The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20190820.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE APPLICATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY 52 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY AND AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL - DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (DRCOG) 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 Application for State Highway 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study from 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, to the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), with further terms and conditions being as stated in said application, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, 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 Application for State Highway 52 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study from 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 Denver Regional Council of Governments, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the application be, and hereby is, authorized to be submitted electronically. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 25th day of February, A.D., 2019. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, QOLORADO ATTEST: da4,,,, •„eGto•ok Weld County Clerk to the Board Count s A ttorney Date of signature: 7-21-1ci Steve Moreno CcPvJ(F.99IcA� pILT(QC,icit 21 Z-1hq 2019-0820 EG0076 2020-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) t d r.454„, .. c� � Regional Share Project Application Fore APPLICATION OVERVIEW The Regis Regiltnal Share Call for Projects will open on July 30, 2018, with applications due no later than 3 p . m . op , September 21, 2018 to Todd Cottrell, DRCOG , at tcottrell@dreog . org. ® To be eligible to submit, at least one person from your agency must have attended one of the two mandatory TIP training workshops ( held August 8 and August 16 ) . ® Projects requiring CDOT and/or RTD concurrence must provide their official response with the application submittal . The CDOT/RTD concurrence request is due to CDOT/RTD no later than August 1, with CDOT/RTD providing a response no later than August 29 . • Each Subregional Forum can submit up to three applications from eligible project sponsors . Both CDOT and RTD can submit up to two applications . o If CDOT reaffirms they would like to continue to receive $ 25 million in DRCOG -allocated funding for their Central 70 project, it will count as one of their two possible submittals . to Data to help the sponsor fill out the application , especially Part 3, can be found here . • If any sponsor wishes to request additional data or calculations from DRCOG staff, please submit your request to tcottrell © dreog . org no later than August 31, 2018 . ® The application must be affirmed by either the applicant' s City or County Manager, Chief Elected Official ( Mayor or County Commission Chair) for local governments, or agency director or equivalent for other applicants . Further details on project eligibility, evaluation criteria , and the selection process are defined in the Policy on Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Prepartitione Procedures for Preparing the 2020-2023 TIP, which can be found online here . APPLICAATIOH FORm IfrUTLI , JE The 2020- 2023 TIP Regional Share application contains three parts : base project information ( Part 1 ), evaluation questions ( Part 2 ), and data calculation estimates ( Part 3 ) . DRCOG staff will review submitted applications for eligibility and provide an initial score to a Project Review Panel . The panel will review and rank eligible applications that request funding . Sponsors with top tier submittals will be invited to make presentations to the Project Review Panel to assist in the final recommendation to the TAC, RTC, and DRCOG Board . Part ;1 I Base Information Applicants will enter foundational information for their project/program/study ( hereafter referred to as project) in Part 1, including a Problem Statement, project description , and concurrence documentation from CDOT and/or RTD, if applicable . Part 1 will not be scored . Part 2 1 Evaluation Criteria , • uestions➢ and Scoring This part includes four sections (A- D ) for the applicant to, provide qualitative and quantitative responses to use for scoring projects . The outcomes from Part 3 should guide the applicant' s responses in Part 2 . Scoring Methodology : Each section will be scored using a scale of High-Medium -Low, relative to other applications received . The four sections in Part 2 are weighted and scored as follows : 1 2019-0820 Section A. Regional Significance of Proposed Projects 40% .ems - .... ..._.._......- . - _............... ..... ....._.. . . .. . ....... ..... ..........__ .... ..... ...._....-.. .,_ .-__...,...... . .-_ ._...__-....._.... .._.... .. . ,. ......._ __ ..., .....,....,.. ._-. -. .. ..,,. ...... .. .... ..., .._-.......-.._—_.__..-.. ' n,'• ' + A The project will significantly address a clearly demonstrated major regional problem and benefit High people and businesses from multiple subregions . The project will either moderately address a major problem or significantly address a moderate-level Medium regional problem . Low The project will address a minor regional problem . l ° Section B . Metro Vision TIP Focus Areas 30% The project will significantly improve the safety and/or security, significantly increase the reliability High of the transportation network, and benefit a large number and variety of users (including vulnerable populations * ) . The project will moderately improve the safety and/or security, moderately increase the reliability Medium of the transportation network, and benefit a moderate number and variety of users (including vulnerable populations * ) . The project will minimally improve the safety and/or security, minimally increase the reliability of • Low ff the transportation network, and benefit a limited number and variety of users ( including vulnerable populations * ) . .E..FL..eCrL. ., :.ib�' �• !vY alp U.� Ary r,( *Vulnerable populations include: Individuals with disabilities, persons over age 65, and low-income, minority, or linguistically-challenged persons. Section C . Consistency & Contributions to Transportation-focused Metro Vision Objectives . . o 20% Metro Vision guides DRCOG ' s work and establishes shared expectations with our region ' s many and various planning partners . The plan outlines broad outcomes, objectives, and initiatives established by the DRCOG Board to make life better for the region ' s residents . The degree to which the outcomes, objectives, and initiatives identified in Metro Vision apply in individual communities will vary. Metro Vision has historically informed other DRCOG planning processes, such as the TIP . otitt air The project will significantly address Metro Vision transportation-related objectives and is High determined to be in the top third of applications based on the magnitude of benefits . The project will moderately address Metro Vision transportation-related objectives and is Medium determined to be in the middle third of applications based on the magnitude of benefits. Low wr1 The project will slightly or not at all address Metro Vision transportation-related objectives and is determined to be in the bottom third of applications based on the magnitude of benefits . Section D . Leveraging of non -Regional Share funds ( "overmatch " ) 10% Scores are assigned based on the percent of outside funding sources ( non - Regional Share ) . of Outside High 80% and above Funding Medium 60-79% (non-Regional Share) Low 59% and below Part 3 I Project Data — Calculations and Estimates Based on the applicant' s project elements, sponsors will complete the appropriate sections to estimate usage or benefit values . Part 3 is not scored , and the quantitative responses should be used to back-up the applicant' s qualitative narrative . 2 Part 1 -1 ; s I • 11®pq�yyq' 1-4 t • n 1 . Project Title SH52 Planning & Environmental Linkages ( PEL) Study 2. Project Start/End points or SH119 to at least US85 . With enough funding secured by other sources, the Geographic Area g intent is to take the PEL to 176 in Hudson . Provide a map with submittal, as appropriate 3 . Project Sponsor (entity that will Weld County construct/ complete and be financially responsible for the project) 4. Project Contact Person , Title, Phone Number, and Email 5. Does thisproject touch CDOT Right-of-Way, involve a CDOT roadway X Yes No ' If yes, provide applicable concurrence access RTD property, or request RTD involvement to operate service ? documentation with submittal DRCOG 2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (2040 FCRTP : 6. What planning Local document (s ) identifies plan : this project ? Other(s ) : Provide link to document/s and referenced page number if possible, or provide documentation with submittal 7 . Identify the project' s key elements . Grade Separation Rapid Transit Capacity ( 2040 FCRTP ) Roadway Transit Other : Railway Bicycle Facility Bicycle Pedestrian Facility Pedestrian Safety Improvements Roadway Pavement Reconstruction/Rehab Roadway Capacity or Managed Lanes Bridge Replace/ Reconstruct/Rehab ( 2040 FCRTP ) LX Study Roadway Operational Design Other : 8. Problem Statement What specific Metro Vision - related regional problem/issue will the transportation project address ? State Highway 52 (SH52 ) is a critical east/west route that connects the Boulder Foothills to 125 and on to US85 . This two- lane facility is a major commuter route, with average daily traffic ranging from 8, 600 trips per day by Fort Lupton to 20, 000 trips per day near 125 . SH52 is experiencing significant development pressures through Boulder County, Erie, Frederick, Dacono, Fort Lupton and Weld County. The issues that have been identified along the corrdior by the various jurisdictions are as follows : Intersection Operations and congestion Access control challenges Signal operations Unidentified needs for multi- modal investments including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities 3 9 . Define the scope and specific elements of the project . The proposed project is to conduct a Planning and Environmental Linkage Study due to the undocumented corridor issues . The study would utilize existing conditions, plus issues identified by stakeholders to develop a universe of alternative treatments throughout the corridor to address such issues . The study will be the first step in establishing a vision for improvements, operations, and changes within the corridor and will prioritize such for further evaluation , level of NEPA action required , design , and implementation . The early action planning of a PEL enables The project specifically, would include the following in scope : Project Management and Continuing Requirements Establish Project Team, Technical Committee, Policy Committee and set meetings Public Involvement Existing Conditions Evaluation (geometrics, crashs, travel demands, traffic ops, strctures, drainage/floodplains, bike/ped , etc . ) Base Mapping, Property owenership Environmental overview Purpose and Need and Identifying goals for the Corridor Alternative Development Screen Alternatives ( 3 levels likely, Qualatative and Quantitative ) Test Alternatives Conceptual design layouts Financial Analysis ( estimate costs and potential funding packages ) Alternative (s ) Recommendations with report along with prioritiation/phasing of improvements Produce PEL Report Answer FHWA 21 PEL Questions 10 . What is the status of the proposed project ? Agencies along the SH52 Corridor are in the early days of establishing a corridor Coalition . CDOT Region 4 committed dollars to fund an associated Access Control Plan in conjunction with the SH52 PEL study. 11 . Would a smaller federal funding amount than requested be acceptable, Yes No while maintaining the original intent of the project? If yes, define smaller meaningful limits, size, service level, phases, or scopes, along with the cost for each. A . Project Financial Information and Funding Request r'.r...r^_—z^_f_^-'_'^ tr w., x.. '— ,. ..«...1. S3"A'4.:. .1 y z3. r. soaua.� r... �_a.u... ...+Qt s �..i •s._J__..xzC:r 1 . Total Project Cost $ 2,200,000 4 2 . Total amount of DRCOG Regional Share Funding Request $ 1400,000 50% . exceed the total project cost) . of total ro"ect cost(no greater than Z� milli®n and not toe cee .5®� ®f p Jproject t .�� -- - i % of Contribution 3 . Outside Funding Partners (other than DRCOG Regional Share funds) $$ to Overall Total List each funding partner and contribution amount. Contribution Amount Project Cost UPIs f krakXl.a�A[:1km::> ivf2kttili AZYY/K'==*rattillalloiSs-'L,.:. _:.•:a'. StRle2ana"YrNiirtTV.V.41r&.tgStfittag. Weld County $ 1, 100,000 - 50% $ 0°I© $ 0% $ 0% ` Vs 0 $ `" ., dZ 0% 4 • ._u.,.a -- .,.._,�-asp. . - ^-•e=_�•-r F=.= • Total amount of funding provided by other funding partners 1, 1p0,0®® r (private, local, state, Subregion, or federal) ,,_n--_-_ C .,o._.� _ .. ..� r._.... . ^'- ... ..„. '^,a•.ry_s LEA - --- - -MI6 fr-•-•.---- g,.t *The proposed funding plan is not guaranteed if the project is selected for funding. While DRCOG will do everything it can to accommodate the applicants' request, final funding will be Funding Breakdown (year by year) * assigned at DRCOG's discretion within fiscal constraint. Funding amounts must be provided in year of expenditure dollars using an inflation factor of 3% per year from 2018. =,. FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total Federal Funds • . � $ 1, 100, 000 $ $ $ $1,100xt 0 .day _i ct ty, Q a ` , '. , ,. f<,.:3-: —•�.esn�•» •..rwruri�L A'.„X On' `.'`":.. Noe.—..........:.... a«..,.- .... State Funds - • . $ $ $ $ $0 Local Funds I $ 550, 000 $550, 000 $ $ $ 1,100,000 . S.'•..s;,;taawr �xQ.F,7we ,,,.,„:„.,,,,,c,.,...,, -,,,,...„- ,_ •.%„...r ,.: T p Yx• ' ~'�. 1:C'Nr•''1!"' y.r c.: 1 ' 1Total Funding, - ,:i,_:, ::;,.. !:„;.a « $ 1,650, 000 $550,000 $0 $0 $2,200,000 , 4. Phase to be Initiated Choose from Design, ENV, Study Study Choose an item Choose an item • ROW, CON, Study, Service, Equip. Purchase, Other 3 5 . By checking this box, the applicant' s Chief Elected Official ( Mayor or County Commission Chair) • or City/County Manager for local governments or Agency Director or equivalent for others, has certified it allows this project request to be submitted for DRCOG -allocated funding and will X . 1 follow all DRCOGpolicies and state and federal regulations when completing this project, if g p g funded . 5 Part 2 Evauation Criter , Questicsns, and Scoring A. Regional significance of proposed project WEIGHT 40 % Provide qualitative and quantitative (derived from Part 3 of the application) responses to the following questions on the regional significance of the proposed project. 1 . Why is this project regionally important ? SH52 is an alternative east/west route to SH7 and SH119 for resident, commuters and students . Daily destinations west of 125 include the University of Colorado, Naropa University, Celestial Seasonings, IBM , Google, and Boulder Community Health all bring in thousands of employees and customers every day . East of 125, commuters and heavy agricultural trucks are common users . 2. Does the proposed project cross and/or benefit multiple municipalities ? If yes, which ones and how ? Yes, SH52 touches Boulder County, the towns of Dacono, Erie, Frederick, Weld County, and the City of Fort Lupton . Benefits to each of these entities are anticipated through reduced congestion ( especially during peak periods ) , improved reliability of travel times, increased safety and improved incident response . Benefits will also be derived from developing a plan for how the corridor will look in the future . From the DRCOG Congestion Model the 2016 vehicle hours of travel in the project is XXXX . 3 . Does the proposed project cross and/or benefit another subregion (s) ? If yes, which ones and how? Yes . This project is located within 2 Sub- Regions ( Boulder & Weld ) . Advantages that will be realized by the improvements will benefit all users no matter what sub- region they are generated , but includes reduced congestion , improved accessibility to alternative travel modes, improved trip reliability, improved traffic operations, as well as improved safety . The total 2016 VMT for the entire study corridor is over 283 , 000 . The volume to capacity ratio in 2040 is projected to average 1 . 01 on the corridor 4. How will the proposed project address the specific transportation problem described in the Problem Statement (as submitted in Part 1, #8) ? This project will identify ways to address congestion , operations, and increase mobility and the reliability of the existing corridor and multi - modal transportation options . Through evaluation of existing conditions, environmental assets, and future demand , alternatives will be derived that address mainline, intersection , multi- modal, technology, and other needs throughout the study corridor. Once recommendations are implemented , resulting benefits include enhanced mobility, likely improved air quality, reduced fuel/energy consumption , reduction in VHT and potential increase in alternative modes of travel via ease and convenience of use . The direct benefit of the study completion will be a road map on improvements to be pursued to implementation , the priorities of such , the next steps to accomplish those improvements, and the start of funding requirements and strategies to accomplishing the recommendations including the possibility of improvements being included in the fiscally constrained 2050 RTP . S . One foundation of a sustainable and resilient economy is physical infrastructure and transportation . How will the completed project allow people and businesses to thrive and prosper? One of the pillars of sustainability and resilient economies is long range planning, which this study strives to accomplish . As mentioned previously, the corridor serves a diverse land use patterns and demographics . To improve accessibility and mobility for people and goods; enhance competitiveness at a regional as well as a 6 global level ; improve access to traditional and non -traditional markets ; improve transport reliability, efficiency, safety and security; are all keys to a sustainable and resilient economy . Maintaining a vibrant economy depends upon the region ' s ability to work together toward the following outcomes : 1 . All residents have access to a range of transportation , employment, commerce, housing, educational, cultural, and recreational opportunities . 2 . Investments in infrastructure and amenities allow people and businesses to thrive and prosper . To obtain these outcomes requires; 1 ) fund transportation system improvements that improve the flow of people, goods and services, 2 ) provide local and regional transportation services that improve personal mobility, housing and employment access, as well as independence and well - being, especially for those with mobility obstacles or impairments, and 3 ) ensure traditionally underserved populations receive at least a proportionate share of transportation benefits and are not disproportionately affected by transportation investments relative to the entire regional population . 6. How will connectivity to different travel modes be improved by the proposed project ? As described previously and to address existing concerns and future development pressure along the corridor. This study will look at holistic solutions for SH52 as an east/west connector, with the demand for all modes of travel to be considered . 7 . Describe funding and/or project partnerships (other subregions, regional agencies, municipalities, private, etc. ) established in association with this project . CDOT has provided a letter of concurrence for this project . In addition , CDOT programmed Regional Priority Programming dollars to conduct an associated Access Control Plan . B . DRCOG Board -apprsved Metro Vision TIP Focus Areas WEIGHT 30 % Provide qualitative and quantitative (derived from Part 3 of the application) responses to the following questions on how the proposed project addresses the three DRCOG Board-approved Focus Areas (in bold). 1 . Describe how the project will improve mobility infrastructure and services for vulnerable populations ( including improved transportation access to health services) . XXX 2 . Describe how the project will increase reliability of existing multimodal transportation network . XXX 3 . Describe how the project will improve transportation safety and security. XXX C Consistency & Contributions to Transportation -focused Metro Vision WEIGHT 20 % Objectives Provide ualitative and uantitative responses (derived from Part 3 of the application) to the following items on how the proposed project contributes to Transportation focused Objectives (in bold) in the adopted Metro Vision plan. Refer to the expanded Metro Vision Objective by clicking on links. 7 MV objective 2 C stain urban development in I : cations designated for urban growth and services . 1 . Will this project help focus and facilitate future growth in locations where urban - level Yes No infrastructure already exists or areas where plans for infrastructure and service expansion are in place ? • Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis pp g y XXX The PEL study will account for growth opportunities in the evaluation to accommodate and manage the impacts and improve the mobility within the corridor. With the study recommendations, residents can access and use various transportation alternatives . i I MV objective 3 Increase housing and empltyment in urban centers . 2. Will this project help establish a network of clear and direct multimodal connections within and between urban centers, or other key destinations ? A Yes No Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis XXX MV objective 4 Improve or expand the region's multimodal transportation system, services, and connections . 3. Will this project help increase mobility choices within and beyond the region for people, . X Yes No goods, or services ? •Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis The goal of the project would be to develop prioritized recommendations that can enhance the use of the corridor for all transportation mode users . This would be done through the development of alternatives which address congestion , safety, accessibility to alternative modes, elimination of barriers, etc. to create a safe, reliable, and predictable trip no matter your choice of travel mode . i- . MV objective 6a Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. { E 4. Will this project help reduce ground - level ozone, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon 1 Yes X No monoxide, particulate matter, or other air pollutants ? Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis The PEL study itself will not result in a direct reduction of greenhouse gases, but it is expected the recommendations from the study, once implemented, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. This would be done via the reduction of congestion , improving operations, and providing a mode shift by • enhancing opportunity to use alternative modes . MV objective 7b Connect people to natural resource or recreational areas. 5. Will this project help complete missing links in the regional trail and greenways network or improve other multimodal connections that increase accessibility to our region ' s open space X Yes No assets ? 8 Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis XXX MV objective 10 Increase access to amenities that support healthy, active choices . 6. Will this project expand opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles ? X Yes No Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis XXX MV objective 13 Improve access to opportunity . 7 . Will this project help reduce critical health , education , income, and opportunity disparities by promoting reliable transportation connections to key destinations and other amenities ? X Yes No Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis XXX MV objective 14 Improve the region's competitive position . 8 . Will this project help support and contribute to the growth of the region 's economic health X Yes No and vitality? Describe, including supporting quantitative analysis XXX ft Project Leveraging WEIGHT 10 % 9. Whatpercent of outside funding sources 80%-x- outside funding sources High ( non - DRCOG -allocated Regional Share 50% 60-79 % Medium funding ) does this project have ? 59% and below Low 9 _ r Project Data Worksheet -- Calculations and Estimates Part 3a r (Complete ., all subsections applicable t® the pr®Ject) A . Transit Use 1. Current ridership weekday hoardings 2. Population and Employment timayesi Year Population within 1 mile Employment within 1 mile Total Pop and Employ within 1 mile 2020 0 2040 0 e { rgg Ce. 3 : . °r,� rnS-r zk Year 2040 Transit Use Calculations N .;i t `� � ah " "� = jrgti ' : . •siri,5Yr r z ,,., . _41 � : ,,�� `-f: `�. : ofOpening Weekday Estimate i m t ate �. c�,`'��sFat. "��` �`3�. !�17h �1... t.. h .�"�'^�re ?n�$.e3��. z:!.Ie.�.d,C.�-.-. . i� . _:_� r�S+-. ��f�-�..u.�� 'SG. t .•9_r -�i..t 3 . Enter estimated additional daily transit boardings after project is completed . 0 0 (Using 50% growth above year of opening for 2040 value, unless justified) Provide supporting documentation as part of application submittal 4. Enter number of the additional transit boardings (from #3 above ) that were previously using a different transit route . 0 0 .... ...... ... ...... . ( Example : {#3 X 25%) or other percent, if justified) 5 . Enter number of the new transit hoardings (from #3 above ) that were previously using other non -SOV modes (walk, bicycle, HOV, etc . ) 0 0 ( Example : (#3 X 25%} or other percent, if justified) 6. = Number of SOV one-way trips reduced per day (#3 — #4 — #5 ) 0 0 7 . Enter the value of {#6 x 9 miles}. ( = the VMT reduced per day ) (Values other than the default 9 miles must be justified by sponsor; e. g., 15 0 0 miles for regional service or 6 miles for local service) 8. = Number of pounds GHG emissions reduced (#7 x 0 . 95 lbs. ) 0 0 9 . If values would be distinctly greater for weekends, describe the magnitude of difference : 10. If different values other than the suggested are used , please explain here : B . Bicycle Use 1 . Current weekday bicyclists 2 . Population and Employment Year Population within 1 mile Employment within 1 mile Total Pop and Employ within 1 mile 2020 0 r, , rr•,. e 3t NR e 1 e 204® f y il r aP elf X4. rat a. r f 11•, .. r V _- �tYZ� _, Zf. 10 e. n. t. .> •s L .-e .nq,.. • >. •.:^ ^.. .kl. n,_.�- Pp+:.n.9• ...Ir I .e;g•_.y... ..an....[:..y:. qw Cgis ^"L:Yf•• • "yEa• :aC_r -."`.$.eel. .. ^V•. nt �*F:d• .t .,y ,±tr`N�1. � h ✓," xY x r, fr � .t�, 'Y r}'j .1 f� "1 I ,I > .F}��•.�+ '#'�. . '.r .•>{{Ifi)o k J_•7>n 15[u.r ... 1 , - 5,- `t 3 :5<w:. [:' ryt` +iG 1l s :t. s S' .rs?.' '� 1 # x ; t_ yyt t,€ "v x .- .-.Y .>>c z ---f _&_ -. '� ..... 1'♦ 3�'-d' ��?::.alt� ` s . -S_. z -L# i, G r1';.:: �'.: rT�r s� r - ' }a-. `sY z�`' _ t 1� t3: s s 4c ; VairC W-i r 1 3=' v��Fs,':.": �_ c. b st s 2 Z < ',� �, � 7 F 'o i"JI E�€h'>f' F �' �= I # � : �� _ , z rs = Year X040 � Icycle Use C I � �II � � l � ns s , � 4 � .. y4, , 4 zyi �-t r r?fz ,\.L 4 x .s >₹` s s E #E s- 3�: S ,:G;F. ,.. I#x V _ .st.','Y sF aG<r-s}y i`rirs. :a L } -l` - _r.zr .> = of Opening Weekday Estimate. . 1 m Enter estimated additional weekday one-way bicycle trips on the 0 • • -• 0 facility after project is completed . 4. Enter number of the bicycle trips ( in #3 above ) that will be diverting from a different bicycling route . 0 0 ( Example : {#3 X 50%} or other percent, if justified) . initial number of ree� is cl t i s from project (#3 -- #4 $5$ y 0° 0 � 9e�„� L l ,,,. , 5 .. . . ' _. aF.1 ti.;,, r w!" r'. 6 . Enter number of the new trips produced (from #5 above ) that are replacing an SOS/ trip . 0 0 ( Example : {#5 X 30% } (or other percent, if justified) 7 p ` Number o S ' trips reduced per day (, 5( - #6 ) 0 0 8 . Enter the value of {#7 x 2 miles}. ( = the VMT reduced per day) 0 0 (Values other than 2 miles must be justified by sponsor) Number of, pounds GHG emissions reduced (#8 x ° 5 l ° s . 0 0 r f 10. If values would be distinctly greater for weekends, describe the magnitude of difference : useron weekends vs 650 during weekdays north Oxford on South Platte Trail i 990 y . .. ... . _..._ • 11 . If different values other than the suggested are used, please explain here : , , 5 'L t° - a a j� � 3 c µ=,>•. .-5s' �+ ' "en -.�k£E #<~ > ;� � Tom'" �-':-.€.1�? ` �. •raS.. "2�Q �x._ `s"�li>` �' _`ri _ �r _- .rte'.- Age. .,� �?:?x- -_e_ 3�r-� J=_� $ �`' �a�•. [- ";yam F� `'�'= ..�.. .� �'t� z.-,�,.. : .3 3: -rL: --�" tom'. ..-,.c.,--.:-.::,-,.,--,-,--,--,:"---.3-,----:`,.-4::::,V �- _. >. - < -1,7 •v'. S'. . a:- .>_ . � -.". ". : _ ?..>a _�" 4 �.a... Y�i? ��=1 ..3 �I ` 4M1>- � .(n rFR-G ..t4_ <af .S :§_ ---,2-4,, J..x� ?s-�=`�j -#�-`L >tf:z� '_};.F`- 5. .t� . �cS Y> F- L .��-4 x.-£f '4"-='- a'₹' _ - S�'I f.= �1'f .1� n av ..#c� `u+ '�' S":• : .e^ - _<'S�Y ,.->.&;,'-'ax` �.> F-s.-. _ .�' � ��.e " az>.�'�..�a �# _. __-ts -Fs°` y _s, ��".zi,, ><s_ � y � 3¢ £E.._s#:• -..."�'�ar� z� ��_€- 5, n•. � �-¢ _ _ 1. #f-.z-. _ .� 'c: a- .,s � " _`� �v- T..� ?� >x �"••+s` - 3+." 3 ,zi s ��a`- \s � _ - _ -x>. ..=c-.... -e^'.il .-�- `" = 't' ra tp - '. .3.-. z . r. - X > • - _ > s« x- �-'' -- •--�."'. «i=} s` s ��`'-bxr':.. _ - :s �T-T`" - .<st?,'� .�:. �"- >��₹,..� <x' >�.€� - ':;fit :y<�-_x: sa# .._s. .sa• >t�� -� ' £-- ax`s.�.., _ _ ._e '•r ". - "Gk _ -.z s .ri .s0:-: .? .. =x�l- ^Fa . `ert.8'% .. _ ' -1/4•,a r - 4:-_ . —- ��. '9s'�"�'.s'-`'fie. - �b' _ `!`_ � -> ->3 "km A. as.'£: "Y' �3>' 's." .1:---,.. - �[_ � �,<` Z.`>S- _ dpi '�' z31 ` £ e e X>F.+.e2 a cv . et �e S F ..'k.�i₹ '1�.F >og - 3- -- . - x>' t_ " >r3 - yy'3 WS !w 'ems_ F p FTC >~:»- - ¢ Tf �?Te:'. _� '�RSsS-3' .#. "i l-G .+� f�£ �" h"J � "iL' �E. ��"—s� `3SSJ.' f�ES� y.e �"-�S,� ¢� �v�- _ 1' r�< Y - . � €. . �£ t Y � >.- -_cz� r s-, -�:.: c x.. o4.g: # s3 � 4 . e> x a'.c , pedestridli >,sC�' e.sa � " -£�I Ns i_ &,--;.,G S . :Y1�- �. 's <�"".- _'2{' i3 ."�: Ste, eg - -✓£_ .3 Ss.s- 'Z: �� a eV '>�> � '�_ _ _ ^�'- _ �.G g'` � '.�- ' moo. z a <�. g .� -�" ? _ `'.sr.•- ;- > .h=- �� .L₹d.K3- n:<. �..E..>. �hF`'> > xe3 aP ��+'`x'` : 'Xc u �e '.-n��'2 Z.>`4x,''�.->��L-'z_ <Cyst-�S'rL�Asa. ,_��3•sr Y\?' __ Y:. ''"Ta:r .-.±` s > r'�- "� `., t r-->t• �t-`. :". 7.9, > ,.. F .."}s.».r <. _ 'su_,. -- l " .. s _ ' -` : .sr=- t` Y?' --b a ' >..4a .s'#>`ti _ - _ _,...sue-. ,. . $`. . .-_ - .. Q-.0 -..mac- st.4 - - svr.. mss:._ =s=: :a"-c- a' -r- - "` .. ,o .�- -s5 =' . -- " u .+"-.� .Z' . . ' ₹- t - " -..>ti - a:>�>.T':s'.rc. 5m- z''?' .�^-. Mb ,s-.•iz" oat* l>z sz�s - -, €' -' i ,> 'r �: 6 "' .bY. �xt g' z t�.. a. _>� :>f .# . � - i � � '` x -.3•M'�- H ,,s > - - ; " .. ^'s _.. 'c:+e? ':.7 --. .... :, . . 3?•.�a?'•[X�� k-t-. N, c ?.. . .#�..«F_\- ;�. ., :., 'Y.+�... eBF. _ ... c.`F'i�,+''F� a.:.x'..S` ..... ........�.. �€! .. [.... ,"_:.. ...: ._. ::. .-.... .... .. �.R�u�...4;isn�iaa�.� t.>_:�r..� ��hln .. ' .5i ,ti.�..�ix:�.F�. .rts�s�,�.C.. ...,. . . �..w..: ..._. <.s.`'eo'F:�s?5:t$#.�tF�x>�.i5 r. ., ht . .. t. .< a -- . . .... r<�".... • 1a Current weekday pedestrians ( include users of all non - pedaled devices ) 2. Population and Employment Year Population within mile 1, Employment within 1 mile Total Pop and Employ within 1 mile t 2020 7 �;::''''''.:a/4:-.q 2040 Y 0 ... .. ... __._ .... _.............._...____ ......_ -. ._._. __.._..___. ..... _..._..._—.«._.»—.._.�__.._.._.. _.... . .. ... .. _. __. .. ... . .__:.>..,,. . . ,h im..„,....>.,v„s,.un..d L; .•,..,.,...>. w.,:.o...a, Y•�.......,.u_w..w....&a•G ,.,,.........—,......<._:..I 'oe�R'-1X � /� G5 /;'u� d/ .. ..._. .. .. ... .... ...._ t -t-' .uF..._rU.......„,.,:„...,.„.,,,c,_...t...[.._F.:. r._.L[:. .4 .tw .(, . .. .... .. .. .... .. ... _ . . .:x. ..-.4„.„..„--_,.: { . Y i. c Y - -4 '\ -' - t.....- '.•=-"^5-•.... "^„yl•-•[•.'^7ws kagfr•�,+°. ,f•S,,;i34.t. ,..Jy tfF. ec•'. �,: •[ ' :,f,,'a ' f _ V. R"a: ° 'f�. �' .:sue �2- ₹ e c ,y : !i_. 1 #L ;1. . iq " , s H'; S'':^ 1 ,r[�i . : .m_ w' ,wa.<'.r�ta s:^`R tes :Gi- ..'. - -•'•kJ.= »� �9 y. .� �'s - -5 "1:_� '' t T s', nk-4.. _...i v-4 o 3•^.v�s�� iF MI .w r'tt 3" 3' .Q s�3--' ' '?E`- `e✓"y�. map . '� Ic � I � Ions � I ia ,�.i it , _ > >nl � 3�� _ ! -5...W..-'444 t Pedestrian �.d _ C €�Y � �s fir,•• ! Ir %tea x a _ 4 y„�,, s ki e` 3;' 5' ;�f�s I _ .` > �s� �3.- a" ° ° ,,..,,,,,,„,i„. l µ• A # 4�. -1, , •,_-_, j�"j� ®f ®g��genin Weekday Estimate :, r[n "«: : ..A-, zYi M ill i ?b a>" I°s 4,• c :kx^.rf -%`? :u "S :.k�•• ..f)n5. n. 4. i33 S,"•• _ _ r�s Y— t'(':-`'' � 2's� 51 [``� `+s'3'i >Es� 1 1 dfe� sF 7-.. .."._... ..... ... t•• 3 4 C's><� '�TI 4Y^'5l :z �ig'(1, rr 5 �. J � d r• .. F ,1 !-- -• .0 -`"e'.3 X ,p �:;ak' 3 . Enter estimated additional weekday pedestrian one-way trips on 0 0 l the facility after project is completed . 4. Enter number of the new pedestrian trips ( in #3 above ) that will be :• diverting from a different walking route 0 0 ( Example : {#3 X 50®x} or other percent, if justified) "•1/ i V.: _ _ .. , .. _ _ 'l` R `)` .{i�,'y�"'s5Al"i'�'•`N•iY yin ... 5II Number new tpsr project " ° , d . 0 , s4:. ., . t 6 . Enter number of the new trips produced (from #5 above ) that are replacing an SOy trip . 0 0 Example : {#5 X 30% or other percent if justified) ( Example : } pj f ) I.: ✓� 2 Sg;<r ✓f. ,u `°'�:". >:v.+r'.! e,...z/Y.>„.,. ,.. ...,. .: ". �:X.d".k .e� /r..3 :;;. � t. z � £ {,. ,./ y.,°.,,(y'' >/.: : /Y r r• r.;p;.t / .'i'.: R...d ./ _. :..�� j'�. � . y/� . nrt �. / / h �•f. ..iir , �'. yy• d6. .fh3a`," in,`C.' !✓ 1 "tV ary SrK:l„ W"': >° r5�.: /} �..: 7"�'L �j� `.^/ss,.?` ft • 5-..� g ' 'gin. z1 .by:,d �g 't-• yi`o„s , e?. 3i. •�/: e ! F 1OV triy�LgOys reduced pg$+�gg�'er da (#5 rt6) Qh d .. .t: ✓ ' j,, ✓ r' A N r i, ~et" `'.NY°' ,..Y r ik✓ f '(" c'�K'. :.^i.. (� S 4 '''`"' ye�� .R+' I J. •1.f2 y ../r /'. "ca•. ri'r' . ,tb> r ,yid . �. -° ✓• , .F S ,� . - " -.�`,`I` ,Jx _a/Y :a S ?'' s T _" '. .va;, '5'' s; ii k. •fi •�. � {'4 In . N, . , ... ^s y. ./ !' ., .. .. c, . ,. , _,.., . ,,:, . .. .... ..::: . > �.. .., .. .,.. X a`�" k . w'T.`�._ .i. :.aS• :�i�" o5s .; '4 . �. +t .;:,, . "`�. :, � ,.t`r... aa.'R .:> •. �s ' ,_ _.._ .,::_>:... ....: .. ...... ... . ... . ... __.,. _.. ...._ _,.. ,... . . . . _,.. :3 �..' � ... b .:,o-.. ^. . �::"x,:�� t . l..:b' 'Sryu�fi � f�'�. � - "r, .>�x�_ .t". .�:.r' ,,�6�.�' f :. ...L'�:1 11 12 . Enter the value of {#7 x A miles}. ( = the \MAT reduced per day) (Values other than .4 miles must be justified by sponsor) Number of pounds GHG emissions reduced (#8 x 0 .95 Ibs. ) 0 0 9 . If values would be distinctly greater for weekends, describe the magnitude of difference : M,..„ ___ur.w..._ , n 7rNMYMXw:M.wr✓I.rvwaw __,..„, .,__ w..rrv.n•rv-+.nnrvxn,rwwvn+w r4W+v.4fa.r.r,._,m.+••'~'•n•nrn•xnwnrn.nrr r'xwr,.M.,'N/,rmw+`-wwr . .. ..w"wa.w.... n...e.;.mine•+'. . Vrrr+w..n++'--v/n. .._wpm aw r._._..rr_•.�r-.-,.•-_.,raw..nwr_-,�nw....�r.__,-...._r_. .._..._n�_•_r___.._r�r_n.•.n.--__.rv.m-,..r,nrvwr_.,.•.._w_..r..__w--r..-rr-.-uH.-t.• _�..•M'•_._.rn�_.rur,.w� 'N•1—•r,iJN11F/ n._....1-.ry 10 . If different values other than the suggested are used , please explain here : * i'` "jzaw--K3--,x`..**_ ��r":�j?z`- ', s"et' �°°"� a x Y, --,_ 3-ta_: %`<"1..,, 3 ' .,„„. 'sc '`,.' '"r'� � `ix - 'x`'S#NSTi_ , . rte � I . F •Q 4 ayo+ :per• � 1 a Y -i'42S.-� f S a JF' "-:`�<a a¢acai e�x_ x2 h t .P S�3 x.r s_ h X�£' w \��. 3- 1 "'i.. - ,vc2 \:_W�_ <' f <S =�Y:- Y._ «CFI':-:.s ra .T(5 •\�+`�?'S.v , .f. .e.£3«S z'.i.<.iY>"�<Y o..:_ f ... £'�£-'e .'4<-- KXiav__ "i . fa �.y?a<Si_ed<_ �� .. `�`� �-- .4 z�«"n :=.xF �` h.. ms's ` �.�« �<. ,¥-_ - �> .. l -o. �r-.,.z .. � _ . .- _. -. -.- .- d. ... £ _..._--. _ -.t��_ "�� ..-. .. :., - s �<≥. cr`,� +.;�.< z�•'. ��` "-2<.,: <a5�< _aS�>`£3p'�`'�a'�:. .Y� F ,. s x< si..> .s's rse{� 3r"f7' .r-�,✓ .<, x ..: _.•as --". .sa ;xb<> .. r � _ - _ r .• = e, _ ? -^<.i§c s` >�`'r "> r> . FR-as v- _,. -T -..< �£{r �> .,.a a-__ -mss: - - £`�:r.: _. _- 1&r _ h` t��<- __•>{may -r >�.x�3si F -+�'L��..aCN - -i�_'� a>�r. a� � -a -•.I� i. �r }K.:,_o^t?s � ��f_ l„1- a>rS %3'- ?.. k. �'3yy4��Y$sY "�. '�_ :i- s-erg < - _ _ �~ .t}, J� °�: s• »:«.;�iYf3�1: _ � 3 s2s>-<a- _ `3� -�£� a�i? - S' -�`;g i� - �4_ -'f v ,:s C£i� 't _ �,,,�c �''"+'r. ;sa - IS" E .i =-- x £ e: ,,,,,,,,,it-�; - ,y- Jam-'� ` -.-si' as s. . _ .. s _. K$z _ - {�, >�ai�-. .try:' ?'�v\<'�,�" -.� K ,xn--x.. - . � _ ® � I r ble Populations ;. =: Pc� ul�to ®n within 1: mil� FtP R K 31 s x i v ti ,�. : Y- 3>.s gta. LT "Ma �s �a#�-- s•"�` >d=s.< ryt 3 ay. v-� R. r��t.k .�_ a - ¢ �a.' y S .-( .e).;144. » _so-:<? n:F..<x <. ,r. . .-z;. _ .. w�' 1g�3 - 3e .<A'r '=r si. --:`•e'S .,3" -<h.£f-inzg.Sly . i _ x n" -.."2≥sfs>- -'<li » ,'._ �+� _ '�"t�� . artl +cc' F ww5SYR'.lL�......L - �'.z'—.. > '. " .... ...: .:' ......... ., .. .....,. _. ,._.. .. ......I .. . : .wN. .µ s Y•N _,. _ .. i / Nn4.. r b .4w 7� �' - � r �"�`£" - ...a..• .n.. .� w _,Y..GL'..:__ 1' u.u�..wnro0w�.�'.�.J:.`.. .., '€ sssss•i � � _ � rt r1 £ - 1 . Persons over age 65 - _ M .-.w. ... .......,. .......�. ..... .....v... .. ...•.rr✓_• /'_w'•-••wM_.I v.—„'nm...... ..r .. .ryrw .nF•NNa.!.tlnA.r,,.,<.'x•/r�I.IM.•.•..w,rtwn<w.•.rw...•__. • .r wr+,wr_nm_.wlw ..r•.... yry .I-'�m.._•_•`....r,-w.•.•__w•Vnn_�_n..r..—_.mm+n.n wxw.wwM x^4M,.''^••-__T .i-yarc: Use Current 2a Minority persons _ ....,.... ..v.w...r.w..«..wr•.,xr.w ._. ... .. . ,v,w.•vnr•._.vi-...v'rn'r..r.. ..... w:.e..NiN.••.v.._..n'nrru.__.•.ir+.w_.__y...r..._rwu...n�..rr.w.rwwv.,••.,wr(.y.N_,n„n•rv._w.w.w•wrrxrl'nnn.n,Nm:._r.w--•• w_....t___._,_._.- .._._.. ..n ..._ __....__ _____wa___ti.�r•.�__ Census DataLow- Income- a 3 . ww.N_N.•.,..._w_.,.r•...... . . .., re- ... ._ n•,.,,„...._-.. IIF ._.n NIaN•... r..--.._.—.._w...+...•r.•,._.•..-.ems. h....rvN..-.....�.-_._...-•._I _��w_..,_.I ue E-�sA-q `•s _�,. c ` TS73- -"y�.at•a£<. E .. .....,. . f.-... ._ --- f F. �j� Low Income house o s+t�x.- -C ZS <�x"8<{ � sLinguistically-challenged persons2� �L3� �_� �ax"g {s �"' _ ,. ..n.nv._ n• ... ..,... _. ..,r__.. ... . .... ...n... . . ...a .:..r.. r .r..:••.mr!•FI•. .,,...•„,,...Nw ___1_ _n/.!nM -- -w,_• vr- -,r...._...w•rw.........w.r_ _.....«_• ._....m —_•.,___—_.•w„•__ mw•_•:,_n._••r• —.rv,.•••c..+•.•......_ °3 s Ea� � -a5 �4 rem ` 5 Individuals with disabilities t �� rte zt',f a,,s 2.. a two" - - ,�> s Fc Ss..y£ 2`₹ 3s1S` '"� %`,u,r k Z - SZa_ S ..,........-, ,.N.F..nr-...,............._... ,. ... .. .. ... __._.... ..,....,rr-...--... -.._ ___............................w. -... '.w.vn�r..vwN..«,.Nr ..._......<_ ......... ...,—... .._..._..._.._.�__...-r....._—___—••• ..r.....,..wrw. »+,_,.N ds' �1N 4S `'_\ #�`1K-. .��!'3'< <v «i..<»€yssq 'gA _ .n., v '<`'� v t t( r I.. s„ £ zSS-3 sTs;- ate«# Households t h t h I f Pa yj.'y 1,c,-P s n-pts3 y N >�tri st _ ,....,rv,.....,.,. .. . .. .. .. . ... . . ._•.r..._...._. .... . .. .....n,rN..,...�.....,._.,�,......_.. ..w�................_ .. .. —r..._...__._ _F.._.•_..—_._..•--._....___.,,.w:•r•..w...._..._.._._.w...w..•,..__...._r_._„_•. ` v�� ou a n10 oc e .,,,,,,,,,,..„,,,,s„' '—"j � „ , 7 . Children ages 6- 17 � � �� Ems , �. ,..m.-..4„,,,,,,s.„,-„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,w4,,-...„4, zae = a Health service facilities served by project , - - u ,____ az�_s., �,,_ 'sib �tr -ii _ cxn , s��3 by �3 „,. £ sp� .y-� 'am''a' Yf " ss_., y - �"£R' a„a• - ,,,, A3f te, *„. s s v rx- �s ..,„.„.:„....„,„ ,,,x,„,... �` .lr4..- ..„- G„e�'n> „.„,„,--,,m7- ..„.„.„ 'dT: e' E . Try (Operational and congestion Reduction) : E, rr . � ; . �� k �4 �-- dY tscrlix o _ Sponsor must use industry standard Highway Capacity Manual ( ) based software programs and x , F A. ; Y= procedures as a basis to calculate estimated weekday travel delay benefits . DRCOG staff may be ably to Uses .< '? the Regional Travel Model to develop estimates tes for certain type. o, large-scale projects. , 1 . Current ADT ( average daily traffic volume ) on applicable segments 2. 2040 ADT estimate 3. Current weekday vehicle hours of delay (VHD ) ( before project) Year Travel Delay Calculations ;Zr;.... of Opening 4. Enter calculated future weekday VHD ( after project) 0 .._ , _..._..__..._...__ ._..� ......_......._...__...... _. __....___..._.....__...__..._. .n__.._.,_......_...... ... .__.._.. N... ......__.._.....-._._._ _ __...... _......•._ _ .. . .._.. _ 5 . Enter value of {#3 - #4} = Reduced VHD 0 6. Enter value of {#5 X 1 .4} = Reduced person h turs of delay 0 (Value higher .„than 1 .4 due to high transit ridership must be justified by sponsor) 7. After project peak hour congested average travel time reduction per vehicle ( includes persons, transit passengers, freight, and service equipment carried by vehicles ) . 0 If applicable, denote unique travel time reduction for certain types of vehicles . If values would be distinctly different for weekend days or special events, describe the magnitude of difference . 12 9 . If different values other than the suggested are used, please explain here : F . Traffic Crash Reduction .,«.�: _.,fCc-•:.zl'.,.4— . ,.H'ic.,:.a:.- .e .zazr •.ss- ;ct. ^i.-au,•• t,s::a ,7s-.: ,: ,rn s.- s vF+,c:;,ii-=k w.t?Ys •`aa.r'y-aa..-=,_:: .z. 1 . Provide the current number of crashes involving motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians (most recent 5-year period of data) Fatal crashes i Serious Injury crashes t Sponsor must use industry Other Injury crashes accepted crash reduction factors .._...-........_.. -.__..._.__._ ... .,.. -__., _..- ----. _ -- .._.--- -.--- -•----. - __ Property Damage Only crashes (CU ) or accident modification ._... ..,.. ..._ . ._..... _ __. _ ._._..... ... .--....._._ .._._. ._ _ ___ -.�__;.._._ _ _ ._. _...-.�:.., .�.._..•.�,..___ -- factor (AMF )F ) practices (e. g., 2 . Estimated reduction in crashes applicable to the project scope (per the five-year period used above) NCHRP Project 17-25, NCHRP Report 617, or DiExSys Fatal crashes reduced 0 methodology). Serious Injury crashes reduced 0 Other Injury crashes reduced 0 Property Damage Only crashes reduced j 0 G . Facility Condition Sponsor must use a current industry-accepted pavement condition method or system and calculate the average condition across all sections of pavement being replaced or modified . Applicants will rate as : Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor Roadway Pavement 1 . Current roadway p avement condition j Fair 2 . Describe current pavement issues and how the project will address them . 3 . Average Daily User Volume Bicycle/Pedestrian/Other Facility 4 . Current bicycle/pedestrian /other facility condition f Choose an item 5 . Describe current condition issues and how the project will address them . f t 6 . Average Daily User Volume 0 Ho Bridge Improvements o - _ • 1 . Current bridge structural condition from CDOT 2 . Describe current condition issues and how the project will address them . 13 3 . Other functional obsolescence issues to be addressed by project 4 . Average Daily User Volume over bridge 0 I � ter Beneficial Variables (identified and calculated by the sponsor) E ...�.... .F .>_•-....- .. ♦ .-. .rr.�. •....•.•. '..� .\ •. :.'2 1 .•-..iJ:.. -1�. ._.-. �3.�- .... ._�C. R(. • :....xz:� v n. -...>_x.. x ._.o.. .... --. ..wx n-.. • >-n- n_ -.zr a �_ ..a_ _...- ., n�.3Jr <... .[..• -. .� ... xt .r..r. .Il.r .3• u• r• r. .-..:1. ...t.-.t�z tip..<� ..- .. I... .....• •.•�r_..•.v .-_-•.=...or•.<-.+ .•un.. . - .\ .. ....•... n •• ....... .._s 1 2 . 3 . - .. n-. .�- • - � - � >...«.. -s.icy -.< �..« • -. • .. ...:--c:>-- � _ •.-. _._.. � i _ • 01 : ri •J ® Cisbenefits or Negative Impacts (identified and calculated by the sponsor) or.-as& ysr:.a.:xl::rsi -�.»-a,:_._»r=acu.,u�eu.�...�-i..:3r...,....�c,,._....•.u�c:.�a..._^ss..n�.,c:�'tt._.ms��,.•:ye�.».:��3'r::ca_z-.: sn.-�s+..�:z....x<_:-.. �x2rs:.=x..a. .,ics:i:.i.nar_\z�_..�:�+�... .--_._.:__c._.�r'.a..-cz:c°V...z^_r-ui•::.�-ws».��T�^- ••t\ o_^�9Y._ti�l�i^�2i��' 1 ❑1 . Increase in VMT? If yes, describe scale of expected increase • Yes No 2 . Negative impact on vulnerable populations 3a Other : • • 14 Hello