The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20200141.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS CONTROL PLAN FOR COORDINATED REGULATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO U.S. HIGHWAY 36 AND COLORADO HIGHWAY 66, AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - VARIOUS AGENCIES 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 an Access Control Plan for the Coordinated Regulation of Public Access to U.S. Highway 36, between McConnell Drive and Highland Drive, and the Section of Colorado Highway 66 between Highland Drive and CR 19, between 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 Town of Lyons, City of Longmont, Town of Mead, Town of Firestone, Boulder County, and the Colorado Department of Transportation, 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 an Access Control Plan for the Coordinated Regulation of Public Access to U.S. Highway 36, between McConnell Drive and Highland Drive, and the Section of Colorado Highway 66 between Highland Drive and CR 19, between 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 Town of Lyons, City of Longmont, Town of Mead, Town of Firestone, Boulder County, and the Colorado Department of Transportation, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said agreement. cc: Pc.i(ER /cN) it /03/20 2020-0141 EG0078 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS CONTROL PLAN FOR COORDINATED REGULATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO U.S. HIGHWAY 36 AND COLORADO HIGHWAY 66 - VARIOUS AGENCIES PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 13th day of January, A.D., 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: datottio ,, •XLto%e1 Weld County Clerk to the Board County £ ttorney Date of signature: I /15/20 Mike Freeman, Chair rbara Kirkmeyer 2020-0141 EG0078 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 10, 2020 FROM: Elizabeth Relford, PW Deputy Director SUBJECT: SH 66 PEL/ACP Study and IGA In 2016, CDOT contracted with Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig (FHU) to develop a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study for the 20 -mile section of SH 66 between the Town of Lyons and Weld County Road (WCR) 19 (DRCOG boundary). The SH 66 PEL describes existing corridor conditions, identifies anticipated problem areas and evaluates/develops multimodal improvements to reduce congestion, improve operations and enhance roadway safety. This is the first PEL study to include a "Risk and Resiliency" component as approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Project Team utilized the SH 66 Coalition to function as the Policy Advisory Group and created a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of the staff members from the communities along the corridor. This effort also included creating an SH 66 Access Control Plan (ACP). The combined effort of the PEL and ACP were completed in September of 2019. The attached IGA between Lyons, Longmont, Mead, Firestone, Boulder County, Weld County and CDOT reflects a two -third's voting approval for ACP amendments. Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chair's signature on the IGA. pw( ER) t/t5/20 2020-0141 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE TOWN OF LYONS, THE CITY OF LONGMONT, THE TOWN OF MEAD, THE TOWN OF FIRESTONE, THE COUNTY OF BOULDER, THE COUNTY OF WELD, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is entered into effective as of the date defined below by and among the Cities/Towns of Lyons, Longmont, Mead, and Firestone and the Counties of Boulder and Weld (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Cities and Counties"), and the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), said parties being referred to collectively herein as the "Agencies." RECITALS: WHEREAS, The Agencies are authorized by the provisions of Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a), 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 and alternative modes of transportation circulation, to reduce the potential for traffic accidents, 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 United States Highway 36 between McConnell Drive (M.P 21.00) and Highland Drive (M.P. 21.764), and the section of Colorado State Highway 66 between Highland Drive (M.P. 28.693) and Weld County Road 19 (M.P. 47.912) (hereinafter referred to as the "Segment"), which is within the jurisdiction 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 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 WHEREAS, The development of this Access Control Plan adheres to the requirements of the Access Code, Section 2.12. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein contained, the Agencies agree as follows: 1. The Access Control Plan dated March 2020 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. 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 thirty -day notice, any party to this Agreement may withdraw from the Agreement in writing, without consent of the 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. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 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 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, 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. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one original Agreement. Facsimile signature shall be as effective as an original signature. 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 fifty (50) years from the Effective Date unless sooner terminated or further extended, in writing, by the Agencies. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agencies have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year of the last party to sign. Town of Lyons, Colorado Mackts gimy,(.o 7/15/2020 Nicholas Angelo, Mayor, Town of Lyons Date City of Longmont, Colorado 7/17/2020 Brian Bagley, Mayor, City of Longmont Date Town of Mead, Colorado Cam,, u 7/20/2020 Colleen G. Whitlow, Mayor, Town of Mead Date Town of Firestone, Colorado 9/1/2020 Bobbi Sindelar, Mayor, Town of Firestone Date County of Boulder, Colorado 10/6/2020 Deb Gardner, Commissioner, County of Boulder Date 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 County of Weld, Colorado dot tk FvuAlalA, 10/13/2020 Mike Freeman, Commissioner, County of Weld Date State of Colorado Department of Transportation Rt-411Ai-r Paddock 10/13/2020 Heather Paddock, Region 4 Date Regional Transportation Director State of Colorado Department of Transportation Slum- Rain -km, 10/13/2020 Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer Date 5 County of Weld, Colorado ATTEST: �,f G J,,G40;t0i. C1 4`'''""- JAN 1 3 2020 Mike Freeman, Chair Board of Weld County Commissioners APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7:41;6. �''�``.�`�, JAN 1 3 20 County Attorney Date mo o-6/$/ DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 "EXHIBIT - A" UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 36 AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 66 (US 36 MP 21.00 -MP 21.764 AND CO 66 MP 28.693 -MP 47.912) ACCESS CONTROL PLAN March 2020 Town of Lyons, City of Longmont, Town of Mead, Town of Firestone, 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 United States Highway 36 between McConnell Drive (M.P 21.00) and Highland Drive (M.P. 21.764), as well as the section of Colorado State Highway 66 between Highland Drive (M.P. 28.693) and Weld County Road 19 (M.P. 47.912). 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. 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: location, description of the current access status, the future configuration (Access Plan), and the condition(s) for change. All access points along United States Highway 36 and Colorado State Highway 66 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. 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 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 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. 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing#: 20-HA4-XE-03004 "EXHIBIT - B" UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 36 AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 66 (US 36 MP 21.00 -MP 21.764 AND CO 66 MP 28.693 -MP 47.912) 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 and agreed upon by the affected jurisdictions: Department staff, 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 a jurisdiction's 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. 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 or analysis, depending upon the magnitude of the change requested. Any affected jurisdiction of the Intergovernmental Agreement can request this supporting documentation. 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 66 Access Control Plan (March 2020) 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 City Manager and/or 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 City and County. 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 7. A written amendment must include the following: 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% (aka, five) of the affected jurisdictions of the Intergovernmental Agreement do not come to agreement on a proposed amendment, the content of the original Access Control Plan remains intact. 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 "EXHIBIT - C" SAMPLE AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE TOWN OF LYONS, THE CITY OF LONGMONT, THE TOWN OF MEAD, THE TOWN OF FIRESTONE, THE COUNTY OF BOULDER, THE COUNTY OF WELD, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATED WHEREAS: The Town of Lyons, the City of Longmont, the Town of Mead, the Town of Firestone, the County of Boulder, and the County of Weld (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Cities and Counties") 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 , 2020 to adopt an Access Control Plan dated March, 2020 for the section of United States Highway 36 between McConnell Drive (M.P 21.00) and Highland Drive (M.P. 21.764), and the section of Colorado State Highway 66 between Highland Drive (M.P. 28.693) and Weld County Road 19 (M.P. 47.912) (hereinafter referred to as the "Segment"). 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 United States Highway 36 and Colorado State Highway 66 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. Town of Lyons, Colorado Town Administrator Date City of Longmont, Colorado City Manager Date 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2CF5D8-2911-4E78-A8AE-4B6A7A94C78E OLA #: 351001591 Routing #: 20-HA4-XE-03004 Town of Mead, Colorado Town Manager Date Town of Firestone, Colorado Town Manager Date County of Boulder, Colorado County Manager Date County of Weld, Colorado Commissioner Date State of Colorado, Department of Transportation Region 4 Regional Transportation Director Date State of Colorado Department of Transportation Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer Date 11 Entity Information Entity Name* CITY OF LONGMONT Entity ID* @00005696 Contract Name* INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE HWY 66 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN Contract Status CTB REVIEW ❑ New Entity? Contract ID 3361 Contract Lead* ERELFORD Contract Lead Email erelford@co.weld.co.us Parent Contract ID Requires Board Approval YES Department Project # Contract Description* INTERGOVERNMENATAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE TOWN OF LYONS, THE CITY OF LONGMONT, THE TOWN OF MEAD, THE TOWN OF FIRESTONE, THE COUNTY OF BOULDER. THE COUNTY OF WELD, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO REGULATE VEHICULAR ACCESS ON Contract Description 2 COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 66 BETWEEN HIGHLAND DRIVE AND \N'CR 19. AND UNITED STAES HIGHWAY 36 BETWEEN MCCONNELL DRIVE AND HIGHLAND DRIVE Contract Type* AGREEMENT Amount* $0 00 Renewable* NO Automatic Renewal Grant IGA YES IGA Deadline Date If this is a renewal enter previous Contract ID If this is part of a MSA enter MSA Contract ID Note: the Previous Contract Number and Master Services Agreement Number should be left blank if those contracts are not in OnEase Contract Dates Department PUBLIC WORKS Department Email CM- PublicWorks@weldgov corn Department Head Email CM-PublicWorks- DeptHead a�T. veldgov.corn County Attorney BOB CHOATE County Attorney Email BCHOATE@CO.WELD.CO US Requested BOCC Agenda Date* 01/13/2020 Due Date 014)9/2020 Will a work session with BOCC be required?* HAD Does Contract require Purchasing Dept. to be included? NO Effective Date 0 1/1 3/2020 Termination Notice Period Contact Information Review Date* 01/01/2030 Committed Delivery Date Renewal Date Expiration Date* 01/01/2030 Contact Info Contact Name Contact Type Contact Email Contact Phone 1 Contact Phone 2 Purchasing Purchasing Approver Approval Process Department Head JAY MCDONALD DH Approved Date 01106/2020 Final Approval BOCC Approved BOCC Signed Date BOCC Agenda Date 01i13/2020 Originator SSWANSON Finance Approver CHRIS D'OVIDIO Purchasing Approved Date Finance Approved Date 01/07/2020 Tyler Ref # AG 011320 Legal Counsel BOB CHOATE Legal Counsel Approved Date 01/08/2020 Submit Esther Gesick From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Elizabeth Relford Monday, April 6, 2020 9:11 AM Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Scott James RE: Use Commissioner James for signatory on SH 66 Access Control Plan IGA? Yes, that is what I was hoping we could do. Thanks Bruce! Elizabeth From: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9:05 AM To: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Cc: Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Use Commissioner James for signatory on SH 66 Access Control Plan IGA? So let's just have Mike and everyone sign, then scan this signed version and substitute it as the one we will figure is then original. Bruce T. Barker, Esq. Weld County Attorney P.O. Box 758 1150 "O" Street Greeley, CO 80632 (970) 400-4390 Fax: (970) 352-0242 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2020 8:58 AM To: Bruce Barker abbarker weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick[c weldgov.com> Cc: Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Use Commissioner James for signatory on SH 66 Access Control Plan IGA? Bruce, 1 I have done a track change comparison on these, but it was said to me the only change was the signature pages. I have not confirmed that. Elizabeth From: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 8:29 AM To: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Cc: Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Use Commissioner James for signatory on SH 66 Access Control Plan IGA? Do we have a mark up showing the differences between what was approved and what is new in this version? Bruce T. Barker, Esq. Weld County Attorney P.O. Box 758 1150 "O" Street Greeley, CO 80632 (970) 400-4390 Fax: (970) 352-0242 4WD Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Elizabeth Relford <erefford@weldgov.com> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2020 1:24 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weidgov.cam>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com> Subject: FW: Use Commissioner James for signatory on SH 66 Access Control Plan IGA? Esther, This is the revised IGA CDOT is asking for our Chair's signature. The Commissioners already approved the IGA earlier this year, so I was just hoping we could get Commissioner Freeman's signature on CDOT's latest and greatest version. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Thanks, Elizabeth From: Bilobran - CDOT, Timothy <iimol.hy.bilobran@state.co.us> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 11:40 AM To: Scott James <siarnes@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@welcigov.com>; James Zufall - CDOT 2 <jarriesd.zufall@state.co.us> Subject: Fwd: Use Commissioner James for signatory on SH 66 Access Control Plan IGA? Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As we continue to move forward to SH 66 Electronic IGA distribution & signature, CDOT HO.asked me to create a mailing list for the signatory at each municipality. I've reattached the IGA here. Each municipality needs to please e-mail me the name and e-mail address of the person whose title matches what is listed in the IGA for signatory. I assume this IGA goes to Commissioner James for signature but please let me know officially. If you need to change the signatory listed on the IGA please let me know. Thanks, Tim Bilobran 970-302-4022 Tim Bilobran Region 4 Permits Manager COLORADO Department of Transportation 0 970.350.2163 I C 970.302.4022 I F 970.350.2198 timothy.bilobran@state.cc.us I codot.gov I www.cotrip.org 10601 W. 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80634 Tim Bilobran Region 4 Permits Manager COLORADO Department of Transportation 3 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Re -port October 2019 COLORADO Department of Transportation State Highway 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Report Prepared for: 4. rsJ\ COLORADO Department of Transportation Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303.721.1440 In partnership with: Atkins, member of the SNC-Lavalin Group 7604 Technology Way, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80237 FHU Reference No. 115255-01 October 2019 Cat- CS SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table of Contents 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Need 2 What is a PEL study' 2 What is an ACP? 2 What is a purpose and need? 2 How is purpose and need different from goals and objectives' 2 2. Alternatives Development and Screening and ACP Development 4 How were alternatives developed? 4 How were the alternatives screened? 4 How did this PEL incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facility considerations? 12 What is a No Action Alternative? 14 3. PEL Recommendations, Right of Way Preservation, and Prioritization of Improvements 22 Section 1: McConnell Drive to 87th Street 24 Section 2: 87th Street to County Line Road 26 Section 3: County Line Road to 3rd Street (WCR 7) 28 Section 4: 3rd Street (WCR 7) to Weld County Road 11 30 Section 5: Weld County Road 11 to Weld County Road 19 32 4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies 34 How is PEL environmental documentation used' 34 How were environmental impacts analyzed in this PEL Study? 34 How are cumulative impacts included in PELs? 35 5. Risk and Resiliency 38 What is resiliency? 38 What are physical threats? 38 What are operational threats? 41 6. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement 44 How was agency coordination and public outreach managed during the PEL process? 44 How were individuals and members of the public engaged during the PEL process? 45 7. Additional Next Steps 46 How is CDOT thinking about transportation technology for SH 667 46 8. References 47 Appendices Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H. Appendix I. Appendix .1. Appendix K. FHWA Acceptance Letter FHWA PEL Questionnaire Corridor Conditions Report Purpose and Need Overview Alternative Development and Screening Documentation Agency Coordination Summary Public Involvement Summary Access Control Plan Documentation Right of Way Preservation Recommendations Utilities Documentation Physical Threats Risk and Resiliency Assessment List of Figures Figure 1. Study Corridor Location 2 Figure 2. PEL Study Area 3 Figure 3. Alternatives Evaluation Process 4 Figure 4. Alternative Development and Screening Process 5 Figure 5. SH 66 PEL Corridor Sections 6 Figure 6. Operational Classifications Overview 6 Figure 7. Existing Conditions and Level 2 Screening Recommendations 7 Figure 8. Existing Conditions and Level 2 Screening Corridor Visualizations 8 Figure 9. Reversible Lane Concept Between SH 66/Hover and SH 66/US 287 - Not Carried Forward 10 Figure 10. Hybrid Option Concept of a Split Intersection/Diamond Interchange Figure Figure Recommendations 13 Figure 13. Level 3 Screening Roadway Maps 15 Figure 14. ROW Preservation Footprint Overview 22 Figure 15. Physical Threat Examples 38 Figure 16. SH 66 PEL Risk Ft Resiliency Physical Assessment Process 39 Figure 17. SH 66 Assets and Physical Threats Overview 40 Figure 18. Operational Threat Factors 41 Figure 19. Technology Examples for SH 66 46 at SH 66/WCR 9.5 - PEL Proposed Option 11. Access Road with Advisory Shoulders Cross Section 12. Level 3 Screening Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit 10 12 List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. 2040 No Action Fiscally -Constrained Projects Impacting SH 6614 Potential Environmental Impacts 36 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ACP ARWAS AST BRT CAP -X CatEx CDOT CDPHE CFR CPW CV/AV DRCOG EA EC EIS EPA FHU FHWA IGA LOS LUST NEPA NRfIP PEL RIRO ROW RTD SEMS SH 66 SHPO SPU1 TAC TAZ T&E TIP USACE USFWS UST WCR Access Control Plan access road with advisory shoulders above ground storage tank bus rapid transit Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions Categorical Exclusion Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Code of Federal Regulations Colorado Parks and Wildlife connected vehicle and automated vehicle Denver Regional Council of Governments Environmental Assessment Executive Committee Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Federal Highway Administration intergovernmental agreement level of service leaking underground storage tank National Environmental Policy Act National Register of Historic Places Planning and Environmental Linkages right In/fight out right of way Regional Transportation District Superfund Enterprise Management System State Highway 66 State Historic Preservation Office single point urban interchange Technical Advisory Committee traffic analysis zone threatened and endangered Transportation Improvement Program US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service underground storage tank Weld County Road a SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Instructions for Reviewing This PEL Report This Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Report was completed with the goal of highlighting key information in a concise and useful manner. As such, this report follows a planning document format Each section includes key background and findings from the State Highway 66 (SH 66) PEL process. The appendices include detailed content for further examination. Some graphical icons are included to show a preview of the respective appendix. Study Report Summary and PEL Questionnaire Highlights Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a PEL questionnaire, which is intended to summarize the planning process and ease the transition from this planning study to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. This questionnaire is consistent with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450 (planning regulations) and other FHWA policy on the PEL process. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has incorporated key components of the PEL questionnaire as an introductory summary of the SH 66 PEL. The complete questionnaire is available in Appendix B. SH 66 PEL Background ► What is the name of the PEL document and other identifying protect information? • SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Report • CDOT Project No: STA 0661-014 • CDOT Project Code: 21003 ► Who is the lead agency for the study? • CDOT + Who was the sponsor of the PEL study? • CDOT, with funding support from Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) ► Provide a description of the existing transportation corridor (Chapter 1): • Project limits - McConnell Drive in Lyons to Weld County Road (WCR) 19 • Length of study corridor 20 miles • Modes - Includes vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, bus transit, and freight rail facilities • # Lanes - Generally two lanes (undeveloped areas); four to five lanes near Interstate 25 (I-25), United States Highway 287 (US 287), and United States Highway 36 (US 36) • Shoulders - Widths vary widely; depending on classification, between 4 to 12 feet. • Access control - Not currently a limited access highway. includes many uncontrolled accesses. An Access Control Plan (ACP) 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). SH 66 PEL Process Overview ► Did the Study follow the FHWA PEL Process? • Yes, this PEL study followed FHWA's process, according to CDOT'sPRI, Handbook (2016). ► Provide a brief chronology of the planning activities (PEL study) including the year(s) the studies were conducted. • Study began - October 2016 • Purpose and Need January 2017 through September 2017 • Public Open House Series #1 April 2017 • Final Corridor Conditions Report - September 2017 • Developed Risk and Resiliency (R&R) PEL Process - August2017 through July 2018 • Public Open House Series #2 - April 2019 • Draft Access Control Plan (ACP) Public Open House - July 2019 • Public Open House Senes #3 - September 2019 • Alternatives Development and Screening complete - September 2019 • Draft PEL and ACP Reports available October 2019 • Final ACP Report available - November 2019 • Final PEI. Report available - November 2019 • Study concluded - November 2019 ► What was the scope of the PEL study and the reason for doing it (Chapter 1)? • To address and priontize safety, mobility, and access needs • To promote efficient and cost-effective solutions and reduce delays in project implementation • To understand community context, where sensitive environmental resources are located, and how to make SH 66 more resilient ► What types of alternatives were evaluated during the SH 66 PEL (Chapter 2)? • Roadway options that would improve safety, mobility, and access, such as highway classification and capacity and intersection improvements • Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options that would improve safety and mobility ► Which alternatives were recommended (Chapter 3)? • This report summanzes and prioritizes safety, mobility, and access options carried forward to establish a right of way (ROW) preservation footprint • The ROW preservation footprint is considered the collective footprint of all PEL proposed options that are recommended to be carried forward. • This footprint is intended to inform decision -making at the state and local levels in terms of preserving land and making decisions that do not preclude future transportation improvements identified in this PEL study. ► What arc the environmental issues that need to be considered during NEPA (Chapter 4)? • Likely resources: Floodplains and floodways; wetlands and other waters of the US; threatened and endangered (T&E) species, species of special concern, migratory birds and Eagles; park/trail/open space resources and wildlife/waterfowl refuges; utilities; traffic noise; hazardous materials; environmental justice; visual resources; and historic resources • Other possibilities: Paleontology, archaeology, farmlands, and air quality SH 66 Study Team ► Who was induded on the study team? • FHWA: Tricia Sergeson (Transportation Specialist); Brian Dobling (Region 4 (R4) Area Engineer/ROW Program Manager) • CDOT Project Management Team (PMT): James Zufall (Project Manager); Abra Geissler and Brian Varrella (Resident Engineers); Jim Eussen (R4 Planning and Environmental Manager); Karen Schneiders (Local Agency Environmental and Planning Manager); Lindsay Edgar and Sean Brewer (Statewide PEL Managers); Tim Bilobran (R4 Permits Manager) ▪ Consultant Team: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU), Atkins, Goodbee & Associates, and All Traffic Data • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): CDOT PMT Members; FHWA; Joe Kubala (Town of Lyons); Paul Glasgow (Town of Lyons); George Gerstle (Boulder County); Jeffery Maxwell (Boulder County); Scott McCarey (Boulder County); Phil Greenwald (City of Longmont); Tyler Stamey (City of Longmont); Jim Angstadt (City of Longmont); Jim Flesher (Weld County); Dawn Anderson (Weld County); Everett Bacon (Weld County); Helen Migchelbrink (Town of Mead); Erika Rasmussen (Town of Mead); Dawn Adams (Town of Mead); Chris Kennedy (Town of Mead); Julie Pasillas (City of Firestone); David Lindsay (City of Firestone); Paula Mehle (City of Firestone); Steve Cook (DRCOG); Nataly Handlos (RTD); Consultant Team. • Executive Committee (EC): CDOT PMT Members; FHWA; Heather Paddock (CDOT R4); Johnny Olson (CDOT R4); Keith Sheaffer (CDOT R4); Connie Sullivan (Town of Lyons); Victoria Simonsen (Town of Lyons); Deb Gardner (Boulder County); Jeff Moore (City of Longmont); Scott James (Weld County); Elizabeth Relford (Weld County); Julie Cozad (Weld County); George Heath (Town of Firestone); Colleen Whitlow (Town of Mead); Judy Lubow (RTD); Consultant Team. ► How did the Study meet each of the PEL Coordination Points identified in 23 USC 168? • FHWA points are summarized below. • March 16, 2017 - Coordination Point # 1: Reason for the Study and Desired Outcomes Meeting • June 19, 2017 - Coordination Point # 2: Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives plus Corridor Conditions Report approval by email • December 12, 2018 - Coordination Point #3: Alternatives Development and Screening Review email coordination from FHWA for Level 2/Level 3 • May 30, 2019 - Coordination Points #3 and #4: Alternatives Development and Screening Outcomes and PEL Documentation Next Steps Meeting • July 26, 2019, and August 16, 2019 Coordination Points #3 and #4: Alternatives Development and Screening Outcomes and PEL Documentation Next Steps Correspondence by email • Further FHWA and agency coordination details are included in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 1 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Need CDOT has conducted a PEL study and has developed an ACP for SH 66. What is a PEL study? PEI. studies represent an approach to transportation decision -making that considers environmental, community, and economic goals during early planning stages. PELs minimize duplication of effort, promote cost-effective solutions, encourage environmental stewardship, and reduce project implementation delays. What is an ACP? In parallel with the PEL and using consistent study limits, CDOT developed a SH 66 ACP (Chapter 2) to identify location, type, and basic design elements of future access points. Without better access control, the number of conflicts, amount of delay, and level of congestion would increase on SH 66. SH 66 PEL Study Outcomes ► Identifies a strategic vision and purpose for SH 66 that addresses safety, mobility, and access needs ► Accounts for environmental resources, community context, and risk/resiliency ► Details the alternatives development and screening process ► Identifies and prioritizes short-term and long-term improvements developed through a collaborative stakeholder and public process Supporting Documentation Appendix A FHWA Acceptance Letter: Obtained to document FHWA's involvement and acceptance of the PEL study ► Appendix B FHWA PEI. Questionnaire: Consistent with 23 CFR 450 and FHWA policies, serves as a guide for conducting a PEL study, and summarizes the process ► Appendix C Corridor Conditions Report: Documents current and anticipated future corridor conditions regarding planning and land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources; served as the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements in the corridor; involved agency coordination at the local, state, regional, and federal levels Other appendices are available and will be referenced in subsequent sections. SH 66 Study Location ► Situated north of the Denver metropolitan area (Figure 1) ► Includes approximately 20 miles (Figure 2) of SH 66 between US 36 in the Town of Lyons and Weld County Road (WCR) 19 in unincorporated Weld County. Also includes US 36/McConnell Drive to US 36/SH 66. ► Intersects US 36, US 287, and 1-25 Figure 1. Study Corridor Location .-. STUDY CORRIDOR WELD CR3t Motta'Ute Fat Lupton at What is a purpose and need? r 1- " r ;will Dew IInternational! , Aupat According to FHWA, a study's "purpose and need" provides justification for the project and drives the development and screening of alternatives. CDOT and the PEL Study Team worked in collaboration with FHWA and corridor stakeholders (Chapter 6) to establish a purpose and need for guiding the SH 66 PEL process. Appendix D includes detailed purpose and need documentation for the SH 66 PEL study. How is purpose and need different from goals and objectives? Goals and objectives carry less emphasis in a PEI., but they serve as differentiators during alternative screening when purpose and need considerations do not distinguish an alternative. They also help define context sensitivity. Appendix D highlights CDOT's goals and objectives for the SH 66 PEL study. SH 66 PEL Purpose Statement SH 66 transportation improvements are to increase safety; reduce traffic congestion; provide managed access for existing and future development; and improve multi -modal mobility of people, goods, and services. The improvements should be resilient, accommodate developing technologies, and strive to complement adjacent community context SH 66 PEL Summary of Needs ► Safety: The corridor has higher than expected safety concerns. • Vehicular Several intersection and mainline locations have a high number of crashes and fatalities. • Bicycle — Areas in the corridor exhibit bicycle safety concerns. • Pedestrian -- Many pedestrian destinations do not have sidewalk connections. ► Mobility: The movement of people, goods, and services along the corridor has resulted in mobility challenges that can impede people commuting, recreating, and conducting business along SH 66. • Vehicular -- Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections and highway design, and unreliable travel times currently; conditions are expected to worsen with population and employment growth. • Bicycle — Heavy SH 66 bicycle use (recreational, commuter, and events); insufficient shoulders; high level of traffic stress for cyclists; insufficient future bicycle connections. • Pedestrian — Many pedestrian destinations do not have sidewalk connections; no grade -separated pedestrian crossings currently. • Transit -- High vehicle speeds and lack of pedestrian infrastructure for transit stops; Regional Transportation District's (RTD) current service boundaries do not include Weld County; expected increase in future demand. ► Access: Operational and safety deficiencies due to a high number of uncontrolled public and private access points with inconsistent spacing; access issues expected to worsen in future as traffic volumes and development increase. SH 66 PEL Summary of Goals and Objectives ► Community Context: Maintain community context (such as rural character) and enhance the community's exposure along the corridor (through gateways) ► Environment: Protect and accommodate natural and cultural resources along the corridor (such as floodplains, open space areas) and minimize environmental impacts (e.g., wildlife crossings, traffic noise concerns) ► Risk and Resiliency: Understand physical threats (such as natural hazards) and operational threats (unanticipated traffic increases resulting from unplanned land development); collaborate with communities to establish partnerships; and enhance SH 66 as an evacuation route 2 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2. PEL Study Area Legend HfJMand Pia. 2 Reservoi• **tom Foothills Rcurvctr J N LION R vERMI iION.RD— 000fder E Lorimer Reservoir Won Reservoir '_aAr Thcm. s Parks Et Open Space U.S./State Highway Major Roads Local Roads • Railroad Rivers/Streams County Boundary Lakes/Reservoirs O Study Area k dr Town Of Mead Town Of Firestone City Of Longmont Town Of Lyons NORTH 0 1.5 I Mlles 3 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 2. Alternatives Development and Screening and ACP Development Chapter 2 documents methods used to develop and screen alternatives along the SH 66 PEL study corridor. The alternatives produced and evaluated include a wide range of potential solutions encompassing roadways, intersections, access points, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit. Development, screening, and refinement of alternatives focused on identifying alternatives that meet purpose and need for the corridor and that match corridor context. How were alternatives developed? 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, following a focused screening effort (Figure 3). Agency coordination and public involvement (Chapter 6) played a major role in the alternative development process. Figure 4 summarizes the alternatives development and screening process for the SH 66 PEL study. Figure 3. Alternatives Evaluation Process SCREENING LEVEL 1. Purpose Et Need Analysis Comparative Analysis 3. Detailed Analysis NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES Large Number of General Alternatives with public input with public input How were the alternatives screened? Evaluation criteria were developed for each screening level and were used to assess alternatives relative to the purpose and need. Goals and objectives were considered in the process. Alternatives were evaluated based on whether they met purpose and need and were advanced to subsequent screening levels, as appropriate. The following language was used to document findings: ► Eliminated: Removed an alternative from consideration for not meeting purpose and need in the current planning horizon (2020 to 2040); used only during the Level 1 process selectively; and would allow an alternative to be considered again after the 20 -year planning horizon ends Not Recommended: Would allow the alternative to be revisited during NEPA and project development but was not recommended at the current time and was not advanced to subsequent screening levels ► Carried Forward: Recommended for further consideration in subsequent screening levels Alternatives development and screening outcomes were evaluated in substantial detail and documented in color -coded screening matrices (Appendix E). t,rlee. Wein __..wore --OS ..,.v. Ono IN an w r See .a... ........... w -r If.h A.O-.Y....I .YYI.'. N.. fa... ••• ,Mist •' -I —. M.. M. M.... .w wry* a.. -i. MM O..* ^• • *IOW •eMY.w• • e.. ....._-�.... Sao ANS Nowa•orw'.. .. OF • l..,. • ...e••. . M••• S Ma . tan ........... ~war Moe S w - _Mi a _ i r . el - l.Y:. •Y_ a -Y- a a MS. `.wrr- s. - e '. r '.. Moo.s a - sin. _ le w. .r. ....w.. n. w r w _ wadr --I-.. - r ... w ....'h • .ib r fines'a .r.ar el. -v. l....w ISOS t—. .-.Y/e..e.e •. 4 ea1-1.1-. N.I. N.41 al. ...Ie.III.TOO ..w rr.. Y- r...... r •f r.-vw• or W cam l...�._:...: � i S. w. r I_. .1 - •. rS-i_ r� A- .Is. --e....._ V \Y. ► a' r a a- - n. .. SSW iwi�M_ .. _ - — sr�e-1 Ia.��w-I.. V. Car cab h_ ..... ••• 1 .. .ti.. w .a MrY-WW w — r - -. r .. .. Yoe. R- M e. V - ... -. Y b.-.. ... _-___•__. r Soo .. new ..M... Y _. a -.re 7..11•Iw. r.. "cos a a..Y. _ _..... ... - - _ — - a...•, w--�i-rn.r.r..w-..- M ...M e -Y._ . ...I M M•iMp Oa.. — r..--.Y..ti. as Y W. -►.r.. YO... a ..O — .r4.. sac w.r•-'..eM1 ti. .- M L -. - Y.../ ... ...... �._. _a.-- — I 1•r" - - x.1....•1.. • Y.-. Appendix E-1 includes the Level 1 screening table and evaluation criteria, as illustrated in this image Stakeholder Involvement Overview ► A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and an Executive Committee (EC) were formed to maintain stakeholder involvement throughout the PEL study. Heavy stakeholder involvement occurred during alternatives development and screening to ensure needs and concerns of affected agencies and communities would be heard and considered in the process. • TAC members, including agency or community planners or engineers, were involved in each level of the evaluation process and during alternatives development, refinement, and screening. • EC members, including elected officials and agency or community executive leadership, were involved at key milestones and decision points. ► Alternatives development and screening analysis findings were shared with the public in April and September 2019 during two public open houses, and analysis refinements were made to address public input. Supporting Documentation ► Appendix E Alternative Development and Screening Documentation: Presents technical detail associated with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 alternatives development and screening, including evaluation criteria and screening matrices ► Appendix F Agency Coordination Summary: Documents the SH 66 PEL process of agency coordination and engagement ► Appendix G Public Involvement Summary: Documents the SH 66 PEL process of public outreach and involvement ► Appendix H Access Control Plan Documentation: Documents development of ACP and maps ACP recommendations Level 1 Overview: Purpose and Need Screening ► Goal: Evaluate a full range of alternatives based on corridor conditions (Appendix C) to assess whether alternatives would meet purpose and need appropriately and contextually ► Considerations: Evaluated roadway, transit, intelligent mobility, and bike and pedestrian facilities alternatives ► Recommendations: Identified which alternatives to eliminate, eliminate in planning horizon, or advance for further evaluation in Level 2 Level 1 Process ► More than 70 generalized alternatives were reviewed along sections of the corridor, including a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline option to consider the corridor in its current or existing state with no improvements or modifications beyond those identified as fiscally constrained. The No Action Alternative is described further on Page 14 of this PEL Report. ► Alternatives that were retained include various functional classes of highway, highway capacity options, intersection modifications, safety -specific improvements, interchange configurations, intersection configurations, highway alignments, transit service and infrastructure options, bicycle and pedestrian options, and concepts contributing to system/program alternatives. ► Most alternatives were retained for further consideration in Level 2. ► Five alternatives were either eliminated or eliminated in the 2020 to 2040 planning horizon: • Realigning SH 66 southward (west of 1-25) was not retained because the current alignment is the northern edge of Longmont. Movement southward would place SH 66 within Longmont, which would degrade safety, mobility, and access conditions and create other issues for the City's transportation system. • Commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), and separate transit guideway were eliminated through 2040 because anticipated ridership does not match the need for these modes. Dedicating a separate transit guideway was also eliminated through 2040 because anticipated transit demand is not viable at this time. 4 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 4. Alternative Development and Screening Process v - .4 O C `b u Detailed Alternative tn 0• Chi O a) JD SCREENING LEVEL ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT INPUTS/MEASURES EVALUATION CRITERIA/ SCREENING OUTCOMES LEVEL 1 GOAL: kecommeno alternatives that a ••ro•riatel Develop Full Range of Alternatives £t contextual) meet • ur •ose it need • Public, Agency, & Stakeholder Perspectives • Range of Alternatives • Roadway • Transit • Intelligent Mobility • bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities LEVEL 2 GOAL: Recommend section -woe alternatives that balance all needs orris• ontext Evaluate Section Classification • Expressway • Non -Rural highway • Rural Highway • Arterial Evaluate Section Capacity • 2 -lane • 3 -Lane • 6 -Lane • 4 -Lane • 5 -Lane • Public, Agency, Et Stakeholder Perspectives • Full Range of Alternatives to Advance LEVEL 3 GOAL: Int •rate improvements to address all needs and balance context Evaluate Intersection Options Evaluate Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities Along Highway Sections and at Intersections Full Range of Alternatives to Advance • Public, Agency, & Stakeholder Perspectives • CAP -X Intersection Options • Bike & Pedestrian Facilities • Transit Facilities • Access Code Criteria & Layouts • Intelligent Mobility Meets Purpose & Need? (Screening) • Safety • Mobility • Access Maintain Purpose & Need to Define Decisions • Safety • Mobility • Access Consider Context • Environmental • Community • Risk Final Access Control Plan Alternatives Eliminated that do not Meet Purpose & Need Full Range of Alternatives to Advance Future Operational Classifications of Highway Sections Number of Future Through Lanes in Highway Sections Potential Intersections Options Potential Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Options Draft Access Control Plan Estimated Maximum Prioritization PEL Study Footprint of (based on needs) ".......4Recommendations Potential Future improvements IS 0 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Level 2 Overview: Comparative Screening ► Goal: Complete screening to recommend section -wide alternatives that balance all needs in the context of environment, community, and risk ► Technical Considerations: Evaluated data and stakeholder input to recommend future characteristics for each highway section • Corridor conditions (Appendix C) in terms of: • Existing highway classifications and number of travel lanes • Existing traffic volumes • Future (seasonally -adjusted) traffic volumes to account for stakeholder identified issues of developing typical peak recreational season volumes. Volumes represent peak weekday volumes. • Select link analysis from the DRCOG traffic model. Select link analysis provided a more detailed understanding of SH 66 travel characteristics to inform the process • Stakeholder input (Chapter 6) ► Findings: Recommended future operational classifications of highway sections, future number of through lanes in highway sections, and basic cross -sections for inclusion of medians or two way left turn lanes Level 2 Process ► For each corridor section (Figure 5), a range of classification options and number of travel lanes were evaluated. Figure 6 illustrates the general operational classifications and associated transportation characteristics considered, such as travel speed, traffic volumes, and desired access spacing. ► Considerations also were made regarding the number of travel lanes that would address purpose and need most effectively, while taking into consideration corridor context and stakeholder input ► About SO alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were reviewed across all corridor sections. For each section, one option was recommended for further evaluation in Level 3, which included classification and capacity. Remaining options were not recommended. Figure 7 illustrates corridor -wide illustrations of existing and proposed future highway capacity (number of lanes) and classification. Figure 8 includes existing and future visualizations of the highway corridor developed as part of the Level 2 Screening Process. ► Following Level 2, these PEL Proposed Options were carried forward into assessing the collective footprint of all proposed options. Chapter 3 further describes the ROW preservation footprint. - -■ •'ice ar:ar. WI Appendix E-2 includes the Level 2 screening tables and evaluation criteria, as illustrated in this image Figure S. SH 66 PEL Corridor Sections Figure 6. Operational Classifications Overview Description Access Spacing EXPRESSWAY I mile Moderately high speeds and 1 mile « for full movement. '45 traffic volumes with limited access, multiple lanes in each direction and separated with possible RIRO at half mile ." . 4-,y: •. �_ - ; d rec Lonai travel r- `• i RURAUREGIONAL HIGHWAY - t ""I° Moderate to high speeds 112 mile + for full movement I - . 45- 65 with moderate to low traffic volumes intersections with public roadways. maximum of one access per parcel (depending . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ on other roadways that could access) with shared preclude �j .,, access preferable I mile Moderate to low travel speeds I/2 mile for full movement { -.1 i • ' 0 '.n , and traffic volumes with moderate access intersections. with possible 3/4 movement at quarter miles, and RIRO access for each . _ _ _ .. _ _ _- _ .- . _ - _ _ _. - - - - - - - - .. parceltshou Id share access it .... ,...... a �• .tom- r T awr . .- .. .. .. . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . .. _. _ .. _ _ . _ ., . _ Y. •. possible) I I } MAIM STREET I Low travel speeds and traffic One access per parcel (should mite +.�.., :.�:.i � volumes with significant roadside development and access needs share access if possible) l .. _ _ _ .. _ ~ 'y I i 6 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 7. Existing Conditions and Level 2 Screening Recommendations Existing 0 LYON SECTION SECTION 1At 1B z Future SECTION SECTION 1Ad. ( 1 B N SECTION 1C r n with turn lanes at intersections LYON SECTION 1C ai I SECTION 2 4, LONGMONT SECTION 2 r SECTION 3 SECTION 3 r„th obit - barrier SECTION dECTION SECTION 4 5A 5B r C. U n SECTION gECTION SECTION 4 5A 5B With cable barrier Figure 8. Section IA Center left turn lane No median separation and minimal turn lanes SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing Conditions and Level 2 Screening Corridor Visualizations Existing I Proposed Raised median with left turn lanes and bike lanes Two through lanes, wide shoulders, and access road with advisory shoulders: with turn lanes at intersections No median separation and minimal turn lanes Two through lanes, wide shoulders, and side path; with turn lanes at intersections Existing I Proposed No median separation and minimal turn lanes Raised median with side path No median separation and minimal turn lanes Cable barrier/grassy median with side path Section 4 No median separation and minimal turn lanes Cable barrier/grassy median with side path No median separation and minimal turn lanes Section SB Existing I Proposed Existing I Proposed Striped median separation Raised medians with side paths Cable barrier/grassy median with side path 8 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Level 3 Overview: Detailed Alternative Development and Screening ► Goal: Complete screening to integrate SH 66 corridor improvements that address all needs and balance context Evaluated: • Range of alternatives at SH 66 intersections, which were refined during ACP development • Range of alternatives for providing adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Transit alternatives, including sidewalk connections and pedestrian accommodations at bus stops ► Recommendations: • Identified intersection improvements (Figure 13 at the end of this chapter) that address safety, mobility, and access needs • Integrated bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements (Figure 12) that address safety, mobility, and access needs • Integrated ACP considerations for access management, consolidation, closures, and recommendations a... _.-_. _.. .— .r _._ ........ e- . ,= - _- - -� -- ;. : �_ ' =- w �. ' PSOSO •.�.� — — .� mow-. ANN.. ��'- woo !ow- -- • ---- —•.. M_.. -- r- _ ._.. -= _ -` rt 1< : ` ' -�- i —a y :. S, ,r4 ... "OS, e _ 4 _ - 5 • ... a mama a .; ....ma- _ +_ so._ _ Appendix E-3 includes the Level 3 screening tables and evaluation criteria for roadways, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, as illustrated in this image SI Environmental Linkages Study Corridor Conditions Report Planning and For baseline transportation information, view the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C) v r1c.,• rt tD i 1wn Roadway Level 3 Alternatives Development ► Intersections along the corridor (Figure 13 at the end of this chapter) were initially evaluated based on purpose and need and study goals. Synchro was used to evaluate intersection and corridor -wide levels of service (LOS) and traffic delays. ► FHWA's Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions (CAP -X) Tool was used to evaluate the range of feasible alternative intersection options where a traditional signalized intersection was not appropriate. ► Approximately 180 alternatives/options, including the No Action Alternative, were reviewed across all corridor sections. For each section, one or more options have been identified as "PEL Proposed Option(s)." ► A reversible lanes concept (Figure 9) was evaluated in Section 1 between SH 66/E Highland Drive and SH 66/87th Street It did not receive much stakeholder or public support and was found infeasible from an operation or a constructability standpoint ► Options were further refined during the ACP process and based on input from the public at the Open Houses in April 2019. ► Following Level 3, these PEI. Proposed Options were carried forward into assessing the collective footprint of all proposed options. Chapter 3 further describes the ROW preservation footprint. Roadway Level 3 Recommendations ► PEL Proposed Options are consistent with recommendations of the ACP. Several locations along the corridor were projected to have unacceptable operations as a traditional signalized intersection with capacity improvements alone. Additionally, stakeholders desired to preserve a larger footprint to accommodate major north -south arterials at WCR 9.5 and WCR 13 in Weld County. ► Various intersection types and innovations developed during Level 3 were determined to be able to accommodate future traffic conditions. The following options were considered feasible, along with the Proposed Options to carry forward: • 5N 66 and Hover/95th Street — Partial displaced left turn (for westbound to southbound left); fully displaced left turn; grade -separation, such as echelon, single point urban interchange (SPUI), or diamond interchange; junior interchange in the northeast quadrant Carried Forward: Partial displaced left turn as it best meets corridor needs with the smallest footprint • SH 66 and US 287 Fully displaced left turn; grade -separation, such as echelon, SPUI, or diamond interchange; split intersection for westbound/diamond interchange for eastbound. Carried Forward: Fully displaced left turn as it best meets corridor needs with the smallest footprint • SH 66 and County Line Road — Capacity improvements to add turn lanes and acceleration lanes; fully displaced left turn; or grade -separation, such as echelon, SPUI, or diamond interchange. Carried Forward: Added turn lanes at the intersection as it best meets corridor needs with the smallest footprint • SH 66 and WCR 9.5 — Hybrid option of split intersection for westbound/diamond interchange for eastbound; partial or fully displaced left turn; or grade -separation, such as echelon, SPUI, or diamond interchange. Carried Forward: Hybrid option of a split intersection/diamond interchange as it best meets SH 66 corridors needs and WCR 9.5 arterial needs (Figure 10) • SH 66 and WCR 13/Colorado Blvd — Split intersection for westbound/diamond interchange for eastbound; partial or fully displaced left turn; or grade -separation, such as echelon, SPUI, or diamond interchange. Next Steps: This intersection will need to be analyzed in more detail in the future. Based on current traffic projections, a grade -separated interchange is not warranted. However, based on stakeholder input and planned arterial networks, WCR 13 is anticipated to be a major north -south regional route. Therefore, the same ROW footprint for WCR 9.5 was set aside for WCR 13. Local agencies will be responsible for ensuring that development setbacks meet the needs to accommodate future potential ROW needs. ► Operational functionality and cost considerations of various intersections can be balanced during NEPA and project decision -making. 9 4. - coot SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 9. Reversible Lane Concept Between SH 66/Hover and Figure 10. Hybrid Option Concept of a Split Intersection/Diamond Interchange at SH 66/WCR 9.5 - PEL Proposed Option SH 66/US 287 - Not Carried Forward Morning Configuration Concept, with two lanes of travel westbound and one lane of travel eastbound Intersection Concept Configuration The reversible lane concept was deemed infeasible and did not have much stakeholder or public support. • 6 0 i II II II 3 4 I I I r Underpass or Overpass Grade -separation This concept includes a compressed footprint and is a hybrid option, with the westbound direction being a split intersection and the eastbound direction being a partial diamond interchange. This option has been carried forward as it works operationally and would have the smallest implementation footprint. 10 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. 11 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study How did this PEL incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facility considerations? The SH 66 PEL has emphasized the importance of safely and comfortably serving all modes along SH 66. The SH 66 PEL purpose and need (Chapter 1) and Level 3 alternatives development and screening process include bicycle, pedestrian, and transit considerations. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Level 3 Alternatives Development ► During Level 3, a range of alternatives for providing adequate facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians (active transportation users) were evaluated: • Multi -use Trails Allows two-way, off-street pedestrian, bicycle, and non -motorized vehicle use • Side Paths --A bi-directional shared use path located immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway that accommodates all ages and abilities, allows reduced roadway crossing distances, and maintains rural community character • Sidewalks —A paved path for pedestrians at the side of a road • Bike Lanes —A division of a road marked off with painted lines, for use by cyclists • Access Road with Advisory Shoulders (ARWAS) --A shared access road that accommodates both non -motorized travelers and low volumes of vehicles. • Wide Shoulders (bigger than Sleet) —Accommodates vehicles and non -motorized travelers along the roadway ► Transit alternatives include sidewalk connections and pedestrian accommodations at bus stops. Transit considerations during Level 3 primarily centered on accessibility and efficiency. Alternatives were developed through a process of reviewing previous relevant plans from local jurisdictions and incorporating their recommendations, as appropriate, identifying and addressing any remaining infrastructure gaps, and collaborating with the public and key stakeholders to ensure a consistent and compatible vision, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Level 3 Alternatives Screening ► Street crossings are often the most stressful component of a bicycle or pedestrian trip. Appropriate intersection treatments are crucial for supporting these modes. intersection operations are also a critical determinant to the efficiency and effectiveness of transit service. As such, each intersection alternative was evaluated in the context of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit • How intersection options would affect vehicular safety and mobility (including transit vehicles), and bicyclist and pedestrian safety and mobility • How bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options would benefit or impair vehicular safety and mobility (both personal and transit vehicles), bicyclist safety and mobility, pedestrian safety and mobility, risk and resiliency, community context, and environmental considerations Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Level 3 Recommendations ► Below is a summary of bicycle and pedestrian recommendations: • Section 1B — Wide shoulders along both sides of SH 66 and the ARWAS/bike and pedestrian path along the north side of SH 66 • Section 1C Wide shoulders along both sides of SH 66 and the ARWAS/bike and pedestrian path along the south side of SH 66 • Section 2 -- Wide shoulders along both sides of SH 66, a bike and pedestrian path along the entire south side, and a bike and pedestrian path along the north side between 95'' Street and the BNSF Railroad • Section 3 — Wide shoulders along both sides of SH 66, a bike and pedestrian path along the south side of SH 66 • Section 4 — Wide shoulders along both sides of SH 66, a bike and pedestrian path along the entire south side, a bike and pedestrian path along the north side between WCR 7 and 1-25, and a sidewalk along the north side between 1-25 and WCR 9.5 • Section 5 — Wide shoulders along both sides of SH 66 and a bike and pedestrian path along the south side of SH 66 ► Transit recommendations include: • Improvements to the existing bus stops along SH 66 between McConnell Dr and US 36, including sidewalk/trail connections and concrete platforms • A transit station at the intersection of SH 66 and US 287 that will serve the planned SH 119 BRT line and potential future transit service along SH 66 • Continued coordination between CDOT, RTD, local jurisdictions, and railroad officials regarding the potential for future transit service along SH 66 and rail service along 1-25 ► Figure 12 illustrates Level 3 bicycle, pedestrian, and transit recommendations. nV l.. . . •...••nV •••n - w,., • ,. • — ........ .. _.... } Y.. --- ..�� r -•w- --- - _- .- ? _ -� -- �" .- r=te w -- -w -- - ..... :' .._ .� j w. SPIN ..Ste.,la NM ele. -t- ' T-mia =" al:_ — wear — -- Ect a �• - I alas ass ;„ t_ �— L_L.. Appendix E-3 includes the Level 3 screening tables and evaluation criteria for roadways, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit Unique Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendation: Access Road with Advisory Shoulders ► The ARWAS (Figures 11 and 12) balances needs to maintain SH 66 access for residents between 51st Street and 87tn Street with needs to provide a safe and comfortable active facility in a popular area for recreational bicyclists. ► The access roads with advisory shoulders are envisioned as 16' wide facilities that provide low -speed motor vehicle access from individual residences to streets that intersect 51466. These roads include striped advisory shoulders on each side as a space for active users. Figure 11. Access Road with Advisory Shoulders Cross Section Section 1B Et Section 1C with 16' Access Road with Advisory Shoulders M tr,mA.e.. If •,s#4*. * Right-of-way preservation for potential multi -modal end safety transportation improvements •iac. Mimi ► In order to prevent vehicles using the facility as an alternate route to SH 66, the ARWAS would transition to side paths where vehicular access is not needed. + With only a handful of residents fronting each proposed section of ARWAS, motor vehicle volumes would be low. ► If land uses adjacent to the ARWAS are redeveloped in the future, additional intersections with SH 66 may become necessary, and the ARWAS would not be appropriate (given higher volumes of traffic). In that case, the ARWAS would be converted to side paths. The potential for the ARWAS to become side paths eventually is why a wider facility is not recommended at this time. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Next Steps ► As intersection and highway improvements are considered in NEPA and design, consideration should be made toward providing multi -modal functionality, such as: • interchange designs should include side path connections, • roundabouts should include proper signing and striping to facilitate active crossings, and • grade -separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings (Figure 11) should be explored. ► The ARWAS option is not an approved treatment in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and would require a "request for experiment" from FHWA to implement. ► A high -quality transit corridor needs to provide convenient access to stops, a safe and comfortable environment for users to wait for buses, and a system that facilitates efficient movement of buses. As intersection and highway improvements are considered in NEPA and design, consideration should be made toward providing: • efficient merges at transit stop locations • providing opportunities for buses to bypass congestion at busy intersections • minimizing the number of turning movements conflicting with the bus 12 SH 66 Planning and tar Environmental Linkages Study Figure 12. Level 3 Screening Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Recommendations SECTION SECTION 14, 1 B Ot SECTION 1C 0' SECTION 2 Section 1B: In this access road with advisory shoulders concept, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians share travel space in CDOT's ROW, north of SH 66. Communities could connect the access road locations with trail segments to expand regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility along SH 66. SECTION 3 DC V SECTION SECTION SECTION 4 5A 5B Section 1B and 1C: The access road with advisory shoulders would connect to streets that intersect with SH 66 to provide motorists access to and from SH 66. LEGEND PEl Proposed Existint/Previously Planned Multi -Use Ti ail Sldepath Sidewalk Bike Lanes Att ass Rudd with Advisuiy Shuutdtts Wide Shoulders (S.Feet) • Bus Stop Improvements e Existing Bus Stops Transit Station • Proposed Grade -Separated Crossing * includes traditional bike lanes and buffered bike lanes as short-term options and separated bike lanes as the long-term option from McConnell Dr to Highland Dr 13 SH 66 Planning and W_ xiii-ax , Environmental Linkages Study SH 66 Access Control Plan Development ► The alternatives development and screening process and ACP development were conducted in parallel for SH 66. For the ACP, considerauons were made to: • Reduce the number of conflict points where a crash may occur on the highway, which is applicable for vehicles and also for pedestrians and cyclists who must cross multiple driveways on the corridor. • Create fewer locations for vehicles to brake or turn onto or off the highway, resulting in more efficient travel for through traffic. • Make the corridor more visually appealing to drivers and visitors by reducing the number of driveways. ► Development of the SH 66 ACP included the following goals: • Identifying improvements to the local transportation network that promote safety and provide appropriate level of access to properties along SH 66. • Blending the corridor vision from the PEL with requirements of CDOT's State Highway Access Code. • Assisting future development and redevelopment along SH 66 by identifying locations and types of accesses. • Providing efficient movement for all transportation modes along SH 66. ► Reasonable access has been provided to properties adjacent to the highway while maintaining safe and efficient movement of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians along and adjacent to SH 66. ► The ACP is intended to represent a long-range plan for the study roadway. Implementation of the full plan will occur over the long term as a phased approach over time based on: • When a safety need is identified • During the land development or redevelopment process • When funding for improvements is available • When traffic needs arise Wii Appendix H includes the ACP Report and supporting documentation ,• s. SH 66 Access Control Plan Options ► The SH 66 corridor has more than 370 existing access points within the PEI, and ACP Study Area (Appendix Fl). ► Options mapped in the Recommended ACP include: • S Full Movement (May be signalized) Full Movement (Unsignatized) 314 Movement Right -in, right -out only • X Emergency Access Only Grade Separated Grade Separated at Railroad Access to be closed •p �a Access closure contingent on contiguous property ownership or access to adjacent property via shared agreement Obtain Access via Alternate Road Existing shared ownership/Cross Access Proposed cross access for shared access Proposed Future 16' Access Road with Advisory Shoulder Proposed Future 10' Bike and Pedestrian Path Proposed Future Frontage Road Proposed Future Connection A small portion of the corridor is illustrated in this image, showing an area of access points along SH 66. What is a No Action Alternative? The No Action Alternative assumes no improvements would be made to the corridor and the surrounding transportation network, except those already committed by a government or an agency or those with identified funds for construction, meaning the No Action transportation network is "fiscally constrained." The No Action Alternative assists the study in determining transportation needs along the corridor if no new improvements beyond those in the fiscally -constrained plan are implemented. It serves as a base against which to compare impacts of suggested alternatives. No Action Alternative Overview ► Table 1 provides information on 2040 fiscally -constrained projects that might have an impact on the study area. ► Projects include road widening (including SH 66 to four lanes from Hover Street to US 287), managed lanes (on I-25), and transit projects that will be constructed regardless of improvements identified by the SH 66 PEL. ► Section 3.1.3 of the Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C) includes more information about the No Action Alternative and the travel demand model. Table 1. 2040 No Action Fiscally -Constrained Projects Impacting ST -I 66 Fealty ToWran Location Roadway Projects Improvement SH 66 Hover Street to US 287 Longmont Widen to 4 lanes 1-25 SH 66 to WCR 38 North I-25 New managed lane. each direction 17'" Avenue Alpine Street to Ute Creek Drive Longmont Widen to 4 lanes East County Line Road 9th Avenue to SH 66 Longmont Widen to 4 lanes Nelson Road 75i^ Street to Affolter Drive Longmont Widen to 4 lanes Pace Street 5v^ Avenue to SH 66 Longmont Widen to 4 lanes Transit Projects SH 119 Foothills Parkway to US 287 Boulder / Longmont New BRT route Parking SH 66 & US 287 Longmont Relocated Park -n -Ride Ride (150 spots) Station / Parking SH 119 & US 287 Longmont New BRT station (439 spots) 14 LEAD • CSH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 13. Level 3 Screening Roadway Maps SECTION 1A SECTION 1 B 4 , Nolan Roast Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Right 1n/ Right Out McConnt llahrg Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - No changes to intersection (Pedestrian improvements: Option 3 - Consolidate access to the east Option 4 - Roundabout LYONS US_ 36 Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Keep signalized and assess intersection type based on future development consolidate access to the east: consider ROw preservation or uture transit/expansion Option 3 - Roundabout Eapresswav RLIa1/P.eglpwl Highway ArteraI © - Matte, cf Theta Lanes WCR - Weld County Read I I I I I I FuN,e Crnnecttnn 16' Access Pnad N;th Advisory Shoulder 10' Bike e:W Pedestrian Path F,rartow good PEI Propard 0ptrons rn- ',. Option 2 - Signalize intersection. if worranted,when future development occurs Option 3 - Challnelized T c 51st St N. Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Close north leg and make offset T with Highland Drive Option 3 - Close, if future redevelopment of the site occurs Option 4 - 3/4 Movement BOULDER COUNTY Acces_to Mirth Sidg of SH 66 (Highland Dr to 66th St) Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Consolidated driveways with Access Road with Advisory Shoulder facility. Provide access to SH 66 via partial or full movement access at: • 53rd Street (Full movement (may be signalized]) • 61st Street (3/4 movement) • Forest Service Access Road (3/4 movement) • 66th Street (Full movement (may be signalized]) 4. CP N. 63rd Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Offset T with 61st Street Option 3 - 3/4 movement Option 4 - Closed 15 a SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SECTION 1B BOULDER COUNTY N• 66th Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Full movement: signalized intersection. if warranted, when future development occurs MccaRPrixe. Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Right in/Right Out Option 3 - Right out only Option 4 - Close I tn In n z SECTION 1C ce c .10 4J Fro R� tit flit It 41-111141. N.7$th $trget Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Provide two EB through lanes Option 3 - Capacity improvements I Unnamed Road Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - 3/4 movement access point for consolidated access on south via Access Road with Advisory Shoulder facility on south side of SH 66 Option 3 - Consolidate access on north and south to one Right In/Right Out Tattle M9wntin Road Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Right In/Right Out with possible new connection to Unnamed Road on north side I t , reet Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize and capacity improvements. Eastbound 4 -lone c 'c tion -hn b in at intersection a proach tri -C 4J N. O0 z SECTION 2 MIM 16 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SECTION 2 Ptivate Drives Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Consolidate via Frontage Road with access to Anhawa Avenue North Shore Drive Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - 3/4 movemen; Option 3 - Channelized Anhhwa Avenue Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - 314 movement Option 3 - Channelized T LakePark Drive[Jotipa Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Right in/Right Out o north 3/4 movement on south Option 3 - Close Option 4 - 3/4 movement LEGEND E 1 Expressway Rural/Regional iiiglr.vay Arterial 11 t Future Connection 16' Access Road with Advisor/ Shoulder 10' Bike and Pedestrian Path Fiontare Road PR Ptopi sed Cptn>rz _G_a_y_Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Full movement Option 3 - 3/4 movement Option 4 - Close north; Right In/Right Out south O ion - Gl ; -.-.realign eBridge access to Francis Street Spencer Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Full movement Option 3 - 3/4 movement Option 4 - Right !n/Right Out Option 5 - Close; provide alternate connection on north side with future development •� , txeetl9Sth$treet Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Improve 95th Street and Vermillion Road (or 1/2 mile section line north of SH 66) as an alternate route Option 3 - Grade -separation. such as Echelon, SPUI, or Diamond Interchange Option 4 - Innovative intersection concepts to address key movements Option 5 - Partial Displaced Left Turn (for WB to SB left) Option 6 - Full Displaced Left Turn Option 7 - Junior interchange in the NE quadrant Pratt Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Emergency Access" only to north; Right In/Right Out to south Option 3 - Close Option 4 - Right Ini Right Out Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize and capacity improvements; •rovide access to the north, as needed in the future uauu►Ref. as: raktraliSilin �a MEM affil Viatz lungs us ft fats Wal-Mart &MIS ` Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Close (reroute traffic to Erfert Street) Erfert Street Option I - No Action Option 2 - Channetized T ti ilr9adGQssing Option 1 • No Action Grade -Separate US 287 Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Improve 95th Street and Vermillion Road (or 1 /2 mile section line north of 66) as an alternate route Option 3 - Grade -separation, including Diamond Interchange Option 4 - Innovative intersection concepts to address key movements Option 5 - Partial Displaced Left Turn (EB and WB) Option 6 - Full Displaced Left Turn Option 7 - Split intersection for W8/ Diamond Interchange for EB Option 8 - Echelon Option 9 • Single Point Urban Interchange 17 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SECTION 2 SECTION 3 BOULDER COUNTY Wi Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - `icnalize and capacity inorovemnnt< PEI >\ ✓ • 4 • L..#f M n LEGEND Pace Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Capacity improvements Expressway Rural/Regional Highway Arterial © = Number of Thru Lanes WCR z Weld County Road V k jundance Drive/sock Lane Option 1 - No Action Option 1 - Signalize and consolidate accesses on the north Option 3 - 3/4 movement for north and south and consolidate accesses on the north Option 4 - Right In/Right Out for north and south; consolidate accesses on the north • r s to / 1 Future Con'lection 16' Access Road with Advtscry Shoulder 10' Bike and Prdectnan Path Frontage Road ;Xzx PEI Propocrd Options to County Line Road Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Capacity improvements to add turn lanes and acceleration lanes Option 3 - Fully displaced Left Turn Option 4 - Grade -separation, such as Echelon. SPUI, or Diamond interchange WELD COUNTY i 1_ Elm Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Right In/Right Out and build parallel road to connect to Option 3 - C ose (emergency access on y) an. build paralle roof to connect to County Line Road and WCR 3 r !f al In nnimAllagenallirePir i. ��// C • orsurrrrrunirttWmarssaithsajttsYisnhsssst:ass ssrtsssttrttttasnut MOO noaaszansasims Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 connect to Count Line Road or WCR 3 O• tion S - /4 movement itari .: »e - No Action - Signalize; full movement - Channelized T - Close and build parallel road to Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize when warranted and Capacity Improvements Option 3 Roundabout cc 0 U IM 18 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study r W_ Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize when warranted and capacity improvements Option 3 - Roundabout t/Attlnss s r unaat, LEGEND Expressway Rural/Regional Highway Arterial © = Number of now lanes WCR . Wed Co my Rood SECTION 3 Railroad Crossing Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Grade -separate Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Full movement, signalize in interim when railroad is at- • rade Option 3 - Grade -separate with no direct access to SH 66 if Railroad is rade-se•. rated Option 4 - Right In/Right Out if/when railroad is grade -separated Future Connection 16' Access Road with Advisory Shoulde•. 10' Bike and Pedestrian Path ri ontege Road PEt Proposed Options Stage.Gaac�_ e Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - 3/4 movement Option 3 - Right In/Right Out Option 4 - Close r 1- • J � faster Ridge Road Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize, when warranted with future development Walzta seer Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - capacity improvements SECTION 4 Mead Street Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - 3/4 movement north and south side with connections to WCR 9.5 Option 3 - Right In/Right Out on both sides with U-turn option at WCR 9.5 to go west j_2_$.NB R¢rnps Option 1 - No Action AlISIBBROIBIllli O•tion 1 - No Action faggre omit Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Right In/Right Out Option 3 Close and provide access to WCR 9.5 or Mead Street on south end of cul-de-sac a 19 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SECTION 4 ?SCR �s Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Grade -separate Option 3 - Capacity improvements O )tiara 4 - Rotundalxxlf Option 5 • Partial Displaced Left Turn (for WB and EB left turns) Option 6 - Split intersection for W8: Diamond Interchange for EB Option 7 Echelon Option 8 - Traditional Diamond Option 9 • Single Point Urban Interchange LEGEND WELD COUNTY WCR 11 Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize when warranted with future development Option 3 - Roundabout Expressway Rural /Regional hltttway EMI Arterial 0 • Number of Thru Lanes WCR = Weld C,unty Qood 11111111 Future Connection 16' Access Road with Advisory Shoulder e. 10• Bike and Pedestrian Path aa� Frontage Road PEL Proposed Options SECTION 5A WCR 11.5 Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize when warrantea with future development FIRESTONE I WCR 13/Colorado.Boulev Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Grade -separate Option 3 - Add capacity improvements Option 5 Partial Displaced Left Turn (for WB and EB left turns) Option 6 - Split intersection for W8/Diamond Interchange for EB Option 7 - Echelon .Option 8 Traditional Diamond Option 9 Single Point Urban Interchange SECTION 5B .FutuLe HLCR . S Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Move J -Bar -B -Road west to section line (WCR 15). full movement access and signalize if warranted with future development Option 3 - Roundabout Option 1 - No Action Option 2 - Signalize if warranted: capacity improvements Option 3 - Roundabout Option 4 - Channelized T 20 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SECTION 5B WELD COUNTY Option 2 - Signalize if warranted and capacity improvements Option 3 - Roundabout Option 4 - Channetized T LEGEND ® Expressway Rural /Pe; anal Highw s v MEM Arterial 0 i* Number of Pim Lanes WCR - Weld County Rood t Future Cornectlon amass 16 Access Road with Advisory Shoulder 10' Bike and Pedestrian Path Frontage Road r • R PEA Proposed Options WCR 19 Option 1 - No Action option 2 - Signe sze i warrantee an. capacity improvements Option 3 - Roundabout i A 21 0 SH 66 Planning and ., Environmental Linkages Study 3. PEL Recommendations, Right of Way Preservation, and Prioritization of Improvements Chapter 3 includes detailed two -page plans for each section of the SH 66 corridor. These plans are intended to provide substantive information about PEL findings and recommendations in a meaningful and easy to process manner. Plan -on -a -Page Content The plans document the following information for each section: ► Overview of section context and recommendations ► Summary of local agency planning efforts from Appendix C ► Existing and proposed roadway classification graphical definitions ► Recommended future corridor cross sections ► An overview of the recommended ROW preservation footprint ► Existing and proposed corridor visualizations ► Planned improvements, phasing, and prioritization covering roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options Figure 14. ROW Preservation Footprint Overview -•_S-t.; 14 PEL Recommendations and Right of Way Preservation ► In accordance with FHWA direction, this PEL recommendation ultimately includes a ROW preservation footprint (Figure 14). ► This footprint is considered the collective footprint of all options that have been carried forward as PEL Proposed Options. This common footprint of alternatives represents ROW that would be necessary to accommodate the aggregate of: • Ultimate roadway laneage • Intersection configurations • Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities along SH 66 ► This footprint is intended to inform decision -making at the state and local level in terms of preserving land and making land use decisions to not preclude future transportation improvements that have been identified in this PEL study. ► The footprint width for each section generally corresponds with cross-section widths from each plan, but expansion of the footprint occurs around intersections. ► Appendix I provides a detailed mapbook of the footprint, along with parcel information. Appendix I also includes a package of digital files that allow communities, developers, and stakeholders to view the ROW preservation footprint interactively. File formats include: • DWG - Computer aided design and drafting file • KML - Google Earth+i' file • Shapefile package - Geographic Information Systems package N§.:. P. &I • - (L� . .r, ( '-'t -a-w ..�.�.,.. i si ��? r .1 F i - 71..- J .4 L i 1 ,t4.4.14 .. • >1X Prioritization of Potential Improvements ► An important component of a PEL is a summary of project priorities. Prioritization aids decision -makers in evaluating when and how to implement potential improvements. These potential improvements were prioritized based on when safety and operational needs will likely warrant the recommended changes. ► PELs are long-term planning documents. As a result, prioritizations for SH 66 are shown in the context of: • Near -term as 0-10 years • Mid-term as 5-15 years • Long-term as 10-20 years • Beyond the planning horizon as more than 20 years ► The prioritization terms intentionally overlap because of uncertain funding availability and because of how rapidly corridor growth and development will occur. These terms are intended to be flexible prioritizations that accommodate future conditions. ► In terms of next steps, CDOT and local agencies will continue collaborating to identify funding sources and funding partnerships. SH 66 improvements may be implemented as smaller projects or in phases. ► If corridor conditions change beyond the land use, travel demand, and community priorities identified in this PEL, this prioritization may be subject to change. One example of potential change is addressed in Chapter 5, in terms of operational threats. 1 This PEL ROW preservation footprint represents the collective footprint of all options that have been carried forward as PEL proposed options. Appendix I includes a detailed mapbook showing this footprint relative to parcel boundaries 43, S O4 22 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. 23 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 1: McConnell Drive to 87th Street Overview & Recommendations Local agencies: Town of Lyons and Unincorporated Boulder County Known transportation problems: Vehicular access, mobility, and safety: bicycle and pedestrian connections and safety. bicycle crossings 0 Existing roadway classification and laneage: Rural/Regional Highway with two to five lanes Recommended roadway classification: • Arterial roadway from McConnell Drive to Highland Drive (Section 1A) • Rural/Regional Highway from Highland Drive through 75th Street (Section 1B) and 75th Street through 87th Street (Section 1C) ...: Total recommended cross section width: 101 feet to 138 feet o Total right of way preservation acreage: 99.6 acres Recommended cross sections include: • four 12 -foot travel lanes with a raised 16 -foot median and curb and gutter (Section 1A) • Two 12 -foot travel lanes with turn lanes at intersections and right•ofway preservation for potential multimodal and safety transportation improvements (Sections 18 and 1C) • Curb and gutter and bike lanes along SH 66 (Section 14) • Either a 10 -foot bike and pedestrian path or a 16 -foot access road with advisor/ shoulders along SH 66 (Section 18 and 1C) • A five -font offset to clear zone (a clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway) in areas that are rot curb & gutter Recommended Roadway Classification ARTERIAL 1 mile we> -in 35-45 DESCRIPTION moderate to low travel speeds and traffic volumes with moderate access ACCESS SPACING 112 mile for full movement intersections, with possible 3/4 movement at quarter miles, and RIRO access for each parcel 'should share access if possible) RURAUREGIONAL HIGHWAY - 1 mile Recommended Right -of -Way Preservation Footprint •,V •: -.-'T � Y tre Section 1B & Section IC with 16' Access Road with Advisory Shoulders with Potential Dedicated Bus Lanes 4. S 6 CAM kc.N ICl7 rrn u Mew*y Slakrn (Ay MM sLP 1r ro SMJdrr *0 ro "Jew Section 1B b Section 1C with 10' Bike & Ped Path & Potential Light Rail 132. 45 65 Moderate to high speeds with moderate to low traffic volumes 112 mile • for full movement intersections •rrith public roadways, maximum of one access per parcel 'depending on other roadways that could preclude access) with shared access preferable Recommended Cross Sections (facing east) Section 1A with Curb & Gutter Section 1B & Section 1C with 16' Access Road with Advisory Shoulders 1it * s l 1< Jebel *tam %.,r:• ter b kr Ratite: nip low $4'" F: V Section IB d Section 1C with 10' Bike b Ped Path I 32' I Yi 1/411 * Right-of-way preservation for potential multi -modal and safety transportation improvements U a UN* 24 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing Et Proposed Visualizations (facing west) Section IA Raised median with left turn lanes and bike lanes Center left turn lane Improvements No median separation and minimal turn lanes Two through lanes, wide shoulders, and access road with advisory shoulders; with turn lanes at intersections No median separation and minimal turn lanes Two through lanes, wide shoulders and side path; with turn lanes at intersections SECTION 1C LOCATION ON SN 66 (intersection or section IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT IA meConne1t Drive to Migltiarid Drive East Ht rate of access -related crashes; high -use bike corridor with limited shoulders Install raised median and restrict and/or consolidate accesses. install rumble steps or bike lanes E. N" (t CiJ a) lH h s"' O - .-•1 Z CJ IA US 36 Lacks safe facility/crossing for bicycles and pedestnans Construct grade•separatec underpass for bicycle and pedestrian 18 Section -wide High rate of run -off -road crashes Install rumble strips I B Section -wide Lacks consolidated access and regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility options Install access road with advisory shoulders. add nght and left turn lanes at those accesses; and install sidepath l B 75th Street High rate of intersection -related crashes Re -assess signal timing. Install bicycle and pedestrian grade -separated crossing IC Section•wfde Hips rate of run -off -road crashes; lacks corsolidated access and regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility option Install rumble stnps. Install access road with advisory shou:cers, add right and left turn lanes at those accesses; ano install sidepath LOCATION ON SH 66 intersection or section IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT cy, . 1 ty Cl ' H,s .O In . X to 1B Section wide Hiir delays for vehicles entering S9 66 from accesses Construct missing Sections of access road with advisory shoulders, and/or bike/oed only connections. include shoulder widening. Work with local agencies to construct trail along BNSF 1C Section -wide ifigh delays for •.rhicles entering sH 66 from accesses Construct missing Sections of access road with advisory shoulders, and/or bike/oed only connections. include shoulder widening TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS: The access road with advisory shoulders option is not an approved treatment in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and would require a 'request for experiment' to implement. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian path and access road with advisory shoulders must be accommodated with safety in mind within the highway clear zone and at all intersection crossings along the corridor. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Resources include floodplains and floodway. potential wetlands, Preble s Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat, potential bald eagle nest sites, parks and open space. proposed trails, utilities, noise sensitive areas, hazardous materials sites, visual resources, and potential historic sites. LOCATION ON SN 66 intersection or section IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT N 1 B Secticn-vide La=ks regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility oprom Work with focal a agencies to install [rail along ,H66 • • ..7 -i 1) C 53rd Street Lacks safe facility/crossing for bicycles and pedestrian; Install bicycle and pedestrian grade separated crossing LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT • U • is a. 1B Secron-wide Mutti•modai and vehicular transportaton concerns Multi -modal and safety transportation Improvements IS •4 • C ecton-wide Multi -modal and vehicular transpertat-on concerns Multimodal and safety transportation improvements Local Agency Planning Efforts Lyons vision for: • Business district along SH 66 • US 36/91 66 roundabout • Gateway features at US 36/SH 66 and east of US 36 along SH 66 For more information, please view the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix CI. Boulder County Boulder County vision for: • Improve bus service and stops, park and ride capacity, and local transit connections: add queue jump Lanes • Incorporate bikeable shoulders and key grade separated crossings • Enhance intersections to improve safety and convenience for all modes and to reduce congestion 25 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 2: 87th Street to County Line Road Overview S Recommendations Local agencies: City of Longmont and Unincorporated Boulder County Known transportation problems: Vehicular access, mobility, and safety; bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety; transit access Existing roadway classification and laneage: Non -rural principal highway with two to four lanes Recommended roadway classification: Expressway Total recommended cross section width: 109 feet to 145 feet Total right of way preservation acreage: 82.8 acres Recommended cross sections include: • Four travel lanes (two 12 -foot lanes in each direction) • A 16 -foot wide median (raised with curb and gutter) • Five foot outside shoulders .4 10 -foot bike and pedestrian path on one or both sides of the road • A 16 -foot frontage road along SH 66 in select locations • A five-foot offset to clear zone (a clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway) • Addition of turn lanes at intersections Local Agency Planning Efforts Longmont vision for: • Side path from 87th Street to County Line Road • Two underpasses at SH 66/US 287 and SH 66/Pace Street • Tie bike lanes into north -south routes along SH 66 • SH 66/US 287 Park -n -Ride • Active participation with CDOT for multi -modal plan For more information, please view the SH 66 DEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C). - Boulder County Recommended Roadway Classification EXPRESSWAY 1 mile Boulder County vision for: • Improve bus service and stops, park and ride capacity, and local transit connections: add queue jump lanes • Incorporate bikeabte shoulders and key grade separated crossings • Enhance intersections to improve safety and convenience for alt modes and to reduce congestion Recommended Right -of -Way Preservation Footprint L ITOVI 1,4 1 i 1 I - _ pa f.m. �4 -z DESCRIPTION Moderately high speeds and traffic volumes with limited access, multiple lanes in each direction and separated directional trave Recommended Cross Sections (facing east) ACCESS SPACING 1 mile + for full movement, with possible RIRO at hail mile Section 2 with Curb Li Gutter and 10' Bike b Ped Path 107 Section 2 with Curb & Gutter and 10' Bike & Ped Path on North Et South M _ 129' IY Lae Section 2 with Frontage Road tl.ait lk� /rgteGl IS 1s (14 VV 115' ,61 17 Il Lim Wit 1V r Ones In Cite law LS Cs' tamp An lur rm 26 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing & Proposed Visualizations (facing west) Existing Proposed No median separation and minimal turn lanes Improvements Raised median with side path SECTION 2 LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT 2 F Section -wide High delay on stop -controlled intent -awns Restrict left turns out where ,dentified in the ACP. Install sidepari on the south sice of SH 66. Monitor and/or perform a warrant analysis at intersections where signals are planned ir the ACP 'Airport Road, Francis St, Alpine St, Sundance Or a. a' hi4 *-• ft G; Z w 2 en Hover St/95th Street Faittng intersection LOS and high rate of intersection -re ated crashes Add auxiliary lanes and capacity cJ y cp 2 .-t i 0 SH 66 from hover St to US 287 Failtng intersection LOS and long gteues approaching Hover St and US 287 Itypicslly in the eastbound directionI Expand SH 66 to four lanes pis atsiliary lanes between Hover/95th St and US 287 Install median and implement access control where there are high cetays and/ar high crash rates on side streets 2 US 287 Failing intersection LOS and high rate of intetsectiarretatrd crashes; multiple public comments/concerns received Improve intersection; recommend carrying forward displaced left turn or other alternative intersection option 2 Alpine Street to County Line Rd Fad -rig intersection LOS at County Line Rd, high rate of intersection related crashes, arse high rate of head-on and run -off -road crashes Improve SH 66 from 2 to 4 laves, add a median, and install auxiliary lanes at intersections between Alpine St ant Ccu ty Line Road TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS The proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths must be accommodated with safety in mind within the highway clear zone and by providing clearly marked crosswalks at Intersections. A variety of intersection types and innovations developed during Level 3 could accommodate future traffic conditions. including: • SH 66 and Hover/95th Street: Partial displaced left turn (for westbound to southbound left); fully displaced left turn; grade -separation, such as echelon, single point urban interchange. or diamond interchange; junior interchange in the northeast quadrant. • SH 66 and US 287: fully displaced left turn; grade -separation. such as echelon, single point urban interchange, or diamond interchange: split intersection for westbound/diamond interchange for eastbound. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. Resources include floodplains and floodway, potential wetlands, Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat, potential bald eagle nest sites. parks and open space. proposed trails, utilities, noise sensitive areas, hazardous materials sites, visual resources. and potential historic sites. LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT 4 s... ed a E-• >s .fl tr) ...,, .-1 Xto 2 Section rode High delay on stop -controlled intersections Monitor and restrict left turns out where identified ir the ACP and a documented safety need is shown. Include shoulder widening. Install sidepath on the north side of SH 66. Monitor and/or perform a warrant analysis at intersections where signals are identified as allowed 7n the ACP IA;rport Road, Francis St. Alpine St. Sundance Or, 2 Erfert St to Alpine St Over :apaci y as a Nro-tare highway Grade -separate SF 66 over railroad, improve the hia}rway from 1 to 4 lanes, add a median, and install turn lanes where warranted at intersection. LOCATION ON SH 66 intersection or section IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT 2 :oc tion-Mde High delay en stop -ennui led inter:ecrions Mentor and restrict left twos out where identified in the ACP and a documented safety need is shown. Monitor end/or perform a warrant analysts at intersections where signals are identified as allowed it the ACP Airport Road, Francis St. Alpine St, Sundance Dr 2 87th Street to 95th Street Over rapacity as a two lane highway Improve the hVtwa/ from 7 to 4 laws, add a median, and install turn lanes where warranted at intersections 2 BIvSF and Pace Woks safe facility/crossing far 6 -cycles and pedestrians Install bicyc:e and pedestrian ggade separated crossing lanes where warrantee at intersections 2 BNSF and Pace lochs safe facility'crossing for bicycles and pedestrian Instal. bkyc:e and pedestrian grade separated crossing 27 a SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 3: County Line Road to 3rd Street (WCR 7) Overview & Recommendations Local agencies: City of Longmont, Town of Mead, and Unincorporated Weld County Known transportation problems: Vehicular access, mobility, and safety; bicycle connections and safety Existing roadway classification and laneage: Rural/regional highway with two lanes Recommended roadway classification: Expressway Total recommended cross section width: 122 feet Total right of way preservation acreage: 45.3 acres Recommended cross section includes: • Four travel lanes (tyro 12 -foot lanes in each direction) • A 16 -foot wide grassy median with cable barrier • A 10 -foot bike and pedestrian path along SH 66 • 10 -foot shoulders • A five-foot offset to clear zone (a clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway) 'Addition of turn lanes at intersections Local Agency Planning Efforts Longmont vision for: • Tie bike lanes into north -south routes along SH 66 • Active participation with CDOT for multi -modal plan MEAD ^ For more information, please view the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C). Mead vision for: • Gateways at SH 66/WCR 1 (County Line Roadl and SH 66/WCR 7 (3rd Street) • SH 66/3rd Street intersection improvernents and signalization • Widen SH 66 • Proposed trail Recommended Roadway Classification EXPRESSWAY Recommended Right -of -Way Preservation Footprint Weld County vision for: Trail connections Access control • Intersection improvement partnership SH 66/WCR 7 (3rd Street! DESCRIPTION Moderately high speeds and traffic volumes with limited access, multiple lanes in each direction and separated directional travel ACCESS SPACING 1 mile + for full movement, with possible RIRO at half mile Recommended Cross Section (facing east) Section 3 122 I I l;bk BeR+r I t 4' •e 1 f I!' ldnr 4rn'y kra ISbIdQ la 2 Ell MI 28 Cc SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing Et Proposed Visualizations (facing west) Existing I Proposed No median separation and minimal turn lanes Improvements Cable barrier/grassy median with side path s } SECTION 3 .a. ' fit 0e. i r,.-.nt 4 LOCATION (Intersection ON SH 66 or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT rr.. lir y E-' i >11 3 Section wide High rate of run off road and access related crashes Irrterll rwnbie strips along corridor; add auxiliary lanes when: warranted at intersections s.. i�T grii CU I Z O 3 Section wide High delay on stop -controlled intersections Restnct test turn out where identified in the ACP and a documentet safety need is shown. Monitor and/or perform a warrant analysis whore signals arc planned in the ACP )WCR 3, WCR 5, wCR 5.5 (interim condition only) i 3 LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) Section -wide IDENTIFIED PROBLEM M-gn decay on stop -controlled intersections RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT Monitor and restnct left turns ot.t where identified in the ACP and a documented safety need is shown. Include shoulder widening. ,nstall svdepath. Monitor and/or perform a warrant analysis where signals are identified as allowed in the ACP WCR 3, wCR 5, wCR 5.5 )interim condition only; 3 County Line Road to WCR 7 Over capacity as a twc-lane highway Improve the highway from 2 to 4 lanes, add a median, and install turn lanes where warranted at intersections TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS The proposed bicycle and pedestrian path must be accommodated with safety in mind within the highway clear zone and by providing clearly marked crosswalks at intersections. A variety of intersection types and innovations developed during Level 3 could accommodate future traffic conditions at SH 66 and County Line Road, including capacity improvements to add turn lanes and acceleration lanes; fully displaced left turn; or grade -separation, such as echelon, single point urban interchange, or diamond interchange. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Resources include potential wetlands, proposed trails, utilities (including oil/gas production facilities), noise sensitive areas, hazardous material sites, visual resources, and potential historic resources. y tr ft d F' >4: ch 0 fur ("3 Q a t-i LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT 3 *CR c .ac k5 safe faculty/crossing for bicycles and aedestriarss Install bicycle and pedestrian grade -separated crossing east of wCR 5 3 Section -wide High delay on stop controlled intersections Monitor and restrict left turns out where identified in the KP and a documented safety need is shown. Mentor and/or perform a warrant analysis where signals are identified as allowed in the ACP tWCR 3, wCR 5, wCR S. S (interim condition only i1 29 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 4: 3rd Street (WCR 7) to Weld County Road 11 Overview & Recommendations Local agencies: Town of Mead and Unincorporated Weld County Known transportation problems: Access, mobility, and safety concerns for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit Existing roadway classification and laneage: Non -rural Principal Highway with two to three lanes east of 1-25; four to five lanes west of I.25 Recommended roadway classification: Arterial roadway Total recommended cross section width: 133 feet to 143 feet Total right of way preservation acreage: 45.2 acres Recommended cross sections include: • Six travels lanes (three 12 -foot lanes in each direction) and five-foot outside shoulders • A raised 16 -foot wide median • Curb and gutter along SH 66 • A 10 -foot bike and pedestrian path along SH 66 setback 5 feet from SH 66 on both sides of SH 66 at select locations • A 5 -foot offset to clear zone fa clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway) • Addition of turn lanes at intersections Local Agency Planning Efforts MEAD Mead vision for: • Gateways at 1.25/SH 66, and SH 66/WCR 7 I3rd Street) • SH 66/3rd Street intersection improvements and signalization • Widen SH 66 • Proposed trail connections For more information, please view the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C). Recommended Roadway Classification ARTERIAL Weld County vision for: Trait connections • Access control • intersection improvement partnership at SR 66/WCR 7 I3rd Street) Recommended Right -of -Way Preservation Footprint vz7 Qat its 3 r _ VALLEY 0R g It, DESCRIPTION Moderate to low travel speeds and traffic volumes with moderate access ACCESS SPACING 1 /2 mile for full movement intersections. with possible 3/4 movement at quarter miles. and RIRO access for each parcel (should share access if possible) Recommended Cross Sections (facing east) Section 4 with Curb & Gutter and Bike & Ped Path on North & South 143' S' Cart Cho Noe IC i S' Par Ped Pa Ant :.S C&G It L a the 16 Medlar maxim CMii CIG (LG Section 4 with Curb & Gutter and Bike & Ped Path S33' * 2 u r u Il Law n• the MSc is u.ciue , ciW t.S is (AG (AG s INT (r•!x IBe&Ptd Aver gto ct,4 S k (kb Sue 30 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing & Proposed Visualizations (facing west) Striped median separation Improvements az- 161 Raised medians with side J SECTION 4 4 4 LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM Section -wide WCR Lacks regional bicycle and pedestrian mobility ootiorn RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT Install s'depath on north side a' SH 66 Failing intersection LOS Add auxiliary lanes and capanry on SH 66 and/or CR 7 (design currently under way oy CDOT/nearby devewpeni Mead Street High delay at stop -controlled intersection end high crash rate Restrict left turns out if a documented safety need is shown ENj v; NA RI i to Xr. to 4 4 4 4 LOCATION ON SH 66 intersection or section IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT Section•w,de Lacking safe shoulders to accommodate vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian Include shoulder widening Gap Section between NCR 7 and Foster Ridge Dr Over capacity as a two-lane highway Improve the highway from 2 to 4 lanes, add a median, and install turn lanes where warranted at intersections. Signalize Foster Ridge Dr when warranted WCR 9.5 to WCR 11 Over capacity as a two-lane highway Improve the highway from 2 to 4 lanes, add a median, and install turn lanes where warranted at intersections Mead Street High delay at stop -controlled intersection and high crash rate Monitor intersection operations and restrict left turns out if a documented afety need is shown WCR 9.5 Failing intersection LOS Add turn lanes and capacity to Irtcrection TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed bicycle and pedestrian path must be accommodated with safety in mind within the highway clear zone and by providing clearly marked crosswalks at intersections. A variety of intersection types and innovations developed during Level 3 could accommodate future traffic conditions at SH 66 and WCR 9.5, including split intersection for westbound/diamond interchange for eastbound: partial or fully displaced left turn; or grade -separation, such as echelon. single point urban interchange, or diamond interchange. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. Resources include potential wetlands, proposed trails, utilities ( including oil /gas production facilities 1, noise sensitive areas, hazardous material sites, visual resources, and potential historic resources. LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT I.. y , Improve cure highway from 4 to 6 lanes between v/CR 7 and I- >+ 0i'l ; N 4 Section -wide Over capacity as a two-lane highway WCR 9.5. Install sidepath on south side of SH 66. Install bicycle and pedestrian Tade-separate crossing east of WCR 7 3 0' a ....4. 4 WCR 9.5 Intersection over capacity Grade -separate intersection; recommend carrying forward split intersection/partial interchange cr other alternative Intersection option 31 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section S: Weld County Road 11 to Weld County Road 19 Overview Et Recommendations o Local agencies: Town of Mead and Unincorporated Weld County Known transportation problems: Vehicular access, mobility, and safety: bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety Existing roadway classification and laneage: Non -rural Principal Highway and Rural/Regional Highway with two lanes Recommended roadway classification: Rural/Regional Highway Total recommended cross section width: I 2 2 feet Total right of way preservation acreage: 67.9 acres o Recommended cross section includes: • Four travel lanes (two 12 -foot lanes in each direction) • A 16 -foot wide grassy median with cable barrier • A 10 -foot bike and pedestrian path along SH 66 • 10 -foot shoulders • A five -toot offset to clear zone (a clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway) • Addition of turn lanes at intersections Local Agency Planning Efforts 'pp\le. Mead vision for: MEAD • Widen SH 66 • Proposed trait connections co"•, For more information, please view the SH 66 DEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C). Weld County vision for: Trail connections Access control • Intersection improvement partnerships at SH 66/ WCR 13 Recommended Roadway Classification RURAL/REGIONAL HIGHWAY Recommended Right -of -Way Preservation Footprint ce v J DESCRIPTION Moderate to high speeds with moderate to low traffic volumes ACCESS SPACING 1/2 mile • for full movement intersections with public roadways, maximum of one access per parcel (depending on other roadways that could preclude access) with shared access preferable Recommended Cross Section (facing east) Section 5 !11 an a"' s cable a lair W 4 IB a I: taro Jirbi (Arcs,. kwe tint is 10 lrr f at ':Hodder •r3\ ti•n 5 v ME 32 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing & Proposed Visualizations (facing west) No median separation and minimal turn lanes Improvements Cable barrier/grassy median with side path SECTION 54 No median separation and minimal turn lanes SECTION 58 nr .t LOCATION ON SH 66 intersection or sections IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT s. m F6 , A O 5A Sect on -wide High delay at stop -controlled intersection Monitor and/or perform a warrant analysts at intersections where signals are planned in the ACP IWCR II, WCR 11.5 when constructed) 5A Section -wide High rate of run -off -road and access -related crashes Install rumble strips and widen shoulders r a d r r� Ct ,/B SeCC10n•w1de High rate of run -off -pad and access,.retatee Crashes Install rumble strips snd +s'iden shoulders 55 'NCR 13 High crash rate at WCR 13 Install eastbound and westbound rght turn lane LOCATION ON SH 66 Intersection or section IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT 5A Section -wide High delay at stop -controlled intersection Monitor and ice aerform a Narrant analysis at intersections where signals are identified as allowed in the ACP IWCR I1, WCR 11.5 when constructed) 5A WCR II to WCR 13 Over capacity as a two-lane highway improve the highway from 2 to 4 lanes, add a median, and -nttall turn fares where warranted at intersections 58 Sect•on•wide High delay at stop -controlled intersection Monitor and/or ,erform a warrant analysis at intersections where signals are Identified as allowed in the ACP (WCR 11, erCR 19, WCR 1 t.5 when constructedi..nstatl sldepath on south side of SH 66 l Cable barrier/grassy median with side path TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS A variety of Intersection types and innovations developed during Level 3 could accoornnxxdate future traffic conditions at SH 66 and WCR 13/Colorado Blvd., including split intersection for westbound/diamond interchange for eastbound: partial or fully displaced left turn lane; or grade -separation, such as echelon. single point urban interchange, or diamond interchange. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Resources include floodplains and Roadway, potential wetlands, Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat. potential bald eagle nest sites, parks and open space. proposed trails, utilities, noise sensitive areas, hazardous materials sites. areas with higher minority and low-income populations, visual resources, and potential historic sites. � h E LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT >~ ,-, 05 CP 3/ I-. >, CI 2 N i ' 5A Section -wide High delay at stop -controlled intersection Monitor and/or perform a warrant analysis at letersections where sigvts arc identified as allowed in the ACP or/CR 11, WCR 11.5 wren constructed(. Install sideoatn on south side of SH 66 SB Section -wide High delay at stopcortrol(ed intersection Monitor and/or perform a warrant analys s at intersections where signals are identified as allowed in the ACP IWCR i 1, WCR 19, WCR 1'.5 when constructed,. Install sidepath on south side of SH 66 M . •>. ►; LOCATION ON SH 66 (intersection or section) IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT • •?► 5 N• .••'►.cV + 5 Section -wide Over capacity as a two-lane highway rcrease capacity of highway from 2 to 4lanes WCR 13 Intersection over capacity Grade -separate intersection 33 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 4. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies The SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C) summarizes environmental resources in the study area. This chapter provides a planning level overview of anticipated impacts associated with the PEL Recommendations. Data used in this assessment were derived from readily available data sources and environmental field visits during development of the Corridor Conditions Report. r I Ptanntng and Environmental tankages Study M,,,esh„ M, • Corridor Conditions Report r,-. -mit, _• For more baseline environmental information, view the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C). How is PEL environmental documentation used? As funding becomes available for implementation of PEL Recommendations, CDOT will determine the appropriate level of NEPA study that is required as part of project delivery. This PEI, information serves to inform that process and provide a baseline understanding for decision makers, stakeholders, and the public about sensitive environmental resources. Potential NEPA Documentation Next Steps Based on the level of NEPA study and environmental context of each project, some or all resources identified in this chapter may need to be addressed during project delivery, once funds become available. NEPA involves an assessment of the affected environment (existing conditions), anticipated environmental impacts, and environmental mitigation commitments. Depending on project context and complexity, NEPA involves: ► Categorical exclusions (CatEx): For actions that do not individually or cumulatively result in significant impacts; involves a focused assessment of resources based on scoping coordination with CDOT ► Environmental assessments (EA): For actions that may individually or cumulatively result in significant impacts; prepared when there is insufficient information to determine if a project's impacts warrant further study • Environmental impact statements (EiS): For projects that are anticipated to have significant impacts and/or a high level of controversy Environmental Impacts Evaluation ► A quantitative evaluation, using GIS spatial analysis, was completed for: • Floodplains and Floodways • Wetlands and Other Waters of the US • T&E Species, Species of Special Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles • Park/Trail/Open Space Resources and Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges ► A qualitative assessment, using professional judgment, was completed for: • Utilities • Traffic Noise • Hazardous Materials • Environmental Justice • Visual Resources • Historic Resources ► Potential impacts are summarized in Table 2. How were environmental impacts analyzed in this PEL Study? Chapter 3 describes the ROW preservation footprint, which represents the collective area of SH 66 PEL options that were recommended or carried forward as a result of this PEL study. Impact analyses included an evaluation of this footprint relative to mapped environmental resources as shown in Appendix C. Environmental Resource Next Steps ► Floodplains and Floodways: Design solutions should minimize impacts to the floodplain and be developed cooperatively with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Emergency Management Agency, and affected communities. If an alternative encroaches on a regulatory floodway/floodplain, an evaluation is necessary to determine if the encroachment would require a revision to the regulatory floodway (impacts to Floodplains may require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision). For alternatives with significant impacts, discuss practicable alternatives or mitigation. Wetlands and Other Waters of the US: When wetland impacts are expected, build adequate time into the design schedule to allow a wetland delineation and consequent permitting. ► T&E Species, Species of Special Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles: When wildlife impacts are expected, build adequate time into the design schedule to consider temporary and permanent impacts and allow time for a biological resources report, Senate Bill 40 reporting, consultation, and consequent permitting. Consider the development of wildlife crossings or fencing with future projects. ► Park/Trail/Open Space Resources and Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges: When Section 4(1) and Section 6(f) evaluations are necessary, build adequate time into the design schedule to avoid construction delays. Design modifications and/or mitigation considerations may be necessary in the Section 4(f) process. If a Section 6(f) conversion of land is necessary, CDOT must replace the land. The local agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), and the National Park Service must approve the replacement land. Typically, replacement occurs at a 1:1 ratio. Environmental Resource Next Steps (Continued) ► Utilities: During the design phase, identify and evaluate all utilities (not just major utilities) for impacts from proposed improvements, determine location time requirements and cost responsibility, and obtain the project utility clearance from CDOT. When project -funded relocations are necessary, adequate budget must be made available. Build adequate time and construction phasing into the schedule to allow utility relocations to avoid construction delays. Adherence to the new subsurface utility engineering statute may be necessary. Appendix J includes additional information. ► Traffic Noise: Conduct a traffic noise impact and abatement analysis for NEPA. If noise abatement appears likely, solicit the Benefited Receptor Preferences Survey after the Final Office Review but during the NEPA process (for projects anticipated to meet CatEx criteria) or during final design for an EA or an EIS. If a simple majority of benefitting receptors favors abatement, then the project becomes committed to constructing and funding the abatement measure(s). Noise walls may cost about $2 million per mile. The likelihood for abatement to be feasible and reasonable increases with a higher density of impacted receptors. ► Hazardous Materials: If a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and/or remediation activities are required based on a Modified Environmental Site Assessment (MESA), Initial Site Assessment, or Phase I ESA findings, there may be substantial delays for property acquisition or construction in the vicinity. Also, a Phase II ESA and remedial activities could require additional funding. These activities are associated with the acquisition of properties. Regarding construction phase implications, hazardous materials concerns within the construction area will require the use of CDOT Standard Specification 250: Environmental, Health and Safety Management A Materials Management Plan should also be used if construction activities are anticipated to encounter hazardous materials. ► Environmental Justice: Identify low-income and minority populations early so that these populations can become involved and have a meaningful opportunity to participate during every phase of a project Specialized outreach may be necessary based on the extent of anticipated impacts and stakeholder concerns. In addition, the Project Team will need to determine whether language assistance measures are needed to ensure meaningful access to the process. Consideration of businesses and community facilities important to low-income, minority, and limited English proficiency populations is also critical. ► Visual Resources: The interdisciplinary project team should work with CDOT early (during project scoping) to complete CDOT's visual resources scoping documentation. This scoping process determines the level of visual impact assessment, establishes a study area, identifies visual resource issues and associated regulations, and initiates public contact. ► Historic Resources: Design solutions should seek ways to avoid or minimize impacts to historic resources in any way possible. For alternatives with significant impacts, discuss practicable alternatives or mitigation. Evaluate sites identified as potential historic resources for NRHP eligibility to determine historic status. SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Other Potential Environmental Resource Next Steps Additional resource considerations may be warranted during future transportation improvements along SH 66. Scoping should occur in coordination with CDOT staff. NEPA evaluation may be required for future 511 66 projects in compliance with applicable regulations. Other resources to consider include the following. ► Paleontology: Before any construction activity, complete a desktop literature review and museum record search to identify geological formations within the corridor that are likely to contain fossils. If the desktop review reveals sensitive areas in the corridor, surveying and potential construction monitoring may be necessary. Clearance from CDOT may be required. ► Archaeology: Conduct a file search through the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's online Compass database to identify all previously recorded sites and surveys within 0.5 mile of the corridor. If the desktop review reveals sensitive areas in the corridor, surveying and potential construction monitoring may be necessary. Clearance from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) may be required. Farmlands: If farmland of importance or prime farmland is found within the corridor, consider and take care to minimize overall impacts to prime farmland during design and construction. Clearance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service may be necessary. ► Air Quality: The entire study area is included in the Denver Ozone Nonattainment Area, portions of the study area are in the Denver Particulate Matter 10 Attainment/Maintenance Areas, and portions of the study area are in the Longmont Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/Maintenance Area. Project level conformity analyses (40 CFR 93) will be required for those areas from a regional and/or local perspective. Additional air quality analysis (mobile source air toxics and greenhouse gases) applies statewide to projects (primarily if the project is at the EA or EIS level). Clearance from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division may be required. Environmental Resource Agency Coordination ► During the PEL process, CDOT consulted with environmental resource agencies, including: • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) CPW • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • SHPO • USACE • US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) ► These agencies reviewed the Corridor Conditions Report during summer 2017 and were given an opportunity to provide comments. Agency comments were addressed and incorporated in the final Corridor Conditions Report (Appendix C). Agency correspondence is included in Appendix F-1. Additional NEPA and Environmental Requirements ► Individual projects must be evaluated under NEPA (most likely as a CatEx or EA) and should contribute to meeting purpose and need for SH 66. ► Resultant mitigation commitments must be implemented during the phase/project in which impacts occur. ► Fiscal constraint requirements must be satisfied for FHWA and CDOT to approve further NEPA documentation, which involves project inclusion in the fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan and fiscally constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). ► In cases where corridor improvements are implemented in more than one phase/project, care must be taken to ensure that the transportation system operates acceptably at the conclusion of each phase/project (i.e., the project must demonstrate independent utility). How are cumulative impacts included in PELs? Cumulative impacts are combined, incremental effects of human activity. They may be insignificant by themselves, but cumulative impacts accumulate over time, from one or more sources, and can result in degradation of important resources. The goal of considering cumulative impacts in a PEL study is to look broadly at future land use, development, population increases, and other growth factors. Cumulative Impacts Next Steps As projects are implemented, this information can aid in assessing cumulative effects. ► Geographic context for future analysis: The boundary for traffic assessments (e.g., the extent of traffic analysis zones) may be a reasonable study boundary for future SH 66 projects, given the influence of land use and development near SH 66. ► Actions that may contribute to cumulative effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions should be assessed. Population increases and land development are considerations for cumulative impact analysis, given the increasing and projected growth trends in northern Colorado along the Front Range. ► Resources sensitive to cumulative impacts: Project teams should coordinate with CDOT to confirm scope. Resources that may be vulnerable to cumulative impacts could include floodplains, wetlands, traffic noise, and historic resources. Cumulative Impacts Resource Considerations ► Floodplains and Floodways: St Vrain Creek is the major watershed along SH 66. Cumulative impacts to the floodplain primarily would result from alterations to the floodplain caused by development already planned in the study area. Future project improvements should consider potential cumulative impacts to floodplains and floodways. ► Wetlands and Other Waters of the US: Agricultural practices and land development in the SH 66 PEL study area have increased over time. Activities causing soil erosion and changes to the water table lead to cumulative impacts to wetlands and waters of the US. Future project improvements should consider potential cumulative impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US. ► T&E Species, Species of Special Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles: Agriculture and urbanization activities along the SH 66 corridor have impacted wildlife corridors, movement, and distribution of sensitive threatened and endangered species in the past Future land use changes and alteration to natural vegetation and open space proximity may lead to cumulative impacts to wildlife species. When project improvements are implemented, consideration should be given for potential cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered species, species of special concern, migratory birds and Eagles. Park/Trail/Open Space Resources and Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges: Recreation and open space resources are dedicated and preserved in Boulder County. Weld County also has resources that may have recreational and open space values. Surrounding land use changes could affect the character of parks and open space. These resources should be evaluated during NEPA to identify potential cumulative impacts. ► Traffic Noise: Noise levels along SH 66 continue to increase with changing land use and as urbanization spreads from Longmont and Lyons. Vehicular traffic increases, oil and gas development, and farming activities also continue to shape noise levels in the study area. Future project improvements should consider potential cumulative impacts from traffic noise levels. ► Hazardous Materials: Past development and urbanization are expected to continue along the SH 66 corridor. These changes in land use may include facilities with hazardous materials. If contaminated areas are acquired for transportation purposes, CDOT policies and mandates for remediation may contribute to restoring past damages to the environment. Future project improvements should consider hazardous materials cumulative impacts. ► Environmental justice: Areas adjacent to Longmont were identified as having the greatest potential for impacts to low-income and minority populations. When project -specific roadway improvements move forward in the future, consideration should be given for potential cumulative impacts to low-income and minority populations. ► Visual Resources: Urbanization has increased along the SH 66 PEL study area over time, changing the visual setting of the corridor. As future project -specific roadway improvements are planned and implemented, consideration should be made regarding potential cumulative impacts to the visual character of the area. ► Historic Resources: Residential and commercial developmentcontinue to expand along SH 66, particularly adjacent to Longmont. In combination, future project improvements may have the potential for cumulative impacts on historic properties. Additional review will be required through NEPA. 35 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Resource Anticipated Impacts Section 1 • 0 07 acre of floodway Floodplains and Floodways • 3 6 acres of 100-yr floodplain • 3 9 acres of 500-yr floodplain Wetlands and Other Waters • 2,022 ft of streams of the US • 1 8 acres of potential wetlands • 0 82 acre of wetlands T&E Species, Species of • 36 3 acres of Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat Special Concern, Migratory • intersection with overland habitat connectors, active Bald Eagle Birds and Eagles nest site area, and undetermined/unknown Bald Eagle nest site area Park/Trail/Open Space • 2 51 acres of park and open space Resources and • 73 3 feet of existing trail Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges • 470 feet of proposed trail Utilities • 26 major utilities, including communication, irrigation ditch(es), electric and gas transmission, and water • 13 utility owners • Includes noise sensitive areas and individual homes and businesses Traffic Noise • Potential impacts at dispersed rural/large lot residences and in medium density residential neighborhoods • Potential impacts at recreational and historic sites • 303(d) rivers/streams, including St Vram Creek Hazardous Materials • 2 LUST sites, 3 industrial sites, 2 water treatment facilities, 5 other sites of concern_ including AST/UST, and historic auto sites • 11 to 20 percent minority population in Section 1 Census blocks • Between 11 and 40 percent low-income population in Section 1 Environmental Justice Census blocks • Lower potential to cause disproportionately high or adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations Visual Resources • • Low to moderate potential for visual impacts, depending on potential improvement and location/context Includes access consolidation and at -grade transportation improvements • Potential for direct and/or indirect impacts at properties meeting Historic Resources the 45 -year threshold for NRHP • NRHP-eligible resources include • 5BL 241 1 Sites • 5BL 3115 Palmerton Milkhouse Ditch • 5BL 241 15 • 5BL 4248 Montgomery Montgomery School Farm • 5BL 374 Burlington • 5BL 4476 Longmont Northern Railroad Supply Canal • 5BL 3113 Rough and • 5BL 4832 Oligarchy Ditch Ready Ditch • 5BL 6987 Mclntosh/Lohr • 5BL 3114 Highland Farm Ditch Table 2. Potential Environmental Impacts Resource Anticipated Impacts Section 2 Floodplains and Floodways • None Wetlands and Other Waters of the US • 2,251 ft of streams • 0 23 acre of potential wetlands • 0 7 acre of wetlands T&E Species, Species of Special • Intersection with active Bald Eagle nest site area Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles Park/Trait/Open Space Resources and • 0 34 acre of park and open space Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges • No existing or proposed trails Utilities • 21 major utilities, including communication, irrigation ditch(es), gas transmission, storm sewer, and water • 13 utility owners Traffic Noise • Includes noise sensitive areas, individual homes and businesses, and individual places of worship • Potential impacts to residential neighborhoods and medium/high density residential neighborhoods • Potential impacts at recreational and historic sites Hazardous Materials • Ten sites of concern, including SEMS. AST/UST LUST, Historic Auto, and Industrial sites • Cluster of sites near SH 66/US 287 Environmental Justice • Between 11 and greater than 60 percent minority population in Section 2 Census blocks • Between 11 and 80 percent low-income population in Section 2 Census blocks • Higher potential to impact minority and low-income populations, Make considerations to avoid causing disproportionately high or adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations Visual Resources • Low to moderate or moderate to high potential for visual impacts depending on potential improvement and IocatiorJcontext • Includes access modifications/consolidations, at grade intersection improvements, and potential grade -separated improvements Historic Resources • Potential for direct and/or indirect impacts at properties meeting the 45 -year threshold for NRHP • NRHP-eligible resources include • 5BL 3113 Rough and Ready Ditch • 5BL 4476 Longmont Supply Canal • 5BL 6938 Nishida Farms Notes LUST = leaking underground storage tank AST = above ground storage tank UST = underground storage tank SEMS = Superfund Enterprise Management System NRHP = National Register of Historic Places Resource Anticipated Impacts Section 3 Floodplains and Floodways • None Wetlands and Other Waters • 514 3 ft of streams of the US • 0 98 acre of potential wetlands • 0 96 acre of wetlands T&E Species, Species of • Intersection with active Bald Eagle nest site area Special Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles Park/Trail/Open Space • No parks or open space Resources and • 243 feet of proposed trail Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges • 8 major utilities, including communication, electric Utilities transmission, and sanitary sewer • 5 utility owners • Includes noise sensitive areas and individual homes and businesses Traffic Noise • Potential impacts at dispersed rurallarge lot residences and in medium density residential neighborhoods • 3 oil and gas wells Hazardous Matenals • Three 303(d) water bodies and/or rivers/stream • 1 SEMS site • 11 to 20 percent minority population in Section 3 Census blocks • 11 to 20 percent low-income population in Section 3 Environmental Justice Census blocks • Lower potential to cause disproportionately high or adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations Vsua! Resources • • Low to moderate or moderate to high potential for visual impacts, depending on potential improvement and location/context Includes access modifications/consolidations, at -grade intersection improvements, and potential grade- separated improvements ■ Potential for direct and/or indirect impacts at properties Historic Resources meeting the 45 -year threshold for NRHP • 5WL 841 Great Western Railroad • 5WL 2181 Highland Canal Lateral • 5WL 4300 Pleasant Hill School/Liberty Hall Grange 36 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 2. Potential Environmental Impacts (Continued) Resource Anticipated Impacts Section 4 Floodplains and Floodways • None Wetlands and Other Waters • 2,427 ft of streams of the US • 1 6 acres of potential wetlands • 0 73 acre of wetlands T&E Species, Species of • None Special Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles Park/Trail/Open Space • No parks or open space Resources and • 310 feet of proposed trail Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges • 6 major utilities, including communication, irrigation Utilities ditch(es), petroleum/natural gas, and water • 7 utility owners Traffic Noise • • Includes noise sensitive areas and individual homes and businesses Potential impacts at dispersed rumI/large lot residences and at businesses along SH 66 • Dispersed oil and gas wells Hazardous Materials • • 7 other sites of concern, including AST/UST, LUST, Historic Auto, and Industrial sites Cluster of sites near SH 66/Mead Street intersection • 11 to 20 percent minority population in Section 4 Census blocks • Between 11 and 40 percent low-income population in Environmental Justice Section 4 Census blocks • Lower potential to cause disproportionately high or adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations Visual Resources • Low to moderate or moderate to high potential for visual impacts, depending on potential improvement and location/context • Includes access modifications/consolidations, at -grade intersection improvements, and potential grade -separated improvements Historic Resources • Potential for direct and/or indirect impacts at properties meeting the 45 -year threshold for NRHP • 5WL 1978 Rademacher-Hilgers Residence Resource Anticipated Impacts Section 5 Floodplains and Floodways • 11 6 acres of 100-yr floodplain Wetlands and Other Waters of the US • • • 726 ft of streams 2 24 acres of potential wetlands 1 28 acres of wetlands T&E Species, Species of Special Concern, Migratory Birds and Eagles • Intersection with active Bald Eagle nest site area Park/Trail/Open Space Resources and Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges • • No parks or open space 3,124 feet of proposed trail Utilities • • 11 major utilities, including communication, electric and gas transmission, petroleum/natural gas sanitary sewer, and water 7 utility owners Traffic Noise • • Includes noise sensitive areas and individual homes and businesses Potential impacts at dispersed rurallarge lot residences and at businesses along SH 66 Hazardous Materials • • • • Dispersed oil and gas wells 2 industrial sites 1 LUST site Two 303(d) impaired water bodies Environmental Justice • • • Between 11 and greater than 60 percent minority population in Section 5 Census blocks Between 11 and 40 percent low-income population in Section 5 Census blocks Higher potential to impact minority populations, make considerations to avoid causing disproportionately high or adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations Visual Resources • • Low to moderate or moderate to high potential for visual impacts, depending on potential improvement and location/context Includes access modifications/consolidations, at -grade Intersection improvements, and potential grade -separated improvements Historic Resources • • No previously determined NRHP-eligible resources were identified Several imgation ditches and old farm complexes line this section of the study area and will require additional survey and evaluation to determine NRHP eligibility r -9 Project teams should coordinate with CDOT and consult CDOT's NEPA Manual for more information about environmental next steps. �� 37 SH 66 Planning and .trtst Environmental Linkages Study 5. Risk and Resiliency Given the increasing prevalence of extreme weather events and risks associated with human activities, planning for resiliency is gaining increasing recognition as an important consideration in infrastructure development and operations. Some transportation officials across the country and internationally have begun to plan and design transportation infrastructure with more focus on risk and resiliency. These types of considerations are distinct from responding to an emergency event (such as an automobile accident or a medical emergency). CDOT's goal in this assessment is to inform planning decisions and incorporate resiliency considerations where transportation assets may be vulnerable to risk in the context of two distinct considerations: physical threats and operational threats. What t is resiliency? "Resiliency is the ability of communities to rebound, positively adapt to, or thrive amidst changing conditions or challenges - including disaster and climate change - and maintain quality of life, healthy growth, durable systems, and conservation of resources for present and future generations." - Colorado Resiliency Working Group What are physical threats? Physical threats are considered natural hazards or human caused hazards that could shutdown a highway for more than four hours (Figure 15). Physical threats analyzed as part of this SH 66 process (Figure 16) are considered in the context of being location -specific (i.e., the threat may occur at a specific site) or corridor -wide (i.e., the threat may occur anywhere along the corridor). Summary of Physical Threats Evaluated Location -specific threats include: ► Bridge scour from floods L erosion of soil supporting a SH 66 bridge structure and causing structural damage ► Debris flows moving mass of loose mud, sand, soil, rock, and water down a slope toward SH 66 ► Landslides/rockfalls 4. moving mass of earth or rock from a mountain or cliff toward SH 66 ► Bridge strikes Sri truck collision with a SH 66 bridge causing structural damage ► Railroad proximity train derailment affecting SH 66 or stalled train blocking SH 66 operations Key: Natural hazard L Human caused hazard ley Corridor -wide threats include: ► Fires L S wildfires or range fires burning along or near SH 66 ► Tornadoes/high winds 4: stronggusts/storms causing SH 66 infrastructure damage ► Utility rupture 01 explosion or sink hole on or along SH 66 ► Visibility intense fog or ground level cloud cover along SH 66 ► Cyber !E4 attack on CDOT's intelligent transportation system infrastructure along SH 66 ► Hazardous Materials S spill of hazardous materials or waste on or along SH 66 Figure 15. Physical Threat Examples HAZARDOUS MATERIAL® Supporting Documentation ► Appendix K Physical Threats Risk and Resiliency Assessment: Presents technical detail, including cost calculations and detailed maps Physical Threats Overview and Recommendations ► For location -specific threats, 11 threat areas were evaluated (Appendix K) to assess zones of potential floods, debris flow/landslides/rock falls, railroad conflicts, an overhead pipe, bridge strikes, and wildfires. • These areas were evaluated in the context of: • Consequence — Costs for CDOT to replace the asset and time and resources spent on out -of -direction travel for motorists/travelers • Vulnerability — Probability of the threat occurring should the threat be realized • Risk — Consideration of threat, consequence, and vulnerability in the context of one another • Criticality — Relative importance of SH 66 (AEM 2018) • Prioritization — Documentation that assets and/or areas of SH 66 should receive funding and action in the context of risk and resiliency • Recommendations — Considerations for CDOT that would build resiliency into SH 66 • The highest priority threat areas include risk area ID 2 (along the St Vrain River in Weld County), risk area ID 9 (the overpass structure at SH 66 and I-25), and Risk Area ID 10 (the bridge over the St Vrain River in Weld County). • The lowest priority threat area is risk area ID S (the BNSF Railway crossing with SH 66 in Longmont). • Figure 17 includes a map overview of CDOT's threats and assets along SH 66. ► For corridor -wide threats, resiliency recommendations include the following generalized actions: • Establish redundant routes to offer additional evacuation potential • Establish signage to disseminate information in the event of a hazard • Develop an Incident Management Plan for SH 66 38 Figure 16. SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SH 66 PEL Risk Et Resiliency Physical Assessment Process THREATS LOCATION CORRIDOR SPECIFIC: WIDE: Bridge Scour Fires from Floods Tornadoes/ Debris Flows High Winds Landslides/ Utility Rockfalls Ruptures Bridge Strikes Visibility Railroad Cyber Proximity Hazardous Materials CDOT ASSETS Fridges Roadway Prism Sidewalks a Trails Culvert & Roadside Ditches Walls $ Devices Traffic Control Devices Resiliency is the ability of communities to rebound, positively adapt to, or thrive amidst changing conditions or challenges - including disaster and climate change - and maintain quality of life, healthy growth, durable systems, and conservation of resources for present and future • generations. • - Colorado Resiliency Working Group - IDENTIFY THREATS and CDOT ASSETS • Identify applicable threats and hazards along project corridor. O Determine location of assets that exist in the corridor. Determine the threat area based on probable limits of where the threat would occur. DELIVERABLE: Map of Threats and Assets Once funds have been identified, resiliency opportunities during the PEL process will be used to consider implementing improvements. Identify future resiliency opportunities. PEL STUDY DOCUMENT VULNERABILITY and CONSEQUENCE • What do we already know about the asset (age, condition, to standard, proximity)? e identify high level infrastructure and user costs. • Determine expected effects from each threat. • Determine countermeasures in place to reduce vulnerability. Determine likelihood of occurrence. ASSESS RISK Understand risk profile in the corridor. RESILIENT RECOMMENDA- TIONS • Recommend resiliency measures to consider during project planning and that inform right-of-way preservation. • Integrate with PEL implementation. • Prioritize resiliency improvements. Le_%2) DELIVERABLE: PEL Risk Assessment Matrix PROJECT DELIVERY NEPA, RnR ANALYSIS (b/c ratio), FUNDING, and DECISION MAKING • Revisit identified options to reduce risk and increase resilience • Assess risk reduction and mitigation alternatives DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION • Implement resilient design solutions 39 '� SH 66 Planning and , 4 p ta hi 0 Environmental Linkages Study Figure 17. SH 56 Assets and Physical Threats Overview Wet 1— Inset 4 Inset 5 Inset 3 Inset 2 Legend ify VALLEY DR te 0 O WWY- JI d Pal ._-MFAD ST COOT Asset Type COOT Asset Type • Bridge A Culvert • Traffic Signal Guardrait Number of Threats 1 Threat 2 Threats — 3 Threats SH 66 Corridor 41nreats Rattroad 1-1 Study Area $Ht6Gatdor NORTH 1:34 5 40 CSH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study What are operational threats? Operational threats (Figure 18) occur when unplanned land development has unanticipated highway operation impacts. Occasionally, communities will make land use/land development decisions that are not accounted for in the travel demand model and, therefore, position CDOT and surrounding communities as reactionary. This unplanned land development can generate unanticipated traffic volume increases on Colorado's state highways minimizing previous planning and prioritization efforts. Required funding may not be available to address operational and/or safety concerns sufficiently and the overall transportation network's operational resiliency is compromised. Figure 18. Operational Threat Factors Operational Threat Assessment ► CDOT Region 4 staff and leadership, FHWA, and the Project Team developed a three -step assessment to evaluate operational resiliency. 1. Perform an operational sensitivity at a corridor -level to establish intersections where highway operations may be nearing capacity based on the recommendations made in the PEL. 2. Focus on these areas by identifying high -risk intersections (i.e., intersections that have failing operations if traffic volumes are higher than projections) to determine whether there is a threat of land use changes that may impact this area. 3. CDOT and local agencies continue planning efforts to ensure that these locations are monitored after the PEL is completed. ► This assessment was not used to determine the PEL footprint. It was completed after the PEI, recommendations were made to establish locations that may be most vulnerable to land use changes on the corridor. ► While small changes in land use may occur throughout the corridor and would be overall inconsequential to operations where intersections have excess capacity, these changes would be more significant if there are several compounded land use changes or if they occur at a location without excess intersection capacity. Operational Sensitivity ► The PEL used 2040 traffic projections based on available and approved DRCOG data. The operational sensitivity assessment identifies locations that may be nearing capacity after considering the capacity/geometric improvement recommendations from the PEL. It identifies likely traffic analysis zones (TAZ) that could underestimate future development. ► This corridor is near the outer limits of the DRCOG model. When development occurs outside the DRCOG region, it may impact volumes on SH 66 as well. ► To test overall sensitivity of the PEL recommendations, two future traffic volume adjustment scenarios were considered: • Scenario 1 considered the case where unanticipated development results in an additional 10 percent traffic volume above the DRCOG projections. • Scenario 2 considered a case where traffic was 20 percent higher than the DRCOG projections. ► While it is unlikely any uniform growth would occur in this manner on all movements along the corridor, this assessment allows a macro -level assessment to determine where there may be capacity issues on the corridor if the volumes are higher than projections from the regional travel demand model. ► TAZs and their household and employment growth projections were assessed at a high level to determine risks and vulnerabilities for each Section. ► Using operational sensitivity results, a high-level assessment was made for locations on SH 66 that may be at risk for operational deficiencies with unanticipated changes in future volumes occurs. This assessment identifies SH 66 locations most sensitive to changes if: • background growth projections are higher than anticipated in the model • specific developments submit plans with denser land uses than projections • land use projections are modified in future transportation plan updates Results Overview In the sensitivity analysis, some intersections have unacceptable operations under Scenario 1, which also means they would have poor operations under Scenario 2. Other intersections have enough additional capacity to absorb a 10 percent volume increase but fail in the 20 percent growth scenario. Section 1 Results ► Risks: Land uses in Section 1 have lower risk for unanticipated growth because Boulder County open space surrounds much of the highway. The following locations are considered at a higher risk for poor operations if volumes on the corridor become higher than anticipated: • 75th Street — Incorporating PEL recommendations (addition of turn lanes to the side street approaches) results in operations of a LOS B or C. Adding 10 percent traffic results in the intersection being over capacity (operating at LOS E) during weekday evening peaks and results in long queues for eastbound SH 66. Additional lane construction may be needed to increase intersection throughput. • Low Volume Intersections — Lower -volume intersections in Section 1, including Highland Drive, 52°d Street, and 66th St, are anticipated to have lower side -street volumes and may not meet warrants for signalization. Drivers wanting to turn left out of the intersection will experience long delays, which will be further compounded with additional traffic on SH 66. ► Vulnerability: The DRCOG model projects almost no growth from the western project limits to 75th Street for either households or employment growth and moderate growth between 75th Street and Airport Road. Locations with the greatest vulnerability to development or redevelopment include: • SH 66 Mainline — The DRCOG model projects approximately 0.8 percent annual growth through Sections 1 B and IC until 2040, compared to a higher growth rate on the remainder of SH 66. If the surroundinggrowth on these sections of SH 66 are higher than anticipated, there could be long queues at signalized intersections and long delays near East Highland Drive and/or 87'" Street • US36/SH 66 - TAZs surrounding the SH 66 and US 36 intersection show almost no growth. However, the Town of Lyons has redevelopment planned for the area between McConnell Drive and East Highland Drive. If the redevelopment adds significant volume to the north leg of the US 36/SH 66 intersection or to the SH 66 mainline, it could result in poor operations. • ARWAS — Properties along Sections 1B and IC planned to use the ARWAS typically include single-family homes, farms, or low -volume businesses. Properties not dedicated as a Boulder County Conservation Easement or Open Space could redevelop with higher density levels than what is currently planned. if this occurs adjacent to the ARWAS, reassessment would be necessary of the ARWAS operations and where it intersects with SH 66 crossroads. The ARWAS would provide access for low -volume connections only. If land use changes and higher volumes are projected, the ARWAS should be removed and traffic should access SH 66 directly. 41 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 2 Results ► Risks: Most properties adjacent to SH 66 in Section 2 are built -out, incorporated into City of Longmont's Long -Range Plan, or identified as Boulder County Open Space. Performing the operational sensitivity analysis resulted in degraded operations with long delays at the following intersections: • Hover/95th Street — if traffic volumes are higher than projected, this intersection may not operate acceptably as a partial displaced left turn (PEL recommendation). Depending on movements impacted by the addition of traffic and the magnitude of additional traffic volumes, additional movements may need to be displaced, or a grade -separated intersection may be more appropriate. • US 287 -- If volumes are higher than projected, certain movements of the fully displaced left turn intersection (PEL recommencation) may experience long queues, which could impact design and capacity of the left turn lanes. If volumes increase significantly over DRCOG's model projections, a grade -separated interchange may become more appropriate. • Pace Street With significant added volume (Scenario 2), Pace Street would operate at LOS E in the evening peak. Operations at this intersection can be improved by constructing additional turn lanes beyond what was anticipated in the PEL, such as a dual westbound or northbound left turn. w Vulnerability: Modeling shows high volumes generally traveling from north of SH 66 toward Longmont and Boulder in the morning peak (reverse in the evening peak). A Section 2 vulnerability includes potential inaccuracies in projected future turning movements because SH 66 is on the outer limits of the DRCOG model. This location results in limited nodes for traffic to enter and exit the model. If growth patterns outside the network distribute traffic differently as development occurs, some intersections may experience different north - south patterns than planned in the PEI., which could impact future intersections. Section 3 Results ► Risks: Section 3 is primarily rural, but sections near SH 66 are within the current or planned growth boundaries for Longmont and Mead. The following intersections is anticipated to near capacity if higher than anticipated traffic volumes occur: • County Line Road — Based on 2040 projections, Count' Line Road is anticipated to operate at LOS D during morning and evening peak periods. Increasing volumes by 10 percent or 20 percent results in LOS E for most peak periods. Adding traffic at this location also results in long peak hour directional queues on SH 66. If Section 3 experiences significantly higher volumes than projected, an alternative intersection treatment or grade -separated interchange may become more appropriate. Section 3 Results (Continued) ► Vulnerability: TAZs in this section project moderate to high planned growth. However, TAZs in Weld County near SH 66 typically are large (6 or more square miles) and may not reflect fully planned growth of surrounding local agencies. Also, several TAZs adjacent to SH 66 have overlapping growth boundaries for Longmont and Mead. The PEL team assessed several planned developments currently being platted in this section. While each development generally fits into DRCOG's growth projections, if the same density were applied to remaining undeveloped land in the TAZ, growth would be significantly higher than projected. ► An additional Section 3 risk is that Mead recently updated their Transportation Plan. The changes were incorporated into current 2040 DRCOG projections, but they may not reflect ongoing planning processes. In that case, unanticipated land use changes or additional projected trips onto SH 66 may occur. Section 4 Results ► Risks: Section 4 is primarily rural, but sections near SH 66 are within the planned or current growth boundaries for Mead and Firestone. The following intersections are anticipated to be nearing capacity if higher -than -anticipated traffic volumes occur: • Weld County Road 7 -- The evening peaks for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 resulted in LOS E. • Mead Place — Mead Place is one of the few higher volume unsignalized intersections in this section. The intersection recommendation in the PEL includes three-quarter movement. Given the high volume of nearby right -turning traffic onto SH 66 from the 1-25 northbound ramp or from WCR 9.5, minimal gaps would be available for traffic to turn into and out of Mead Place. As development occurs, it is important that higher volume unsignalized locations be secondary property accesses and that drivers have options to enter and exit at a signalized intersection. For Mead Place, additional access could be provided from WCR 9.5. ► Vulnerability: TAZs in this section project moderate to high planned growth. However, TAZs in Weld County near SH 66 typically are quite large (6 or more square miles) and may not fully reflect the planned growth of the surrounding local agencies. Also, several of the TAZs immediately adjacent to SI-I 66 have overlapping growth boundaries for Mead and Firestone. The PEL team assessed several planned developments currently being platted in this Section. While each development generally fits into DRCOG's growth projections, if the same density were applied to remaining undeveloped land in the TAZ, growth would be significantly higher than projected. An additional Section 4 risk is that Mead recently updated its Transportation Plan. The changes were incorporated into current 2040 DRCOG projections, but they may not reflect ongoing planning processes. In that case, unanticipated land use changes or additional projected trips onto SH 66 may occur. Additionally, Firestone is planning to update its Transportation Plan in the next several years, which also could impact Sf1 66 projected volumes. Section 5 Results ► Risks: Section 5 is primarily rural, but sections near SH 66 are within the planned or current growth boundaries for Mead and Firestone. The following intersections are anticipated to be nearing capacity if there are higher -than - anticipated traffic volumes: • Weld County Road 11 — Based on 2040 projections, WCR 11 has significant remaining capacity and is anticipated to operate at LOS C during the morning and peak periods with the intersection improvements recommended in the PEL. Increasing the volumes by 10 or 20 percent results in LOS E for most peak periods. If significantly higher volumes occur at this intersection than were projected in the DRCOG model, additional auxiliary lanes or an alternative intersection treatment may be appropriate. • Weld County Road 11.5 Based on 2040 projections, WCR 11.5 has significant remaining capacity and is anticipated to operate at LOS C during morning and peak periods with the intersection improvements recommended in the PEL. Increasing volumes by 20 percent results in LOS E in the evening peak periods. if significantly higher volumes occur at this intersection than were projected in the DRCOG model, this intersection may require additional turn lanes. ► Vulnerability: TAZs in Section 5 project moderate to high planned growth. However, TAZs in Weld County near SH 66 are typically quite large (6 or more square miles) and may not fully reflect planned growth of the surrounding local agencies. Also, several TAZs immediately adjacent to SH 66 have overlapping growth boundaries for Mead and Firestone. The PEL team assessed several planned developments currently being platted in this Section. While each development generally fits into DRCOG's growth projections, if the same density were applied to remaining undeveloped land in the TAZ, growth would be significantly higher than projected. An additional risk in Section 5 is that Mead recently updated its Transportation Plan. The changes were incorporated into current 2040 DRCOG projections, but they may not reflect ongoing planning processes. In that case, unanticipated land use changes or additional projected trips onto SH 66 may occur. Additionally, Firestone is planning to update its Transportation Plan in the next several years, which could also impact SH 66 projected volumes. Next Steps ► The proposed process for evaluating and identifying operational threats to SH 66 includes: • working with agencies to monitor locations that could be ata higher risk • working with communities to implement solutions to improve the baseline corridor LOS • working with developers and local communities to fund improvements when an intersection or a section may have unacceptable operations based on PEI. recommended improvements • monitoring the corridor through the ACP process IIII 42 <. 0tiv SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. 43 a SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 6. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement FHWA and CDOT committed to involving local agencies and the public throughout the SH 66 PEL process. Participants included federal, state, and local government representatives; regional transportation planning entities; railroad operators; community groups; businesses; property owners; and residents. Desired outcomes of the coordination and outreach efforts include the following: ► Stakeholder input contributing to the PEL study's information base, findings, and recommendations ► Stakeholders that are well-informed about the study ► Meaningful input by the TAC, EC, and the public to help CDOT make sound and publicly supported decisions ► An understanding and documentation about what decisions were made during the study and the rationale for them ► An understanding about how the PEL study will move forward and how stakeholders will be involved Supporting Documentation ► Appendix F Agency Coordination: Documents the SH 66 PEL process of agency coordination and engagement ► Appendix G Public Involvement: Documents the SH 66 PEL process of public outreach and involvement How was agency coordination and public outreach managed during the PEL process? The Project Team prepared an Agency Coordination and Public Outreach Plan (the outreach plan) for the SH 66 PEL at the beginning of this study. This plan set forth the public involvement process for the study and described the agency coordination and public outreach intent, initiatives, responsibilities, and tasks to be carried out as part of the study. The outreach plan defined various roles, responsibilities, issues, and guidelines for a successful outreach effort It identified specific public involvement activities and established time frames in which to implement them. Agency Coordination Overview ► CDOT worked closely with the corridor's local communities and other agencies throughout the study process. Coordination largely occurred through TAC, which was made up of technical staff from the following agencies: • Boulder County • DRCOG • Town of Firestone • City of Longmont • FHWA • Town of Lyons • Town of Mead • RTD • Weld County ► The TAC assisted in the PEI, study process and served as a sounding board for technical aspects of the project. All project analyses, evaluations, and recommendations were vetted through the TAC before being presented to the public and elected officials or before being posted on the project website. TAC members also kept their respective organizations, community groups, and elected officials updated on the study's progress and findings. ► The Project Team also worked closely with the corridor's elected officials throughout the study process. One or two elected officials from each community and county along the corridor made up the EC. The EC provided policy -level guidance on the study. This group met at key milestones and decision points in the project when the Project Team needed input and concurrence of the elected officials to proceed. ► At key project milestones, the project team also updated the SH 66 Coalition. The Coalition is a group of local communities who formed with the goal to improve the entire SH 66 corridor and to obtain funding to implement solutions identified in the PEI. and ACP. Although the SH 66 Coalition is not facilitated by CDOT, CDOT was invited to participate. Agency coordination documentation can be found in Appendix F-2. Focused Agency Collaboration ► Stakeholder Interviews: Upon initiating the PEL, the Project Team interviewed key stakeholders in December 2016 and February 2017. All participating agencies were asked to describe SH 66, its role through their community, and their top concerns regarding travel along the corridor. Feedback received by the Project Team helped inform development of the projects purpose and need and alternatives development and screening process. Supporting documentation for the stakeholder interviews can be found in Appendix F-3. ► Visioning Workshop: The Project Team conducted a Visioning Workshop with key stakeholders, including TAC and EC members, in April 2017. The purpose of the workshop was to understand a vision for the future SH 66 corridor. Attendees participated in a series of activities to identify the corridor's role today, current problems, and potential solutions. Results from this visioning workshop informed the development of the projects purpose and need. Appendix F-4 includes supporting documentation for the visioning workshop. a ACCISS T8 R0QI WUNTAW NA $ML PARIM r 1GATEWAYI SCENICNEW DENSITY:F-113 in'atUnsafe Speed ICONNECTORi Z NRURMLr " 5 ES CONGESTIONS W oc nEy�TIUTi aimiot v'i'a= -Brit° .r� 0 stun= `7 i s M� Accidents Narrow Dann 9 Busynt Distractions erous •+M. Stow9 s h N 0 `ys ightmaaret Co u i`ul Viee ste d Commute SafetyCrowded Public and agency stakeholders' most frequently used words by to describe SH 66 today Words commonly heard in SH 66 stakeholder interviews 44 a SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study How were individuals and members of the public engaged dining the PEL process? The Project Team conducted public outreach activities based on the type of feedback desired and decisions to be made. The team also used engagement platforms to share updates and gather feedback. Public Outreach: Project Website and Social Media ► CDOT hosted a dedicated website (htips://www,codot.gov/library/studiesJco- 6iz pt) for the project to provide information about the study and enable ongoing communication. The site provided a PEI. study and process overview and included information about SH 66, meeting announcements, and meeting materials. Contact information for CDOT's project manager was included, which enabled the public to contact the Project Team with comments at any time. 03 e1Mao a Dntuume td linkages Study 'ea eta, •eta., • •a•r Jana apt 14•41111•04• INS r•.r•.....rraaba we a..a- a w+-- Sae ...NOW •.et ••• ••a• tY ..�...__ra•babn.ala♦q•ni a •aorta wit a••• swam r a•— _ _.•... _._...a., 4.1. means • —•raair aWarm essilIeen _.. •M. .••4 ► CDOT's social media accounts were used to provide project updates and announce upcoming public open houses; a press release was also distributed to advertise public open houses. TAC and EC members were provided a project flyer for each milestone and were encouraged to distribute the flyers using each community's distribution list and social media accounts. ^' SH 66 Ptannsnq and • r Environmental Linkages Study aisswoa U -S. SS w. any l eabsera• el ma ISM Ind• OP Cider W Y • flea COS ••...••a..• •. ton all titan. Let he maga Saul Iwo to as net CO NW ,a... ,aa r • tea debt e. ate►— S den at enter.. 01••ate... flan W.t COM teo Nmemo ....�. •• f as nee* anew tat•. ar 4 P •a•> A •aa ••••••t — w r e. Some a ?a as al sal t/ rays a.il a..•••..w ctb m w . ••+a• •t.,a hods* — or e immoomp• as reins Pe ea •s • 1e. —. Oa Oa Ps— 'a •.a.. ••• ••r a.-'dn r•,.•a..w... - amp....t e11••a Rosie easeasSIO Ia.. err- rafscrr•w,ore Or •. sae •s aa.• f1.• Cola ado DepriPssi ! tta.tawtat••r ccWI Pt hosting two PSt e..t.gs for 'M 111 w •tan...a O U...wwsat L•ea.p. -Ct a .Ug Sal ACP Imes Lto.n w Mitt Cwa<, had TO •.•a. manse a•• • ••••••••• lee el O. teal, Set baaan .n PO" t ., reread P4 •a11[. Sta. •t•/ ..S... n .et ' wad ',O• H. O••=•• toilets. •• Sista •.•vie aa•pbwa std a sasieSi se a♦.at. 'ball Sisal. ,.a•+ a•.goar ✓ S . e• Va. S ter 1 posted. SP as •t•ea •..a ►r• fro Team. V qi 1 da ••— Sample post card sent to residents Public Outreach: Public Open Houses ► Each round of public open houses included one meeting on the eastern side of the planning corridor and another on the western side. Each meeting was an open -house format with the same information being presented at each set of meetings. This allowed interested members of the public to select the location and a time that worked best for their schedules. • April 2017 Open Houses - Had approximately 55 attendees and introduced the public to the study and existing corridor conditions. The Project Team distributed questionnaires asking the public to characterize the role of SH 66 through their community, to identify their top concerns regarding travel on SH 66, and to identify their expectations of the study. Appendix G1 includes supporting documentation for these open house meetings. • Apn12019 Open Houses - Had approximately 110 attendees, presented the Level 2b transportation alternatives, and provided information about CDOT's risk and resiliency assessment The ACP was also introduced during these open house meetings. Using a questionnaire, the community was asked to provide feedback on which Level 2b recommendations they supported and which ones concerned them. Attendees were also asked to identify which improvements they felt should be completed on the corridor first. The same survey, along with meeting materials, was also posted on the project website for two weeks following the last open house. Appendix G2 includes supporting documentation for these open house meetings. • September 2019 Open Houses - Had approximately 60 attendees and presented Level 3 recommended projects along the entire corridor, along with the potential environmental impacts. Attendees were also able to view a list of future access changes. Attendees were again provided a questionnaire to submit feedback; the same questionnaire was also posted on the project website. Questions focused on prioritizing intersection/interchange options at major intersections and identifying the priority transportation need for each section along the planning corridor. Appendix G3 includes supporting documentation for these open house meetings. > To support the concurrent ACP development, an open house was held on July 25, 2019, which had approximately 90 attendees. ACP information was displayed, including which access points might be consolidated, closed, and/or moved. Other traffic movement alternatives were presented. ► Open Houses were advertised through CDOT's (and local agencies') websites and newsletters, CDOrs social media accounts, press releases, posting of flyers in local communities (at the local agencies' discretion), email distribution, and postcard notifications to residents within one-half mile of the planning corridor. Public Comments ► The project team tracked and compiled public comments from several sources, including public open houses, project website, letters, email correspondence, and telephone conversations. At key project milestones, public comments were summarized and included in the analysis and planning process. ► April 2017 PEL Kickoff Public Comment Themes (31 completed questionnaires): • The most important roles that SH 66 plays in the community - access to businesses, serving as a regional highway, and access to Rocky Mountain National Park. • Top three concerns regarding travel on SH 66 - difficult or dangerous to get onto and off SH 66, safety, and too much traffic. • The top three problems to be addressed in the future -adding turn lanes, making turn lanes longer, and accommodating bicycles and pedestrians with safe crossings. ► April 2019 Level 2b Analysis Public Comment Themes (77 completed questionnaires): • Respondents emphasized the need to widen SH 66, to control access, to restrict turning and to include safety improvements in the final plan. • Residents along the corridor are concerned about noise levels and how the options will contribute to the problem. • The overall theme of safety is clearly expressed in the comments, specifically making a left-hand turn onto SH 66 or from SH 66 is challenging at all hours. • Speed was also mentioned often as a contributing factor to safety. Although most felt it would be appropriate to lower the speed limit, others felt that increasing the speed limit would help traffic move more smoothly along SH 66 resulting in fewer accidents. ► September 2019 Level 3 Analysis Public Comment Themes (49 completed questionnaires): • Safety was identified as the highest transportation need for all sections of SH 66 within the planning corridor. • Noise along the corridor continues to be a concern for corridor residents. Some residents also expressed concern about how the various options may impact air quality and their property values. • Respondents generally support the expansion of SH 66 to 4 -lanes for the length of the planning corridor. • Considerable feedback was received regarding the area of McCall Drive and North 66th St.. ► Comments were also accepted throughout the planning process via the "submit feedback" link on the project website. The Project Team reviewed comments received from the website and sent a response to each individual. Appendix G4 includes these comments. 45 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 7. Additional Next Steps This chapter highlights additional requirements that would be necessary as PEL options are advanced and implemented. Access Control Plan ► Upon completion of the ACP, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be developed for all agencies in the SH 66 study limits. This will include Boulder County, Weld County, Town of Lyons, City of Longmont, Town of Mead, and Town of Firestone. ► After receiving approval by each entity, the IGA will be approved, signed, and adopted by each agency. The plan ultimately will be approved by CDOT's State Access Manager, and the plan will become law. To implement recommendations of the ACP, there will need to be continuing coordination among agencies. ► As development occurs along the corridor, apply ACP recommendations in collaboration with local agencies. Some initial disruption may occur; with further implementation of the ACP, a net access control benefit will be realized. ► The ACP process and final recommendations are detailed in Appendix H. Scoping, Design, and Construction ► Once a project is included in the TIP, funding requirements are confirmed for ROW, utility, environmental, design, and construction needs. A project scoping meeting can be held to confirm project delivery method, project objectives, funding sources, and schedule. ► CDOT's project delivery process includes standard milestones for scoping, design, and construction. Projects sponsored by local agencies that involve federal funding and/or CDOT oversight must follow CDOT's local agency process. In terms of bicycle/pedestrian considerations, the proposed bicycle and pedestrian path and ARWAS must be accommodated with safety in mind through whatever intersection types are implemented. ► Projects are designed and built according to a project delivery method: • Design -Bid -Build — Includes survey, cost estimating, and preliminary and final design to confirm construction plans and specifications that are released for bid to construction contractors once design is complete • Design -Build — Plans are developed to 30 percent design to select a team of designers/contractors to complete the project. Factors used in team selection include qualifications, duration, price, and innovation. • Construction Management/General Contractor — The agency contracts separately with a designer and a construction manager. A contractor is selected to provide construction management input during the design process and to perform construction management services and construction work. If the Construction Management/General Contractor and agency cannot reach a mutually agreeable negotiated contract amount or they choose not to negotiate, the project will be advertised for competitive bid. Acquisition of Property for Right of Way ► When acquisitions are necessary based on record information and field surveys, a title report is ordered and used to prepare property descriptions, exhibits, and ROW plans. The process includes property appraisal and then acquisition negotiations. ► Typically, the umeframe between identification and transfer of ownership takes about 18 months to meet all Uniform Relocation Act requirements. However, it may be possible to obtain possession earlier based on project needs. ► Implementation of projects that involve acquisition of property for ROW must comply with the Uniform Relocation Act. Managed Lanes ► FHWA defines managed lanes as "Highway facilities or a set of lanes where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions." ► The Colorado Transportation Commission approved the Managed Lanes Policy Directive 1603.0 on December 28, 2012. The purpose of the policy directive (COOT 2013) is "to ensure use of managed lanes is strongly considered during planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities within Colorado." ► As projects are implemented, reference CDOT's Managed Lanes Guidelines (COOT 2019) for more information. How is CDOT thinking about transportation technology for SH 66? Throughout the course of the SH 66 PEL study, COOT has considered current technologies and is working to make the corridor ready for emerging technologies that would advance purpose and needs of St{ 66, along with corridor goals. Figure 19. Technology Examples for SH 66 impar nafte ter riSplintrifs Adaptive lighting Communications duct sidewalk Innovative and Emerging Transportation Technologies ► For existing innovative technology, COOT understands its potential uses and benefits, which makes decision making for existing technology investments more tangible. Conversely, emerging or future technologies can be moving targets in terms of standards, protocols, systems, business processes, etc. As a result, this PEL aims to strike a balance by: • Planning flexibility in infrastructure so that emerging and future technology needs can be accommodated easily and so that early investments are possible while not investing in uncertain infrastructure along SH 66. • Planning actionable PEL outcomes so that COOT and local agencies can take advantage of technology today, while actively preparing for the future. ► This list summarizes existing technologies that offer current and future benefits. These technologies can be implemented now, but they also provide infrastructure and systems needed to accommodate future connected vehicle and automated vehicle (CV/AV) applications: • Adaptive Traffic Signal Control — Adaptive traffic signals have been used effectively in COOT Region 4 for many years. These signals dynamically adjust signal timing, coordination, and progression based on traffic demand and can result in improved traffic flow and safety when used in proper locations. A previous COOT study shows SH 66 between Colorado Boulevard and US 287 could benefit from adaptive traffic signal control (Atkins 2016). Adaptive signal controls will benefit from emerging CV technologies and will communicate with AVs in the future to optimize traffic flows. • Smart/Adaptive Streetlights — Light emitting diode and new communications capabilities allow streetlights to become "smart" and to adapt to current conditions. Benefits include improved safety and improved sustainability through energy and dark sky savings. Lights can change brightness based on the presence or absence of vehicles, pedestrians or other factors (Figure 19); can include remote video and audio monitoring by staff; can include Wi-Fi connectivity, can include warning sirens for severe weather or emergencies. With their communications capabilities, these lights will be important with emerging CV/AVs. • Blank Out Signs for Pedestrian Crossings — Blank out signs restrict right or left turns at signalized intersections when pedestrians are crossing and improve safety for pedestrians. Signs are activated with pedestrian push buttons and/or can use passive systems like infrared, video, LbOAR, etc., to detect the presence of crossing pedestrians. This information will be valuable to share with CV/AVs to alert them to crossing pedestrians. • Variable Speed Limits Variable speed limits can be used to improve safety and smooth traffic by alerting drivers of slower traffic flow from weather, congestion, accidents, etc. They will be used in the future by CV/AVs to regulate speed for optimal traffic flow. ► Communications and power will be increasingly important for emerging technologies. Future smart cities and CV applications require closer spacing of physical infrastructure than currently exists. • For example, the multi -use side path along the corridor can be constructed with removable planes over a communications duct (Figure 19). • This feature would provide easy access, increase communications capacity, and allow future connections involving new infrastructure/technology. • This feature improves safety for maintenance crews, getting them off the roadway, plus closures require less extensive traffic control. 46 SH 66 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 8. References AEM. 2018. Final Criticality Map and Model for Colorado. Data Received by email March 1. Atkins. 2016. Region 4 Adaptive Signal Prioritization. Prepared for CDOT Region 4. October 25. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2013. Managed Lanes Policy Directive 1603.0. January. https://www.codot.gov/about/govern mentrelations/news-publications/policy- briefs/cdot-s-managed-lanes-policy-directive CDOT. 2016. PEL Handbook Version 2. January. https;//www.codot.gov/programs/environmen Cal/planning-env-link-program/pel- handbook-ianuary-2016/view CDOT. 2017. NEPA Manual Version 5. August. https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmentaljnepa-program/nepa-manual CDOT. 2019. Managed Lanes Guidelines. February. httpsf/www.codot.gov/library/traffic/tramc-manuals-and-guidelinesJtraffic- guidelines-info/managed-lane-guidelines.pdf �� 47 11110,. CD• Draft Final COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan October 31, 2019 Prepared by: ATKINS Member of the SNC-Lavatin Group C3 COLORADO Cbat Department of Trart%port.ahnn SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Overview of Project 1 1.2. Study Limits 2 1.3. Purpose 4 1.4. Objectives 4 1.5. ACP Process 5 2. Corridor Conditions........................suuuuu................ ..................... ............ ..... ....s•seuu............ 7 2.1. Existing Corridor Access 7 2.2. Existing Corridor Traffic 9 2.3. Crash History 12 2.4. 2040 No Action Corridor Traffic 12 3. Public Involvement 16 4. Access Control Methods 17 5. Access Recommendations 19 5.1. Level of Service Analysis 19 6. Next Steps 22 6.1. Approval Process 22 6.2. Plan Implementation 22 6.3. Plan Modification 23 Appendices Appendix A. Existing Access Maps Appendix B. US 36 / SH 66 Inter -Governmental Agreement Appendix C. SH 66 Access Table Appendix D. Proposed Access Maps Appendix E. Public Involvement Material Appendix F. 2040 Synchro Analysis October 31, 2019 COLORADO Dep.irimen!cif Tran 1x rtat,on SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Highway Analysis Sections 2 Table 2. Existing Access Conditions with Study Area 9 Table 3. Proposed Number of Accesses 19 Table 4. 2040 Operational Analysis 20 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area Limits 3 Figure 2. Existing Operational Classification and Laneage 8 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Volumes 10 Figure 4. Existing Corridor Operations 11 Figure 5. Crash History Along SH 66 13 Figure 6. 2040 Projected Traffic Volumes 14 Figure 7. 2040 No Action Traffic Operations on SH 66 15 Figure 8. Methods of Access Control 17 Figure 9. Access Road with Advisory Shoulder Concept 18 October 31, 2019 ii co COLORADO Deparlment of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report List of Acronyms ACP CDOT DRCOG GIS IGA LOS mph N R -A P EL R -A S H 66 TT I U S 287 U S 36 WCR Access Control Plan Colorado Department of Transportation Denver Regional Council of Governments Geographic Information System Inter -Governmental Agreement Level of Service miles per hour N on -Rural Regional Highway Planning and Environmental Linkages Regional Highway State Highway 66 travel time index U .S. Highway 287 U .S. Highway 36 Weld County Road October 31, 2019 iii 1a 0 COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview of Project The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study for approximately 20 miles of State Highway 66 (SH 66) between McConnell Drive in Lyons: Colorado, and Weld County Road (WCR) 19 near Platteville. Colorado. SH 66 is an east -west principal arterial roadway under CDOT jurisdiction. The SH 66 PEL is being conducted to identify existing conditions, identify challenge areas, analyze safety and operational needs along this section of SH 66, and determine its short-term and long-term transportation priorities. As part of the PEL, CDOT concurrently completed an Access Control Plan (ACP) along the corridor to address the future access needs. The ACP involved seven stakeholders (including CDOT), who ultimately will sign the Inter - Governmental Agreement (IGA) with COOT: Boulder County, Weld County: Town of Lyons. City of Longmont, Town of Mead. and Town of Firestone. Recent growth along the corridor has resulted in an increase in traffic on SH 66. Looking to the future, traffic volumes are expected to increase in the range of 25 percent to 50 percent along the corridor by the year 2040. Without changes to the highway, the projected increase in traffic volumes will result in increased delay. higher levels of congestion and pollution, an increase in the number of crashes, and consumers potentially choosing to conduct their business in other communities. The approved ACP will guide the agencies' decisions regarding the future access conditions while supporting the planning objectives of the Towns, City, Counties, and CDOT. The ACP was developed by building on the efforts of the PEL process through an extensive collaborative effort between the stakeholders, a significant public outreach effort to ensure all concerns were heard and appropriately addressed. and informational presentations to the corridor's coalition of staff and elected officials. The final recommendations of the ACP provide benefit to four primary areas of the transportation system: operations: safety, multi -modal, and future improvements. Some of the major findings and benefits of the ACP include: • Changes in access conditions are identified, such as the elimination of an access or restriction on the type of turn movements allowed at a specific location. These recommendations will result in a reduction in the number of conflict points (locations where vehicles and/or pedestrians cross paths with each other), which will improve overall safety for all transportation modes. • Intersections are identified that may warrant the need for a traffic signal. roundabout, or conversion to an interchange in the future. Clearly identifying the locations where a signal can be installed if warranted prevents the corridor from becoming too congested with signals that are spaced too closely. While the locations where signals may be installed are established in the plan, no signal will be installed until warrants are met. which means that some intersections may remain unsignalized. Alternative intersections, such as a full and partial displaced left -turn intersection and grade -separated interchanges. have been proposed at multiple intersections as future recommended improvements in the PEL. The intersections that may require grade separation are noted in the ACP. • A shared road concept, called an Access Road with Advisory Shoulders: was developed for the PEL recommendations. It would parallel SH 66 along either the north or south side of the highway between Highland Drive East and 87th Street. The Access Road would provide a shared vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian path approximately 16 feet wide that provides entrance/exit for a short distance to a handful of parcels and directs the vehicles to intersections to reach SH 66. The Access Road would run for a short segment, but the entire route would be connected by a bicycle and pedestrian path that would travel the entire section length. The portions of the Access Road that allow vehicles are anticipated to be low volume and low speed. as the roads typically only October 31, 2019 1 flCs COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report provide access to a small number of parcels. Implementing this concept would reduce the n umber of direct accesses to SH 66 through rural Boulder County by a significant number and would allow the resulting accesses to provide deceleration and acceleration lanes and formalized intersections. • The recommendations and conclusions contained in the ACP collaborated with the PEL process and do not prohibit future improvements to the transit, bicycle. and pedestrian facilities along the corridor. • The recommendations and conclusions contained in the ACP follow the recommendations from the PEL for the future laneage and footprint of SH 66. The recommendations and conclusions do n ot prohibit future improvements to the roadway system along the corridor or on adjacent nearby streets. Efforts were made to identify possible future connectivity via roads that can alleviate the n eed for many direct accesses to the highway. 1.2. Study Limits The ACP study limits, shown in Figure 1, are approximately 20 miles in total length along SH 66 and include a small portion of U.S. Highway 36 (US 36) from the intersection with SH 66 to McConnell Drive in Lyons. The western boundary of the study is the US 36/McConnell Drive intersection and the eastern boundary of the project is the SH 66/WCR 19 intersection near Platteville. The study area passes through the Town of Lyons. City of Longmont, Town of Mead, Town of Firestone. Boulder County, and Weld County. A review of the highway characteristics —such as daily traffic volumes, development density. speed limits, and jurisdictional boundaries —revealed five distinct sections as part of the PEL efforts. Within those five sections. Section 1 and Section 5 were further sub -divided based on future projected land use and highway characteristics. These sections are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Summary of Highway Analysis Sections Section #.. Limits _ _ ,.Characteristic i _ '- 1A, 1 C 1B, McConnell Drive to 87th Street lower Primarily volumes density rural, of higher access speed, points, lower lower volume, truck 2 87th Street to County Line Road Primarily density speeds, of urban. access moderate high points, truck -density volumes higher development, volumes, lower high 3 County Street Line Road to WCR 7/3rd lower Primarily volumes density rural, of higher access volumes. points, higher moderate speeds, truck 4 WCR 7/3rd Street to WCR 11 Primarily higher volumes density centered of access on the 1-25 points, interchange, moderate truck 5A, 5B WCR 11 to WCR 19 lower Primarily volumes density rural, of higher access speed, points, lower higher volume, truck October 31; 2019 2 SECTION 1B SECTION SECTION 1C 2 SECTION 3 SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report SECTION $fCTlOM SECTION 4 SA I 58 COLORADO D.pareneat of Transportation Figure 1. Study Area Limits SECT10P 1A October 31, 2019 3 1G COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 1.3. Purpose The purpose of the ACP is to identify the location, type. and basic design elements of future access points within the study limits to provide reasonable access to adjacent properties while maintaining safe and efficient movement of all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicyclists; and pedestrians) along, adjacent to, or on alternative routes for SH 66. The improvements should be resilient, accommodate developing technologies; and strive to complement adjacent community context. According to the State Highway Access Code (March 2002); CDOT is required to provide access to individual properties when reasonable alternative access to the general street system does not exist and is not obtainable. CDOT can modify existing access points for safety and operational reasons and recommend restricting the number of allowable vehicle movements. Changes in access are discussed in Section 2.6, Changes in Land Use and Access Use; in 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. Changes in roadway median design that may affect turning movements normally will not require a license modification hearing as an access permit confers no private rights to the permittee regarding the control of highway design or traffic operation even when that design affects access turning movements (p. 25, paragraph 7). Furthermore, the ACP establishes when to implement access control from an operational standpoint and what types of access will be allowed; based on the standards set forth in the State Highway Access Code. According to Section 2.12, Access Control Plans, of the State Highway Access Code: The access control plan shall indicate existing and future access locations and all access related roadway access design elements, including traffic signals, that are to be modified and reconstructed, relocated, removed, added, or remain (p. 30, paragraph 2). 1.4. Objectives Proper application of an ACP will allow all forms of transportation to move efficiently and safely along the study roadway by controlling the design, location and frequency of access points and by better using the secondary or local roadway network to reduce future strain on the highway. The following goals are specific to the SH 66 ACP: • Identify improvements to the local transportation network that promote safety and provide appropriate level of access to properties adjacent to the highway. • Blend the corridor vision from the PEL with the requirements of the CDOT State Highway Access Code. • Assist future development and redevelopment along SH 66 by identifying the locations and types of accesses. • Provide efficient movement for all modes of transportation along SH 66. • Provide the appropriate level of access to properties adjacent to the study roadway. • Provide safer circulation routes for all forms of transportation. Based on the projected traffic growth on the corridor; without better access control, the number of conflicts, amount of delay, and level of congestion will increase. Proper control of the frequency, number, and location of access points on the study roadway can lead to the following benefits: October 31, 2019 SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report • Reducing the number of conflict points where a crash may occur on the highway; this is applicable not only for vehicles, but also for pedestrians and bicyclists having to cross multiple driveways on the corridor • Creating fewer locations for vehicles to brake or turn onto or off of the highway, resulting in more efficient travel for through traffic • Making the corridor more visually appealing to drivers and visitors by reducing the number of driveways • Reducing pollution created by congested traffic conditions Along the SH 66 corridor, both the existing operational classifications as well as the future desired classifications developed as part of the PEL process were considered when developing the ACP. The existing and future context of the highway, such as whether it would be a rural or urban corridor, also were considered. Frontage roads and shared vehicular and multimodal roads were considered and/or recommended to reduce the frequency of direct accesses to the highway. Consolidating the driveways with direct access to the highway by using local streets allows the opportunity to provide deceleration and acceleration lanes at the intersections, which removes slowing traffic from the mainline of the highway, which improves safety and operations. A safety analysis was conducted as part of the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report. There were more than 900 reported crashes on the 20 -mile -long corridor over the five-year period for which data were analyzed, which result in a higher than expected number of crashes on this corridor. There are several ways to reduce the number and severity of crashes that occur on a roadway. First, crashes often occur at locations where two vehicles or a vehicle and a pedestrian conflict with each other. A potential conflict occurs each time vehicles turning at an access point cross paths with other roadway u sers (vehicle, cyclist, or pedestrian). If the number of conflict points (access locations) is reduced, the n umber of crashes typically decreases. Second, some of the most severe crashes typically involve left -turn movements by vehicles attempting to enter or exit the roadway without the protection of traffic control devices, such as a traffic signal. With an ACP, most of the vehicle left -turn movements can be redirected to locations where, under the protection of a green phase, the vehicles can either turn left onto or off of the highway. Additionally, pedestrians can safely cross the highway at high -volume intersections under the protection of the "Walk" and ` Do Not Walk" phases of a traffic signal. Other options for reducing the potential for left -turn crashes are the use of roundabouts, %-movement, or right -in, right -out only intersections. To reduce vehicle congestion and delay, it is important to control the number of access points along the roadways as traffic increases. By allowing fewer accesses, vehicles do not have to slow as much or stop as often to turn into an access or allow vehicles to enter the roadway from access points. Additionally, by allowing fewer accesses, deceleration and acceleration lanes can be provided to remove slower traffic from the highway mainline. By reducing the friction along the roadway through reducing the number of access points, the roadway will not become strained by congestion and delay. Motorists will experience acceptable travel times and an overall better driving experience, which may translate into maintaining return service for local businesses. Another benefit to reducing congestion on the study roadway is a reduction in the level of vehicle emissions, which reduces the level of air pollution along the corridor. 1.5. ACP Process Much of the existing conditions data collection and analysis efforts were performed as part of the PEL process. All access locations were identified; crash data were analyzed, corridor traffic volumes were collected; 2040 volumes were developed based on the regional Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) model; and copies of relevant traffic/planning studies for the roadway and/or the Towns. City, or Counties were gathered. When the data were collected, a safety report and operational analyses were October 31; 2019 5 L;:aik:MA COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report completed for the existing and No Action conditions. which are documented in the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report. As part of the Level 2 analysis of the PEL and prior to the ACP beginning, the PEL developed future cross -sections for each Section along the corridor, which included the laneage, presence of medians, and recommended location of sidewalks or shared -use paths. During the Level 3 analysis, possible intersection options to carry forward were determined for key areas along the corridor. During the Level 3 analysis of the PEL, the ACP portion of the project began. The recommendations of the PEL and ACP became an iterative process, where the recommendations of one would inform the results of the other. The draft ACP alternatives were developed based on the requirements of the State Highway Access Code. The project team presented the existing and proposed conditions to the public at several open houses, which is documented in Chapter 3. Presentations to each agency's public works staff and/or elected officials were held during the process to ensure that each agency was included in the process. Based on the comments received, the ACP was revised to develop a preferred alternative. Throughout the PEL and ACP process, the project team gave multiple presentations to the SH 66 Coalition, which consists of local planning and engineering staff as well as elected officials. The SH 66 ACP is referenced in the final SH 66 PEL Report. The plan adoption process is anticipated to be completed in early 2020. Appendix B contains the IGA necessary to complete the adoption process. Implementation of the SH 66 ACP will occur in phases or incrementally over time based on the development and redevelopment process, available funding, and traffic or safety needs. October 31 2019 6 COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 2. Corridor Conditions 2.1. Existing Corridor Access All access points can be separated into two categories: public ways or private driveways. Definitions relating to types of access are covered in 1.5, Definitions and Abbreviations. of the State Highway Access Code: "Public Way" means 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. "Driveway" means an access that is not a public street, road, or highway (pages 2-8). The study area includes a small portion of US 36, about 0.7 mile from McConnell Drive to SH 66, and 19.3 miles of SH 66 from US 36 to WCR 19 in Platteville. A review of the State Highway Access Code indicates that all portions of the study area are classified as either Regional Highway (R -A) or Non -Rural Regional Highway (NR -A), as summarized in Figure 2. The sections shown in yellow in Figure 2 are R -A, and the NR -A sections are shown in green. Per the State Highway Access Code, Regional Highways (R -A) are governed by the following characteristics: • The 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. • Provides service to through traffic movements with a lower priority on providing direct access to adjacent properties. Non -Rural Regional Highways (NR -A) are governed by the following characteristics: • The capacity to handle 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 service to abutting land. If an access meets established signal warrant criteria, it has the potential to become signalized in the future. According to the State Highway Access Code, the preferred spacing between signalized intersections is 0.5 mile for highway categories NR -A and R -A. Not all public roadways that currently access SH 66 are appropriate locations for traffic signals if the roadway is to remain in compliance with the State Highway Access Code. Hence, an ACP identifies locations where signals can be installed if warrants are met. Without the proper planning, such as the development of an ACP, signals may end up being placed at inappropriate locations; which may preclude the ability to provide appropriate traffic control at needed intersections in the future to benefit the entire system. October 31. 2019 7 SECTION 1C ott SECTION 2 SECTION 3 COLORADO " n.p..o.,.,a Transportation Figure 2. Existing Operational Classification and Laneage SH 66 Access Control Plan ( Draft Final Report Existing SECTION SECTION 1A 1B sot If b LCTh4ONT SECTION SECTION SECTION 4 54 5B IIRESTONt October 31, 2019 8 4O COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Table 2 summarizes the existing accesses in each of the PEL sections. and includes the access type, average spacing between accesses, and the access density. Today there are more than 370 access locations within the study area. including 346 full -movement intersections and 27 partial -movement (some turning movements are restricted) or other intersection types (such as a railroad crossing). Most unsignalized accesses are driveways providing movement to residential homes and the many businesses that have frontage along the highway. Some access locations are not defined with curb and gutter and may have undefined dirt or paved openings that span the full length of the property. The existing access conditions maps can be found in Appendix A. Table 2. Existing Access Conditions with Study Area Section ... Number of Accesses Segment Length (miles) Full Partial Movement Movement Other Total --- McConnell Dr to 87th St 145 15 0 160 5.8 L 87th St to County Line Road 74 7 2 83 5.0 County Line Road to WCR 7 45 0 2 47 3.0 WCR 7 to WCR 11 21 1 0 22 2.0 r WCR 11 to WCR 19 61 0 0 61 3.9 Totals 346 23 4 373 19.9 2.2. Existing Corridor Traffic The SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report documents the existing traffic volumes and operational analysis in detail, which is not repeated in this ACP report. It should be noted that the existing traffic volumes along the corridor already exceed capacity at some intersections, resulting in congestion and delays. Traffic volumes range from about 12.000 vehicles per day at either end of the study area to a high of 27,000 vehicles per day within Section 2 (the most urbanized section of the study area). The existing operational analysis shows that the three signalized intersections, 95th Street/Hover Street, U.S. Highway 287 (US 287), and WCR 7/3rd Street. currently operate at a failing Level of Service (LOS). The existing turning movement counts and average daily traffic are summarized in Figure 3. Under existing conditions, the highway users across most of the SH 66 study area (68 percent eastbound to 91 percent westbound) experience low levels of congestion, while the highway users experience heavy to significant congestion on a small amount of the study area (4 percent westbound to 16 percent eastbound). The travel time index (TTI) was calculated for the corridor. which is a measure of the ratio of travel time during peak conditions to the travel time under free flow conditions. The existing TTI for the entire SH 66 study area ranges from 1.3 to 3.1 depending on the time of day (AM or PM) and direction of travel (eastbound or westbound), with the higher values experienced for eastbound traffic in both time periods. These values are consistent with moderate to high levels of delay caused by congestion along the corridor. Individual sections experience a TTI as high as 4.5 (Section 2, eastbound during the PM) consistent with high delays and congestion through the more urbanized portion of the corridor where there are higher volumes, more access locations, and a greater number of traffic signals. See Figure 4 for more information. October 31, 2019 9 COLORADO a" Depsrnneat of T mnsportat*on SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Figure 3. Existing Traffic Volumes 10(10) t /75(16701---' '0(10)-4 O Q r. V ..-86 - a N ♦ t'• 40(85) 845(1085). - 30(20) 15(20) 4--1445(855) • 15(20) u, UI tnoGt 10(151 4--965(1010; 4 25(30) • tlfa LEGEND 0 O O a t — 5(5 t 350(535. 345(235 ref 285 8701 430580)—• 80(195) • 495(7151__• 415(415) t 0(5) ..--365(_360 1 -250(40) 4- -. aria ' O N I 100(150i 600(450, C255(375; . • i R81g SO2 ^r'1� r _ 700(820) 230(235) 12,000 XXX(XXX) = AM(PM1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Daily Traffic Volumes 5(60) • 310(680)-- 75(50) • 10(65) 7354955)-* 185(2551_' 410(530) -P - +_5(10) •-515(3251 .'-255(351 • ' 25(65( • 935(8151 125(130 '635(6601 .1.,. ill tX u^ N ,r 5(15) 330(865)2' a5) • 5(151 '! 725(10151 15450) • 220(120) 355(650)-' 60(50) • 10(20, 740(3751 5(15) •,' trt — '— �r+o N 5(10, .-920(8551 40(35) all► N O -t -59 • ..14:-• _-fl Xin rn f_ 730(4C51 • 20(50) 365(870) 5(15)-. o N -t .- 830(7851 • 175(1851 660(930)-• 4-I' 110(125) ,nO4f el $ ntro N N N 4- •-. 30(30) 32 (6685)55(25) 351151 t-635(4351 .-105415) o�b`d In 5.3 171 171. 1jt-- 5(10) . 745(45W 4501 5 t 110(8885) v+�rt • 5(5) 'A1^'n * 990(960i I . -7(7) 5(9)il 815(1085))_• 14(17 + ) 355(825-e 5(5) 0(5) <- 770(475, +-5(0) o +_10(151 o 4 745(4601 ., y + 1045) 0(0)! 'r' 415(890))—• ----- 7 O(0) • o7n 38- 50(140).) 730(920)-_► 60(45)-4 10(120 2804620)-• 05(85) • . 5(15) .--825(825 335(2301 20((251 585(400; i-40(45► 5{30) 280(745)-' 1551125) 920(12401 5(10) O 8:* 25(125) • 315(570) ' 15(301 .--580(330• 725(3901 < 1160(10801 • 0(51 15(10) 545(4301 •._ 1315(1451 c 15(55) 615(1555). ' 1' 5(5) • v+o IA" 675(1570) 5(15) 4- . 1 20(45) 90511180}-• 5(10) 4 5(5) t 305(560)--• 15(15) + .-1325(795) 155(90, no 611 N +_15(10' . 1125(10501 0(5) v+O>� u+ns 4 5(5) Z-520(405 .'-55(551 October 31, 2019 10 A' 4111 lto COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 4. Existing Corridor Operations SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report SECTION 1 F SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 SECTION 5 Posted Speed 50 - 60 mph 50 - 60 mph 60 mph 55 - 60 mph 55 - 65 mph Free Flow Travel Time 383 seconds 303 seconds 186 seconds -_D- 128 seconds 222 seconds Segment Distance 6.1 miles 5.0 miss 3.1 man 2.0 miles 4.0 mdes Modeled Rester AM PM AM PM --It- AM PM AM PM AM PM basting Travel Spud 29 - 55 mph <' - 55 mph 12 - 55 mph 9.57 mph 18 - 53 mph 17 - 53 mph 22 - 53 mph 20 - 531aph 47 - 82 mph 49.62 mph Existing laws Time 452 eecmlds 457 Seconds 444 seconds 439 Seconds 239 seconds 239 Soma 208 max* 219 Seconds ! 212 ascends 274 Sunda ExidingTravel Time Wes 1.18 1.19 1.49 1.47 129 1 28 1.62 1.70 127 1.24 icon s 601% Z. 1011 • _ . _.. ._... _- ____. _ _ sue.. � WESTBOUND C A \ ? .. r .. $2114 Ave 8 c _ rs.: Zr l x EASTBOUND O0 e 405 �� V r Ka Modeled Results AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM I AM PM Extsln9 Aelel Speed 14 . 57 mph 7 - 55 mph 2 - 54 mph 4 - 54 mph 27 53 mot 13 52 mph • 4 . 54 mph 17 55 mph 48 60 mph 42 59 mph ExistigSavill a 460 seconds 1,726 Seconds 1,07.5 seconds 1,351 Second 233 second 240 Seconds o5 stands 197 seconds 268 seconds 283 Seconds Edsttg TtaSNlilns kith* 1.20 4.51 3.61 4 54 1 25 ! .29 144 50 1 21 1.28 LEGEND a't'e of AM kikeIed Speed - Modeled Speed) as X 100% Eastbound WestboundEastbWestbound0" _____ _ Congestion Pbeted - Speed PM Overal Modeled Results AM PM AM PM Overall Free Flow Travel Time 1.222 wands ntantceorti06 Sbp LOS_ appoath i tht iv; Travel Speed 2 • 60 mph 4 - 59 mph 12 -82 mph 9 - 62 mph Total Distance 20.2 miles Eoony Travel Tine 2 222 seconds 3.791 seconds 1.625 seconds 1.627 seconds Travel Time Index 1 83 3 12 134 1.34 > . ! - , October 31, 2019 11 COLORADO f.q.artment of Tran:1x:r!at•n❑ SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 2.3. Crash History The five-year crash data also are discussed in detail in the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report, as well as the stand-alone SH 66 Safety Analysis Report that was developed. Highlights of those reports indicate that a total of 903 crashes occurred in the five-year period analyzed. with approximately 65 percent of all crashes occurring at intersections or driveways, and about 37 percent of the total crashes resulting in injuries or fatalities. Approximately 50 percent of all crashes occurred in Section 2 of the study area, which is primarily urbanized —with a higher density of development. intersections. and access points —and it has higher volumes compared to other sections of the study area. The data also indicate that rear -end crashes accounted for nearly 45 percent (403 crashes) and crashes involving a turning vehicle accounted for another 21 percent (191 turning -related crashes) of all crash events within the study area. One factor that contributes to crashes on this corridor is the high number of access locations that do not have turn lanes (left and/or right), which results in vehicles slowing in the main travel lanes of SH 66 to enter these access locations. In many locations on SH 66, there are only two travel lanes (one in each direction). which. coupled with high travel speeds (higher than 50 miles per hour [mph]). exacerbates the speed differential between turning vehicles and through traffic. See Figure 5 for additional crash data information. 2441 2040 No Action Corridor Traffic The projected future No Action scenario for traffic and operations is discussed in greater detail in the SH 66 PEL Corridor Conditions Report. The report states that daily traffic volumes on SH 66 are expected to increase between 25 percent and 50 percent by the year 2040. The future increase in traffic volumes will result in more congestion and delay. The 2040 No Action volumes and projected daily traffic are shown in Figure 6. The projected future 2040 No Action operational analysis (see Figure 7) shows that multiple signalized and unsignalized intersections will fail with the existing geometry. As volumes increase along the corridor, the number of acceptable gaps in SH 66 traffic for vehicles to safely turn into or across is anticipated to further decrease. As is the case currently. vehicles that do turn onto SH 66 will. at many locations, enter the only available lane of travel and will do so at slow speeds. This situation may result in vehicles on SH 66 having to slow, producing additional delay and congestion and potential safety issues. In the 2040 No Action scenario, the highway users are expected to experience low to minor levels of congestion on a smaller portion of the study area (54 percent eastbound and 71 percent westbound) and heavy or significant congestion on a higher portion of the study area (25 percent westbound and 32 percent eastbound). The expected increase in congestion in 2040 is consistent with the projected growth in traffic volumes and degradation in operations at most intersections, which may result in increased delays, longer queues, and motorists taking longer than expected or anticipated while using SH 66 to commute to work. conduct business, or travel to recreation activities and destinations. By 2040, the end -to -end travel time indices are expected to increase by as much as 158 percent and by more than 400 percent on some individual sections. The projected increase in traffic volumes will result in longer delays and trips for all motorists using all or part of SH 66, indicating the need for improvements to help reduce delay and provide more efficient and reliable mobility. October 31. 2019 12 COLORADO D,oar:men! of Trararnr!s;rnn SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Figure 5. Crash History Along SH 66 1 1 S 110 'OS 100 95 90 as 03 7S -- 0 SF g In SECTION 1 Crash type ■ Property Dentql 0 117 ■ Injury ■ Fa* *valved Wanectur SECTION 2 SECTION 3 includes 25 crashes on US 287 at SH 66 120 property damage only. 5 injury. 0 fatal) SECTION 4 SECTION 5 5 5 October 31, 2019 13 iso COLORADO �t Department at Transportation Figure 6. 2040 Projected Traffic Volumes sti(2490i • 45(50) ; 460(113.5)--0 5(2 )—i • 35(7 2.155(t4,11)i • 185135) 4 230416.i • —9C40(131.:•I I i 270(400 f48002651._ '533550(1015) 1. 2:5,400) v 135(2btL 4 800(500 3254.170; i'r' 4-1110�5(1545) r 5351565( I 51101 4 765(425! +_. 270455) a • .Z 22 Ote 35100) 4 125t 10tir! 20(125) + 1200455) 5(351 115(1165►—► 5(30) u,3 10(251 • 910(1565] 15455)—; 4-915(484) C-5120) 4� t - o 25460i r 123011145; :--6500) . 960(56‘; i25001 49001751 I. •• (• (j) �I it. N ' 701?()! 4 131OI14:k�) ..A -113(4..,H. .- ! 40(20) 275) - --t •- • r 245(2251 • 4 • ► 1011"511151-- COS I I 1,,'0(1465)-. ,, �, 4 110(110) , M LEGEND XXX4XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Daily Traffic Volumes N 5 r 16,000 N r P N 0 2 51X14 1395 (255 �w 132,4 ea,12 a 90(45& . I • ). • 400(130, 4 41a . 4 )—i 3C cn 0 38,950 V 5 a 30, 000, u r 1875It041 ♦ 270(1'201 .-♦ I ( 75(110) 4x5(1205)--. ;5(170}'1 24,600 ICMGMCNT sr a 15('4()1 41 . 4 1000(5151 X51 S4(Y,1195) - f 2oc75! 1000(585;d t B t 40( 1 '-9� (54 v, -- s 4-640(68:,; ]'150(111)1 4,..i ! ♦ 125(280: ...4.. t 85190) 34 I ► 5030) t 4e • P. 45(130) • 41 a I ► g :,' 0{1050) --+ 7y950t -►S{-Y' 155(375) 1,:5115(-• N p�^�� u V v~ p 5 p 3 •rs, ei •41f, L k30(25) &PL. a!, 5`•5(1 ► _;.se.. 545)-1 Ss SC SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report ?5, a d` C i a 33,200 5- 4 .-1990(17 25(110) 1,145{73901 ;H aN 4 j ) 1401185) oit)(1565)— • 512 23,400 A `85x35: 4-1410(10 u 4 10(5) 555(825) 25(901 FINEST: Me t •r• rag , 0(0,2 r 4-_ 1945113 i' • 200(155) 10 15,000 .a-! October 31. 2019 14 © COLORADO [-Jap.hnrr' i( ` r at' arutl.:n.. Figure 7. 2040 No Action Traffic Operations on SH 66 SECTION 1 Posted Speed Free Flow Travel Time Segment Distance 50-00 mph 303 seconds 0.1 miles Modekid Resutts 2040 No Acton beef Speed 2040 No *Aso Ds,.l Teas 2040 No AceoniYawl TMnh Index Degree of Congestion AM PM 21-54np1 13•S5mph 497 search 477 Seconds 1.30 1.25 SECTION 2 50-00 mph 303 seconds 5.0 miles AM PM s j. qS O :rot i Modeled Results 2040 No Action Trawl Speed _2040 No Action Travel Time 2040 145 Action Ttaysl Dm Index FGBND AM 7 56 mph 593 seconds 1 55 PM 5. 54 mph 4.385 Secords 11,46 Degree x ilbrled Speed - Modeled Speedo X 100% Ccxxim.t.on Posted Speed AVUR1 Sepnebted A Sbo Controlled approach inteen.'tan i OS - with LOS al F a F a AM PM 2 - 52 rioh 7 - 36 mph 1,389sec0ads 9t'.1 St- ..nds 4.8a AM 2- S2 nye 2..808 seconds 9.4 EASTBOUND me PM 3.46mph 2.558 Secants 3 8-59 Overall Free Flow Travel Time Total Distance 1.122 seconds 20.2 mdes SECTION 3 60 mph 188 seconds 3.1 miles SH 66 Access Control Plan Draft Final Report AM PM W 4.52 mph 901 seconds 4.85 SECTION 4 55.60 mph 128 seconds 2.0 miles SECTION 5 AM PM 1 - 52 mph 4.35 mph 5 - 44 talk 459 Seconds .088 seconds 879 Seconds 2.47 8.48 8.86 AM PM 23-53a 11-52a 244 Moods 4a2 Saosadh 131 2.411 Overall Modeled Results 2040 No Acbm Travel Speed 2040 No Action Travel The 2040 No Acton Travel Time tads, AM PM 55- 65 mph 222 seconds 4.0 miles AM PM 42.60 m:;h L ; - 'net 323 uuamds 464 Seconds 1.46 2.10 AM PM 12-SSmch 12-55a0A 40-59 mph 32-59 mph 19S secede 231 Seca , 290 seconds 314 Seconds 1.52 110 121 1.42 Eastbound AM 2-59mph 4 130 seconds 3 40 PM 3. 59 mph 7 951 seconds 6 54 Westbound AM PM 2-60 mph 3.59 mph 4.198 seconds 3.260 seconds 3 45 168 a_ Y October 31, 2019 15 CO COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 3. Public Involvement The State Highway Access Code requires at least one advertised public meeting be held during the development of an ACP. For the SH 66 ACP. an extensive public involvement process was used, including: • Coordination with outreach efforts as part of the PEL project • Website postings on the PEL website • Initial public open house to present existing conditions and introduce the public to the ACP process in April 2019 • Presentations to the SH 66 Coalition, which is comprised of local agency planning/engineering staff and elected officials in March 2019 and June 2019 • Meetings with local agency public works staff and/or presentations to elected officials • Stand-alone ACP Open House presenting the draft plan recommendations in July 2019 • Final public open house held jointly with the PEL to present the final plan in September 2019 Property ownership data were obtained from the Boulder and Weld County assessors' online databases and Geographic Information System (GIS) data files as part of the PEL public outreach efforts. Postcards were mailed to residents and businesses within one-half mile of the SH 66 corridor prior to each open house. Additionally, advertisements for the open houses were posted on CDOT's website and social media; as well as on several of the stakeholder agencies' websites and social media accounts. The mailing list used for the public involvement portion of this study can be found in the PEL report appendices. The first open house to present the existing conditions and to introduce the concept of access control to the public was held on April 16 and April 18, 2019, at a joint PEL open house. The second public meeting to present the draft SH 66 ACP to the public occurred as a stand-alone meeting on July 25, 2019, at the Longmont Senior Center. Participants could provide feedback through comment cards at the open house or through a questionnaire posted on the project website. The final set of public meetings to present the PEL and ACP recommendations occurred September 25 and September 26, 2019, in Longmont at the Weld County Southwest Service Complex and Longs Peak Middle School. The purpose of the open house was to introduce the project team; identify the study's purpose.. process, and schedule: provide information about the methods and benefits of access control; present the ACP; and receive comments from stakeholders and the public. Representatives from the Towns, City, Counties, CDOT, and the PEL and ACP consulting teams were on hand to answer questions from those in attendance. A copy of the meeting materials is in Appendix E of this report. The comments received at all of the Open Houses are documented in the final SH 66 PEL Report. The comments were taken into consideration during the development of the recommended ACP. As part of the public involvement for this study, two access control plan presentations to the SH 66 Coalition were made, which is comprised of local agency planning and engineering staff as well as elected officials. The purpose of the presentations was to provide information to the elected officials and to keep them informed about the progress of the project. A project website for the PEL project was developed for posting information regarding the status of the project, open house materials, and advertisements for upcoming open house meetings. The ACP also posted its information to this website at https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/co-66-pel. October 31, 2019 16 A6s0 COLORADO Department a! TrInspartatton SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 4. Access Control Methods There are several options that allow changes to the existing roadway configuration or geometry to assist in the management of the number. frequency. and location of intersections/driveways along a roadway. Each option provides a different means to manage access along a roadway. In addition, each option has unique benefits and can be used in conjunction with other options to help improve traffic flow, operations, and safety while maintaining adequate access to the adjacent land uses. The following access control methods, shown in Figure 8, are the most common: • Access Elimination • Access Conversion/restriction with median treatment • Access Relocation • Access Consolidation • Parallel Access Route Figure 8. Methods of Access Control sae Access Elimination • 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 Conversion with Median Treatment • Restrict some or all turning movements • Reduce the number of conflicts between left turning vehicles and through vehicles on the highway Access Relocation • Align opposite approaches • Create a more familiar intersection design Access Consolidation • Consolidate adjacent access points into one location • The number of conflict points are reduced Parallel Access Route • Provide access to properties via a new access road (such as a frontage road) • Reduces the number of access points along the highway October 31; 2019 17 COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Access elimination typically is used at locations where a property has more than one access point. To meet the objectives of an ACP to reduce the number of access points for safety and operational reasons, all properties adjacent to SH 66 should be limited to a single access where reasonable access to secondary roads is not possible. The purpose of access conversion through the use of median treatments is to eliminate some or all turning movements to reduce the number of conflicts between left -turning vehicles and through vehicles on the highway. By creating three-quarter movement accesses (left turns are allowed into the driveways, but not out), the number of conflicts will be reduced. Access relocation is an access control method that would either align opposite approaches to create a more familiar intersection design or move an existing access point to a new location. Properties that are situated close to existing or planned future roads that currently have driveways with direct access to SH 66 will be closed as development occurs or as new roads are constructed. Many of these direct connection driveways can be closed and moved to align with the new roads. Access consolidation is used to reduce the number of access points along the roadway. Multiple driveways could be consolidated into a single point that is shared by adjacent properties to reduce conflicts, improve operations, and maintain adequate access to all properties. A parallel access route provides access to properties via a new access road; such as a frontage road. This method reduces the number of access points directly along the highway. The proposed Access Road with Advisory Shoulder concept developed in the PEL is one example of a unique parallel access route. The shared paths would provide access for short stretches to vehicles. while providing a continuous path separate from SH 66 between East Highland Drive East and 87th Street for pedestrians and bicyclists. The concept of the shared path is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. Access Road with Advisory Shoulder Concept October 31. 2019 18 ISCOLORADO ` ;y Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report 5. Access Recommendations The proposed ACP. when fully implemented. recommends 122 access locations within the study area, including 59 full -movement intersections proposed compared to the 346 full -movement intersections that exist today. Table 3, below, shows the total number of existing and proposed accesses within each segment. The proposed access control plan maps can be found in Appendix D. Table 3. Proposed Number of Accesses Section McConnell to 87th Segment Length (miles) 5.8 Number of Existing Accesses Total 160 Number ACP of Accesses Implemented with Total 38 Full Movement Partial o ement Other 0 Full Movement Partial Mov - ment Other 0 St . _ , Dr 145 15 10 28 87th County Road St to Line 5.0 74 7 2 83 15 13 2 30 County Road County to Line Weld Rd 7 3.0 45 0 2 47 6 10 2 18 Weld Rd County 7 County to Weld Rd 11 2.0 21 1 0 22 10 3 0 13 Weld Rd County 11 County to Rd Weld 19 3.9 61 0 0 61 16 5 2 23 Total 19.9 346 23 4 373 57 59 6 122 5.1. Level of Service Analysis When the final configuration for each access poirt was determined. another LOS analysis was conducted for the 2040 Build Scenario that used the laneage and cross -sections developed as pad of the PEL recommendations for the entire study area. This LOS analysis reflects the proposed access changes to the study roadway. Table 4 contains the intersection LOS and detailed analysis of the future LOS with the recommended access changes as provided in Appendix F. October 31, 2019 19 ise COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Table 4. 2040 Operational Analysis Section 1A Intersection McConnell Dr --; 2040 No Action Conditions 2040 Proposed Future Conditions AM PM AM PM LOS C Delay 21.8 (s) LOS D Delay (s) 46.2 LOS C Delay 20.6 (s) LOS B Delay (s) 13.7 US 36 B 16.0 C 23.5 C 29.3 C 28.3 1C 75th St B 14.0 D 40.8 C 23.5 D 43.1 2 Airport 87th St Rd/ F 102.1* F 148.5* B 10.6 A 8.6 Shore Dr C 16.1* D 26.0* B 10.6* B 14.3* Anhawa Ave E 47.0* F 74.0* B 13.1* i B 10.8* Lake Park/Jotipa Dr F 116.7* F >500* B 13.3* B 14.8* Hover St (East St/95th I nt) F 147.8 F 403.2 B 17.1 D 43.4 Hover St St/95th (West I nt) B 11.0 - r D 39.2 Spencer St F >500* F >500* C 23.0* E 41.3* Francis St F >500* F >500* B 13.8 C 34.9 Gay St F 351.0* F >500* E 41.8* F 348.3* US 287 SBR F 109.2 F 178.2 A 8.7 B 11.9 US 287 NBL A 3.8 A 8.5 US 287 SBL A 4.8 A 1.0 US 287 NBR A 6.1 A 4.9 L Erfert St A 3.2 B 11.0 B 14.6 B 17.8 Alpine Dr F >500* F >500* B 13.7 B 15.9 Pace St E 57.2 F 167.9 B 14.3 C 29.0 3 County Rd Line F 165.3 F � 153 4 D 40.6 D 48.0 Elmore Rd F 199.4* F >500* B 13.8* C 19.4* Weld Rd 3 County F >500 C 19.8* B 13.2 B 16.1 Weld Rd County 5 B 14.7* C 20.9* B 18.7 B 18.4 October 31. 2019 20 a0 COLORADO ltroDepartment S Transportation SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report Section Intersection 2040 No Action Conditions 2040 Proposed Future Conditions PM AM PM AM LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) 4 Weld Rd Street 7/3rd County F 458.8 F >500 C 29.5 D 52.4 1-25 SB ramps B 16.8 B 17.1 A 9.8 B 15.4 1-25 NB ramps B 14.7 C 20.9 C 25.7 C 20.8 Mead St F >500* F >500* F 76.9* F 455.5* Weld Rd 9.5 County F 197.5 F >500 B 16.9 C 23.5 5A Weld Rd 11 County F >500* C 16.8* D 40.8 C 30.0 Weld Rd 11.5 County - - - - C 22.7 C 24.2 5B Weld Rd 13 County F 156.1 F 185.7 B 19.3 C 21.3 Weld Rd 17 County North D 26.8* F 76.5* A 7.5 A 6.9 Weld Rd 17 County South E 43.9* F 91.4* B 12.9 B 12.6 Weld Rd 19 County F 154.1* F >500* B 11.9 B 12.4 * Denotes unsignalized intersection; worst -movement LOS and delay are reported The results of the analysis of the future LOS with the recommended ACP show that most of the intersections and the SH 66 arterial are projectec to operate with less delay than if the ACP is not implemented. With the ACP implemented, many of the intersections are proposed to be converted to a right -in, right -out or three-quarter movement to minimize the left -turn movements out from side streets onto the highway. Side street delay from vehicles trying to enter SH 66 is greatly reduced when turn restrictions are implemented. Additional intersections are identified as locations where a signal may be constructed, which minimizes the overall intersection delay by servicing all turning movements within each cycle length. Due to high volumes at several intersections, the LOS fails even with conventional signalized intersections, so full and partial displaced left intersections and grade separated intersections were identified as feasible to build at Hover Street/95th Street, US 287; WCR 9.5. and WCR 13. October 31 2019 21 as COLORADO Department of Transportation 6. Next Steps SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report There are several important steps that need to occur in the short term and long term to ensure the study roadway realizes the maximum benefit of the recommended ACP. These next steps start with the approval process. 6.1. Approval Process Before the study roadways can begin to benefit from the recommendations of the ACP, a few important events must occur: • IGA-All parties must agree to an IGA. (See Appendix B for a copy of the IGA.) • Plan Approval —The ACP must be approved by each stakeholder entity and adopted by resolution. This includes each agency's Council or Board of Commissioners. • Plan Adoption —The Towns, City, and Counties must sign the IGA. • Plan briefing to the State Transportation Commission. • Approval by the State Access Manager of CDOT, which puts the plan into law. After the ACP is officially adopted by the Towns, City, Counties, and CDOT, the adopted ACP becomes the basis for future decisions on site access. The current SH 66 ACP, as identified in this document, does not have any implementation timing or schedule. 6.2. Plan Implementation It is important to remember that the ACP is intended to represent a long-range plan for the study roadway. Implementation of the full plan will occur over the long term as a phased approach based on when: • A safety need is identified • New development or redevelopment occurs • Funding for improvements is available • Traffic needs arise When intersections or access points have operational or safety concerns, the Towns, City, Counties, and CDOT will look for ways to address these issues. These projects most likely would incorporate portions of the ACP, such as implementing turn restrictions or improving adjacent intersections/access locations, to improve operations or increase safety along the corridor. The most common trigger for the phased approach relates to when a property along SH 66 develops/ redevelops or if a driveway experiences a traffic volume increase of 20 percent or more (per the State Highway Access Code). Under this scenario, a new CDOT access permit is required, and the Town or City, County, and CDOT would work with the property owner or the developer to make the access changes and highway improvements in the area directly impacted by the development/redevelopment. Coordination through the development process is critical to the ultimate success of the plan. If the ultimate ACP cannot be implemented when a property redevelops, the property should develop in such a way as to not prohibit the plan implementation. For example, buildings should be constructed in such a manner as to use a future access location shown on the plan. Another method to implement access control is through a publicly funded project by any combination of Towns, City, Counties, and/or CDOT. A future public project would include the access changes described in the ACP that could be implemented at the time of the project. With a roadway improvement project, the government would be responsible for making the access changes to the highway. Even with the planned project, all recommendations of the plan may not be implemented at one time because access must still October 31; 2019 22 COLORADO LMparimcnt .:)1 Trantportdhon SH 66 Access Control Plan I Draft Final Report be provided to each property on the corridor. For example, if a property has not redeveloped, it might not be feasible to relocate the driveway, or if a planned future adjacent street has not yet been constructed, alternative access may not be available. In cases like this, an interim access to the property would be maintained until the ultimate access configuration could be achieved. Continuing coordination must occur between the Town of Lyons, City of Longmont, Town of Mead, Town of Firestone; Boulder County, Weld County, and CDOT to ensure proper implementation of the plan in the future. Another important aspect of the implementation process is how access is granted to new developments. Each property along the study roadway must be provided with reasonable access. The Town. City, or County and CDOT should work with the owner/developer to ensure projects are designed with consideration to where access will be permitted in the ultimate ACP. Access will be provided to the property as shown on the ACP unless it is not feasible to implement at the time of the development. Then, an interim access will be permitted, which will change when the ultimate access conditions can be achieved. Coordinating with the owner/developer throughout the project development process will ensure the final design of the property does not preclude the implementation of the final ACP configuration on the study roadway. 6.3. Plan Modification The outcome of this study is the SH 66 ACP, which identifies the number. location, and type of access points that will be allowed on SH 66 within the study limits. Future changes to the plan are allowed based upon the guidelines of the State Highway Access Code, according to Section 2.12, Access Control Plans: The plan must receive the approval of both the Department and the appropriate local authority to become effective. This approval shall be in the form of a formal written agreement signed by the local authority and the Chief Engineer of the Department. After an access control plan is in effect, modifications to the plan must receive the approval of the local authority and the Department. Where an access control plan is in effect, all action taken in regard to access shall be in conformance with the plan and current Code design standards unless both the Department and the local authority approve a geometric design waiver under the waiver subsection of the Code (p. 30, paragraph 3). October 31, 2019 23 Hello