Movement Access Existing Restricted Access to be Removed New Restricted Access ;�. ber.r, of fo,ctrirklncr,r1 4., aly,iii/i%�,�; l�)rc that, 2Uk -;f'IL i.IIF.InI`.!-Irl�l .,-t. Jtr,.ri+cce, h;(Avur„arc; lipovvoy br-or, s,:.i ii�•cl� ,pinadr.-nrn_ ,,• r,., Sde;v�co„ Page 50 of 50 Contract Form New Contract Request Entity Information Entity Name* COLD:,%DO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Contract Name* SH 52 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN IGA Contract Status CTB REVIEW Entity ID* g,00003413 ❑ New Entity? Contract ID 5818 Contract Lead* EPINKHAM Contract Lead Email epinkhamOco.weld.co.us Parent Contract ID Requires Board Approval YES Delray rment Project It Contract Description* WELD COUNTY STAFF, ALONG WITH BOULDER COUNTY, DACONO, ERIE, FORT LUPTON, FREDERICK, HUDSON, KEENESBURG AS WELL AS CDOT HAVE WORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP THE SH 52 ACP AS WELL AS THE PEL STUDY. Contract Description 2 CDOT REQUIRES THAT ALL INVOLVED AGENCIES SIGN THE IGA AND ABIDE BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ACP. CDOT IS REQUESTING THAT WELD COUNT( PROVIDE THEM WITH A RESOLUTION OR LETTER OF SUPPORT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SH 52 PEL STUDY APPENDICES. Contract Type* AGREEMENT Amount* $ 0.00 Renewahle * NO Automatic Renewal Grant IGA YES Department PUBLIC A ,RKS Department Email CM- PublicWorksgweldgov.com Department Head Email CM-Publir_Works- DeptHead':- eldgov.com County Attorney GENEP-1 COUNTY ATTORNEY EMAIL County Attorney Email CM- COUN :\ 'ORNEYgWELDG OV,COM IGA Deadline Date. If this is a renewal enter previous Contract ID If this is hart of a Nt5A enter MSA Contract ID Requested BOCC Agenda Date* 05,10,`2022 Due Date 05,'1 2 r2022 Will a work session with BOCC be required?* NO Does Contract require Purchasing Dept. to be included? Note: the Previous Contract Number and Master Services Agreement Number should be left blank if those contracts are not in On Base Contract Dates Effective Date Termination Notice Period Contact Information Contact Info Contact Name Purchasing Purchasing Approver Approval Process Department Head ELIZABETH RELFORD DH Approved Date 05/12/2022 Final Approval BOCC Apprrwed BOCC Signed Date BOCC Agenda Date 05/18/2022 Originator EPINKHAM Contact Type Review Date* 05/0112024 Committed Delivery Date Contact Email Finance Approver CHERYL PATTELLI Renewal Date Expiration Date* 05/08/2025 Contact Phone i Purchasing Approved Date Finance Approved Date 05'12/'2022 Tyler Ref # AG 051822 Legal Counsel BRUCE BARKER Contact Phone 2 Legal Counsel Approved Date 05,12;2022 Hello