HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191565.tiffRI PAGE OF Df CUME d
INCLUDED IN PAPER. AA
REMAINDER RETA@NED
ELECTRONICALLY IN TYLER.
Appendix C
US 34 Alternatives Report
2019-1565
4
J
FINAL
ALTERNATIVES REPORT
US 34 Planning
and Environmental
Linkages (PEL) Study
January 2019
V
M
RUHT_:1 Du
ra d
i=ll`- I0_JEPNE5,
in association with C1112411,„
Project # NH 0341-O91, 21444
COLORADO
Department of
Transportation
•
•
US 34
Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL)
Final Alternatives Report
January 2019
Developed by
RSSII/ PISS
751oUVARA5 SIMMONS HQLOERhlFSS
t
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.1
Introduction.if.4.444444040444404444004404000440044444004444000444004444.004440004444044440 i f 4444044440444.4040444404444444444000444000444404044 So
Project Area
00041044144000444041044400440004440004 4 40 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 44 0 4 4 4 40 0. 4 4 44 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 4 0 4 04 4 40 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 44 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 40 0 0 04 4 40
Purposeand Nor 44444144404,4.4...444404444044444444
4 4 4 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 4 0 4 4 44 4 44 4 40 0 04 4 4 0 0 0 4 4 40 0 44 4 44 4 0 4 4 40 0 04 4 40 4 04 4 4* 0 44 4 40 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 40 0
EvaluationPrA/i.4ess 44,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,.4.,,,444,,4444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,,444,,
NoAction Alternative... 4 0 0 0 4 4.0004 40004 4 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 4 4 4 4 0 0 04 400004.40004 4 44 0 44.400 44 1 4 0 0 0 4. 4 0 0 0 4 4 40 4 444.0 0 04 41000.4 40 4 0 0 4 4 40 4 444.0 0 04 41000.4 40
4
Level1 Concepts and Evaluation 44440 04.40.444,00004.if i4.444.4444444444004.404044404004.iii4.400044.ii 14.440 404• ii. 4.i 004044if 44.44 6
Level 1 Concept Descriptions.... 6
6.2 Level 1 Evaluation Process 8
6.3 Level 1 Evaluation Results 8
7.0 Level 2 Concepts and Evaluation 40044400044.04044.0..44444444444,444400444004444400444000.44044444040444040.4.000444404.4.0..44400048
7.1 Level 2 Concept Development 18
7.1.1 Concept Development - Foothills, Loveland Urban, and Loveland 6 -Lanes Segments 19
7.1.2 Level 2 Concept Development - Johnstown — Greeley and Greeley
7.1.3
Expressway Segments0004.440444440444..4444400.r.400044400044400044400044400044400
2
0 0 04 4 40 0 04 4 1 0 0 04 4 40 0 0 {'
Concept Development East End egnlent .0044410144410001140004440004040144440004410004440004440004.4040444100041 37
7.2 Level 2 Evaluation Process 38
7.2.1
7.21
Level 2 Evaluation Criteria
004 _ 0444039
Level 2 Evaluation results 4440004440.0444000.4.0 f 044400,444000444.004140004440 f 044400044440044400044400044400044404044400E 044
47
8.0 Level 3 Alternatives and Evaluation. ff4440f f.4.f f Oil 4 if al f 4440004444044444 f 04 4 40 4 0 44 f 44440 f 44 4 40 0 04 4 ii f i 4440044444044444 f 044440004470
8.1 Level 3 Alternative Description70
8.2 Level 3 Evaluation Process 75
8.2.1 Level 3 Evaluation Criteria 75
8.2.2 Level 3 Evaluation Results .... . ..........11...11....111...111...1I81
9.0 Recommended 1 ■ended Alternatives 0000..... ......................... . X88
9.1 Consistency of Segments Adjacent to 1-25. 4. i f i 4. 4 0 0 .4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. 40 0 04 4 40000 4. i i 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SI 0 4 4 4 4 i 0 44 4 444444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 41044488
9.2 Consistency of Segments Adjacent to US 34 / Us 85 Interchange 0 0 4 4 4001. 40 f 04 4 00044 4 0 i 0.4 40004. 4 f i 0441000
Attachments
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figures E —11
Project Area
Evaluation Process Flowchart
Level 2 Roadway Concepts: Widening to 6 Lanes in Johnstown — Greeley and Greeley
Expressway Segments
2003 U5 34 Access Control Plan
Interchange and Cross Street Profile Concepts
Segment Recommended Alternatives
Foothills
Loveland Urban
Loveland 6 -Lane
Johnstown -Greeley
Greeley Expressway
East End
Tables
Table 1
Table2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Level 1 Concepts
Level 1 Evaluation Tables
Level 2 Concepts — Foothills Segment
Level 2 Concepts — Loveland urban Segment
Level 2 Concepts— Loveland 6 -Lane Segment
Interchange Type Development Approach
Level 2 Concepts Johnstown - Greeley Segment
Level 2 Concepts — Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Concepts — East End Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures:, and Rating
Definitions Level 2 Evaluation Tables
Level 3 Alternatives Evaluated in Level 3
Level 3 Supplemental Elements
Level 3 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions
Level 3 Evaluation Tables — Alternatives
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACP Access Control Plan
Ave. Avenue
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
DDI Diverging diamond interchange
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Study
PH'A Federal Highway Administration
1-25 Interstate Highway 25
LCR Larimer County Road
MP Milepost
N FRMPO North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
N EPA National Environmental Policy Act
Pkwy. Parkway
PEL Planning anEnvironmental Linkages
ROD Record of Decision
ROW right-of-way
RR railroad
SDI Standard Diamond Interchange
SH XX State Highway XX
SPUI Single Point Urban Interchange
TAC Technical Advisory Committees
US United States
US XX United States Highway XX
WCR Weld County Road
1.0 Introduction
The Colorado Department of Colorado (CDOT), in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration
and the local agencies, initiated the US 34 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study in response
to growing traffic congestion and vehicle crashes on the corridor and to provide a corridor vision to
guide the future.
The Study Area along US Highway 34 (US 34) is between Larimer Country Road (LCR) 29 and Weld
County Road (WCR) 53 within Larimer County; Weld County, the Cities of Evans, Greeley, and Loveland;
and the Towns of Johnstown, Kersey, Garden City, and Windsor. Recommendations are provided for the
Project Area from LCR 27 to WCR 49.
The purpose of this Alternative Development and Evaluation Report is to document the approach used
to develop, analyze, screen, and package alternatives within the Project Area. This report serves as an
Appendix C to the PEL study.
2.0 Project Area
US 34 is a critical east -west transportation corridor for northern Colorado providing national, regional,
and local access and connectivity. Nationally, it is a thoroughfare for tourists traveling to the
destinations of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park. Regionally, US 34 connects Greeley,
Loveland, Ft. Collins, and the Denver metropolitan area. Within the adjacent cities, US 34 provides
access to daily services.
The population of northern Colorado is growing quickly, generating increased traffic volumes, accidents,
congestion, delays, and other issues along US 34. In response to the growing issues along the corridor,
CDOT initiated this study to catalog existing roadway characteristics, mul'timodal facilities, andtraffic
safety conditions; identify infrastructure deficiencies; develop and screen a reasonable range of
alternatives; and determine important existing environmental resources along US 34 within the Study
Area.
A Corridor Existing Conditions Report was prepared that included information from completed studies,
the roadway's physical features, the existing traffic conditions, and the environmental and cultural
resources. This report can be found in Appendix B of the PEL. These characteristics and resources
identified the needs, constraints, and opportunities that guided the development of the corridor
Purpose and Need, goals, evaluation criteria, and concepts.
Local agency staff contributed valuable insight into the corridor context through initial stakeholder
interviews and monthly Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. Local elected officials were
engaged through US 34 Coalition meetings. Additionally, three series of public open houses were held
during the PEL. Each series had a meeting on both the west and the east side of the corridor for a total
of six meetings; these allowed the public an opportunity to provide firsthand information about the
corridor and input to alternatives. The stakeholder interviews,. TAC, Coalition and public meetings are
documented in PEL Appendix D.
The US 34 corridorwas divided into six segments because of the size of the Project Area, varying physical
and operational corridor characteristics, and the context of adjacent communities. Below are the
segments with a summary of their lengths and characteristics:
Page 1
1. Foothills - Larimer County Road (LCR) 27 to Morning Drive — 3.2 miles. This segment is a 2 -lane
rural roadway that is transitioning from mountainous to urban and includes the Big Thompson
River crossing.
Loveland Urban - Morning Drive to North Garfield Avenue (Ave.) — 3.1 miles. US 34 (Eisenhower
Blvd.) is a 4 -lane urban roadway with paved median with numerous intersections and private
property access points and includes sidewalks and a shoulder/ bike lane along most of its length.
3. Loveland 6 -Lane - North Garfield Ave. to Rocky Mountain Ave. — 4.0 miles. Implementation of a
2006 Environmental Assessment (EA) recommending the 4 -lane roadway be upgraded to 6 lanes
is ongoing, with about half of this segment currently upgraded to 6 lanes.
4. Johnstown — Greeley - Centerra/Thompson Parkway (Pkwy) to east of SH 257 — 6.1 miles. This
segment is a 4 -lane expressway with Yi to 1 -mile intersection spacing with typical speed limits of
65 mph. There are 2 at- grade railroad (RR) crossings and several governing jurisdictions. Access
in this segment is governed by the existing Access Control Plan (ACP), approved in 2003.
5. Greeley Expressway - East of SH 257 to 11thAve. — 9.3 miles. This segment is a 4 -lane
expressway with 16 to 1 -mile intersection spacing with a typical speed limit of 65 mp' i lowering
to 45 mph at the east end. This segment is mostly within Greeley, and access is governed by the
existing Access Control Plan (ACP), approved in 2003.
6. East End - 1st Ave. to Weld County Road 49 — 3.8 miles. This segment is rural with 4 lanes and
has been mostly reconstructed since 2010. The 2003 Access Control Plan described in the
previous segments has limited public intersections with to 1 mile spacing and a 65mph speed
limit. The segment includes the South Platte River crossing.
The 1-25 Interchange Project (1.0 miles on US 34) and the US 34/US 85 Project (1.2 miles on US 34) are
separate studies that will complement and accommodate the improvements proposed in the US 34 PEL
Study. These two separate areas are not included in the US 34 project segments, and the US 34 PEL
Study does not include additional recommendations within these areas. These are described further
below:
• The 1-25 interchange area, the 1.0 -mile segment on US 34 between and including Rocky
Mountain Ave. and Centerra/Thompson Pkwy. This area is included in the 1-25 Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) which identified an interchange complex
encompassing 1-25 and both Rocky Mountain Ave. and Centerra /Thompson Pkwy. Initial phases
of improvements in this segment are included in an ongoing design/build construction project
that begins in late 2018.
• The US 34/US 85 interchange area, a 1.2 mile segment at the east end of the Greeley
Expressway segment, is a preliminary design project. The project will include alternatives at 11th
Ave.
Figure 1 illustrates the corridor
imits.
Page 2
epta
r
w`•
4r,
4 ark
to .14
st
r , r
4
l
I
C'
Coln min
SWAP
(in rersibr
C slip
Namingrue - s
l boa
tarair
w Anis
ftilis
OPs• Saga
I(r1 I
"5 Pir
287
LO ELAND
filial Css'
PerY11RO/
as owl Vital
I. . t1'..i
,
Jr'
I
I
I
UJ'04
MIJ
reSU)
I
i
;:..WINDSOR
>i.
L
I
I r
r
p171`1'!
1
—
v.
,
II 'pi
Cross toads'Blvd
■
I
•
LEGEND
-I US 34 PEL Project Limits
._--i1Y
I --
Proposed US S4 PE Study Area
r -s
•
I
■
I
9
a
sasSINIMMISISZNIS _
I
I
i
•
LAKIM ER
■■ .•■ a s m ua m a u a aI
WELD
JOHNSTOWN
I
I
I
I
I
asatessomassemmi
r
nlAn
— �
I I
GA DEN
soma Ina= ua®y
•
M
).Sfr n
•
•
a
�luf
Leta
..,
[VICINITY MAP
crs
4
ce
e
CI"T"E
EVANS
bEtilE
DRAW
U,
ft
U
KERSEY
i
.1
J '_.i _ _—J �I•L _.. -.. IvJ� �I.. �'-e-I %Li it.. -x! -.J �...
Figure 1 - Project Area
Page 3
3.0 Purpose and Need
CDOT initiated this PEL Study to identify and assess potential transportation solutions along the US
34 corridor in Larimer and Weld Counties. The Purpose and Need statement was developed in
coordination with stakeholders, including the state and local jurisdictions that encompass theStudy
Area and those represented in the US 34 Coalition. The Purpose and Need statement was reviewed
by the general public at public meetings, and is shown below:
Transportation improvements within the US 34 corridor are needed for three reasons:
1. Increase safety. Increases in development and travel demand have resulted in safety concerns at
intersections and other locations along the US 34 corridor.
2. Accommodate increased travel and tourism demands to maintain the economic vitality of the
region. Northern Colorado communities are among the fastest growing in the nation. Growth
has spurred economic benefits and provides funding to improve transportation infrastructure
and amenities that make these communities desirable.
Increase reliability of east -west regional travel, while balancing local access, mobility, and freight
needs. Traffic congestion and accidents can reduce the reliability of US 34 to serve its function
as a Principal Arterial, while dampening the benefits of job growth and recreation opportunities
the region provides to new and long-time residents.
Project goals were developed by the project management team (PMT) and refined and approved by
the technical advisory committee (TAC). The goals supplement the Purpose and Need and help to define
the elements that would comprise successful alternatives for the US 34 corridor. Successful alternatives
for the US 34 PEL Study will:
• Be compatible with the natural and human environment
• Support community land use and aesthetics goals
• Be fiscally responsible and implementable
• Reduce risk and increase reliability
• Accommodate emerging technology
The project goals were used, in conjunction with the Purpose and Need, during each
evaluation process.
level of alternatives
4.0 Evaluation Process
This section summarizes the alternatives development and evaluation process used to identify a
reasonable range of alternative improvements for the US 34 corridor to address the transportation
problems identified in the project Purpose and Need. This process included developing evaluation
criteria based on the project Purpose and Need and project goals, developing a full range of reasonable
alternatives, and documenting the elimination and recommendation of alternatives to limit the need for
consideration during future NEPA processes.
Figure 2 below shows a summary flowchart for the three -level evaluation process, and how some
alternatives were carried forward compared to those included as supplemental elements (supplemental
elements are defined in Section 6).
Page 4
Figure 2 - Evaluation Process Flowchart
CORE CONCEPTS SUPPLEMENTAL ELEMENTS
No Action
Alternative
Carried through s:reening process
Roadway
Elements
N
CA
ce
ern
C,
Level 2 Results
--
Multirnodal
Elements
.0
0°
Other Physical
Elements
Operational
Elements
lumimill1111the
LEVEL 1 EVALUATION PROCESS
(PURPOSE AID NEED)
to
o�
LEVEL 2 EVALUATION
ROADWAY + ACCESS CONCEPTS
EVALUATED SEPARATELY
o
Oco,
Combine to make
Alternatives
LEVEL 3 EVALUATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
aJ v Vie
Recommended
Allen is Lives
140►
0
vwv
,, 4l
Feasible, but Nat
Recommended: Option
will not be evaluated
further in the study due to
comparati'ely neglig ble benefits and
higher impacts than other options
11111 I Eliminated: Option does
not meet the Purpose and
Need established with this
study or the option is
unreasonable due to impacts and/or
infeasibility
Feasible, but Not
Recommended:
Alternative will not be
evaluated furthe- in the
study due to comparatively
negligible benefits and higher
impacts than other alternatives.
Elements of this alternative would
be feasible as an interim
improvement
Page 5
5.0► No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, only improvements that are already planned and included in the
fiscally constrained 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (NFRMPO, 2015b) and routine
maintenance would be completed. The No Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need. It is
carried forward as a baseline for comparison to the concepts and alternatives evaluated during the PEL
Study.
6.0 Level 1 Concepts and Evaluation
A wide range of potential solutions were developed that could be implemented to address the
project Purpose and Need. The Level 1 concepts focused on addressing the Purpose and Need and the
issues identified in the evaluation of existing conditions and were developed based on input received
from agency stakeholders and public open houses.
6.1 Level 1 Concept Descriptions
Concepts were developed for each of the six corridor segments and were categorized by roadway
elements, access, multimodal elements, other physical elements, and operational elements. These
categories addressed distinct improvement types or specific issues. The categories were defined as
follows:
• Roadway Elements - Roadway concepts impacted a long section of the highway and were
focused on vehicles.
• Access — Concepts that were localized at specific access points or intersections.
• Multimodal Elements — Concepts that addressed the needs of multimodal users regionally and
locally
• Other Physical Elements — Concepts that were not suitable in other categories.
• Operation Elements — Concepts that improve the operations of the roadway.
Page 6
Table 1 Level 1 Concepts table below provides a summary and description of the Level I. concepts for
the corridor
Table 1 - Level 1 Concepts
Roadway
Elements
•
•
lanes
Add
Add/expand
lanes
at
—
access
This
auxiliary
locations.
concept
lanes
would
-
This
add one
concept
or more
would
add
lanes
in each
or expand
direction.
existing auxiliary
Add
corridor.
frontage
roads
This
concept
would
add
frontage roads
to a segment of the
•
Design Criteria (Lane
width,
horizontal
and
vertical
curves,
freight
movement) —
This
concept
would
encourage correction of geometric design
deficiencies
and
enhance
freight
movement
Access
•
Median
remove
improvements
or
otherwise
(Add/Remove/Improve)
improve
the
US 34
—This
median.
concept
would
establish,
•
Consolidate
access —This
concept
would
consolidate
access
points.
•
Intersection
Improvements
- specific
locations within
each
segment — This
concept
an interchange.
would
provide
improvements
to at grade
intersections and/or
construct
•
Parking
—This
concept
would
address
existing
parking
needs.
Multimodal
•
Bicycle
and
pedestrian
regional
connections
along
US 34
This
concept
would
provide
or improve
existing regional
bicycle
and
pedestrian
connections
along
US
34.
•
Bicycle
and
pedestrian
mobility
improvements/enhancements—This
concept
would
facilities.
provide,
improve,
or enhance existing
local
bicycle
and
pedestrian
•
Transit service on
US 34 -This
concept
would
provide
transit facilities
on
US
34.
Other
•
Drainage improvements
—
This
concept
would
address
existing
Physical
•
Wildlife
Crossings —
This
concept
would
provide
crossings for wildlife.
Elements
•
Localized
safety
improvements
— This
concept
would
address
locations
with
known or emergent safety needs.
•
Railroad
railroad
crossing improvements
crossings.
- This
concept
would
address
existing at grade
Utilities
—
This
concept
would
address
known utility
issues.
Operational
•
Existing technologies
—
These
concepts
would
utilize
existing technologies
to
Elements
maximize the
functionality
of the
roadway
infrastructure
•
Emerging technology
-
These
concepts
would
utilize
emerging technologies
to
maximize
the
functionality
of
the
roadway
infrastructure
•
Incident
management
management
—This
concept
would
provide
systems
for incident
•
Accessible
to
Maintenance
Access — This
concept
would
provide
constructed
improvements
that
are accessible
to
maintenance
personnel
Page 7
6.2 Level 1 Evaluation Process
The Level 1 evaluation criteria were developed using the need categories of safety, travel
demand, travel reliability, and local access and mobility. Concepts were evaluated by answering "yes"
or "no" to the following questions to demonstrate each concept's ability to meet the project Purpose
and Need:
• Does the concept increase safety?
• Does the concept accommodate the future travel demand?
• Does the concept increase travel reliability?
• Does the concept support local access and mobility?
Concepts that received all "yes" answers to the criteria were carried forward as core concepts because
they had the potential to address the Purpose and Need as a standalone alternative. Some concepts
were able to address one or several needs, but not all four. These were carried forward for further
consideration as a supplemental element. Concepts that could not meet the Purpose and Need were
eliminated from the US 34 PEL study. Concepts that had negligible benefits or higher impacts than other
concepts, were not recommended for further evaluation in the US 34 PEL study.
6.3 Level 1 Evaluation Results
Up to 27 concepts and a No Action Alternative were considered for each corridor segment during Level
1 Evaluation. The concepts that were not recommended for further evaluation and/or eliminated by
segment were:
I Lthi!P
• Roadway Elements
Add Frontage Roads — Adding frontage roads would only meet one element of the
Purpose and Need (increases travel reliability) and results in higher impacts that other
concepts. Frontage roads are not necessary to accommodate the access needs within
the segment; thus, they are not recommended for further evaluation.
• Access
Consolidate Access — An ACP is being developed for this segment. Once the ACP is
adopted the individual interchange/ intersection improvements at public streets
identified in the ACP will be implemented with public projects and are considered
supplemental to those projects. Consolidation of access to private properties will occur
with development regardless of what happens on the highway.
• Other Physical Elements
o Railroads - There are no railroads within this segment.
o Utilities - Does not meet Purpose and Need as a standalone improvement.
Modifications to existing utilities would be address in conjunction with other projects.
Page 8
Loveland Urban:
• Roadway Elements
O Add Frontage Roads — Adding frontage roads would only meet one element of the
Purpose and Need (increases travel reliability) and results in higher impacts that other
concepts. Frontage roads are not necessary to accommodate the access needs within
the segment; thus, they are not recommended for further evaluation.
• Access
a Consolidate Access — An ACP is being developed for this segment. Once the ACP is
adopted the individual interchange/intersection improvements at public streets
identified in the ACP will be implemented with public projects and are considered
supplemental to those projects. Consolidation of access to private properties will occur
with development regardless of what happens on the highway.
• Other Physical Elements
L� Wildlife crossing — This segment falls within an urban area with limited need identified
for wildlife crossings.
Railroads — There are no railroads within this segment.
Utilities — Does not meet Purpose and Need as a standalone improvement.
Modifications to existing utilities would be address in conjunction with other projects.
Loveland 6 -Lane:
• Roadway Elements
O Add Frontage Roads - Adding frontage roads would only meet one element of the
Purpose and Need (increases travel reliability) and results in higher impacts that other
concepts. Frontage roads are not necessary to accommodate the access needs within
the segment; thus, they are not recommended for further evaluation.
Access
o Consolidate Access — An ACP is being developed for this segment. Once the ACP is
adopted the individual interchange/intersection improvements at public streets
identified in the ACP will be implemented with public projects and are considered
supplemental to those projects. Consolidation of access to private properties will occur
with development regardless of what happens on the highway.
o Parking- No specific locations for parking improvements were identified in this
segment.
• Other Physical Elements
Wildlife crossing —This segment falls within an urban area with limited need identified
for wildlife crossings.
a Railroads— No at -grade railroad crossings exist in this segment. Impacts to the grade -
separated railroad crossing in this segment will be evaluated with future roadway
projects.
a Utilities — Does not meet Purpose and Need as a standalone improvement.
Modifications to existing utilities would be address in conjunction with other projects.
Page 9
Johnstown — Greeley:
• Roadway Elements
O Add Frontage Roads — Adding frontage roads would only meet one element of the
Purpose and Need (increases travel reliability) and results in higher impacts that other
concepts. Frontage roads are not necessary to accommodate the access needs within
the segment; thus, they are not recommended for further evaluation.
• Access
a Consolidate Access —This segment has an adopted ACP. The individual
interchange/intersection improvements at public streets identified in the ACP will be
implemented with public projects and are considered supplemental to those projects.
Consolidation of access to private properties will occur with development regardless of
what happens on the highway.
Parking - No specific locations for parking improvements were identified in this
segment.
* Other Physical Elements
Drainage— No specific areas with drainage problems were identified in this segment.
a Wildlife crossing — Wildlife related crashes were not identified as an issue in this
segment during scoping: therefore, the expected need for crossings is minimal.
Utilities — Does not meet Purpose and Need as a standalone improvement.
Modifications to existing utilities would be address in conjunction with other projects.
Greeley Expressway:
• Roadway Elements
a Add Frontage Roads -Adding frontage roads would only meet one element of the
Purpose and Need (increases travel reliability) and results in higher impacts that other
concepts. Frontage roads are not necessary to accommodate the access needs within
the segment; thus, they are not recommended for further evaluation.
• Access
a Consolidate Access —This segment has an adopted ACP. The individual
interchange/intersection improvements at public streets identified in the ACP will be
implemented with public projects and are considered supplemental to those projects.
Consolidation of access to private properties will occur with development regardless of
what happens on the highway.
a Parking — No specific locations for parking improvements were identified in this
segment.
• Other Physical Elements
a Drainage— No specific areas with drainage problems were identified in this segment.
Wildlife crossing — Wildlife related crashes were not identified as an issue in this
segment during scoping: therefore, the expected need for crossings is minimal.
o Railroads - There are no railroads within this segment.
Utilities - Does not meet Purpose and Need as a standalone improvement.
Modifications to existing utilities would be address in conjunction with other projects.
Page 10
East End:
• Roadway Elements
a Add/expand auxiliary lanes — Existing intersections in this segment have appropriate
auxiliary lanes. Additional auxiliary lanes would most likely be implemented with
development of adjacent parcels, as governed by the ACP.
a Add Frontage Roads — Adding frontage roads would only meet one element of the
Purpose and Need (increases travel reliability) and results in higher impacts that other
concepts. Frontage roads are not necessary to accommodate the access needs within
the segment; thus, they are not recommended for further evaluation.
• Access
Consolidate Access — This segment has an adopted ACP. The individual
interchange/intersection improvements at public streets identified in the ACP will be
implemented with public projects and are considered supplemental to those projects.
Consolidation of access to private properties will occur with development regardless of
what happens on the highway.
o Parking— No specific locations for parking improvements were identified in this
segment.
• Multimodal Elements
o Transit service on US 34 — There are no planned existing or proposed transit services in
this segment.
• Other Physical Elements
o Drainage— Drainage improvements will be evaluated in conjunction with other projects.
No specific locations identified.
o Railroads — No railroads within this segment
o Utilities — Does not meet Purpose and Need as a standalone improvement.
Modifications to existing utilities would be address in conjunction with other projects.
All other concepts were carried forward for further evaluation. Concepts that were carried forward
included various roadway elements (such as adding lanes, adding and/or expanding auxiliary lanes,
addressing areas that do not meet design criteria) and access elements (such as intersection and median
improvements) as well as a number of supplemental elements, including wildlife crossings, parking,
multimodal improvements, localized safety improvements, and existing/emerging technologies.
Table 2 - The full Level 1 Evaluation Tables are shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2 — Level I Evaluation Tables
Page 11
Table 2
COLORADO
Department of ` xanspo tation
Foothills Segment
Level 1 Evaluation Table
NOTE: At Level 1, each segment is being evaluated individually. Subsequent levels of evaluation will include a
Level 1 result classifications are defined as:
Carried Forward as Core Concept = has the potential to address the project's purpose and need by itself (i.e.
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element = has the potential to enhance the Core Concept(s).
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation = will not be evaluated further in the study due to comparatively
Eliminated = does not meet the Purpose and Need established within this study.
review of the dependencies and continuity of elements, and combinations of elements, between the six segments.
, standalone).
negligible benefits, and/or higher impacts than other conceptsfelements.
Concepts
Morning
for Foothills:
Drive
Larlmer
County Road 27 (LCR
27)
to
INCREASES
SAFETY?
ACCOMMODATES
TRAVEL DEMAND?
INCREASES
TRAVEL REUABILITY?
SUPPORTS
LOCAL
MOBILITY?
ACCESS
AND
RESULT
LEVEL 1
EVALUATION
of
COMMENTS
No Action
N
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Although the No Action does not meet the purpose and need, It
is advanced as a baseline condition for comparison.
Roadway Elements
m
Add lanes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add / expand auxiliary lanes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add
frontage roads
N
N
Y
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
Segment does not require frontage roads.
Design Criteria (lane width,
freight movement)
horizontal & vertical, curves,.
Y
V
V
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Access
Median Improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Medians would be built in conjunction with other projects.
Consolidate access
Y
N
V
Y
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
An ACP is being developed for this segment. Once the ACP is
adopted the individual interchange/intersection improvements at
public streets identified in the ACP will be implemented with
public projects and are considered supplemental to those
projects. Consolidation of access to private properties will occur
with local development regardless of what happens on US 34.
LCR 27 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Glade Road intersection improvements
y
V
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Morning Drive intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Parking
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplement Element
Primary parking concerns in the Foothills segment are at the Big
Thompson Elementary school.
Multimodal Elements
Bicycle and pedestrian regional connections along US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Popular bike route. Planned for bike lanes. Planned Regional
Bikeway.
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility
improvements/enhancements
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward
as Supplemental Element
Transit service on US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Other Physical Elements
V
V
V
Drainage improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplement Element
Sheet flow at the west end during rain events should be
addressed.
Wildlife crossings
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplement Element
Localized safety improvements
V
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplement Element
Railroad crossing improvements
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
No railroads located within this segment.
Utilities
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
Modifications to existing utilities would be built in conjunction
with other projects.
Operational Elements
Existing
technologies
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Emerging technologies
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Incident management
Y
Y
Y
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Accessible to maintenance personal
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Notes: The typical section is 2-12' lanes with variable width substandard shoulders. Future development along the roadway will be limited by the mountainous terrain and a parallel floodp ain. There is a significant amount of bicycle usage, especially during the summer.
Foothills Level 1
Page 12
Table 2
COLORADO
Department o f Tra nsportation
Loveland Urban Segment
Level 1 Evaluation Table
NOTE: At Level 1, each segment is being evaluated individually. Subsequent levels of evaluation will include a
Level 1 result classifications are defined as:
Carried Forward as Core Concept = has the potential to address the project's purpose and need by itself (i.e.
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element = has the potential to enhance the Core Concept(s).
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation = will not be evaluated further in the study due to comparatively
Eliminated = does not meet the Purpose and Need established within this study.
review of the dependencies and continuity of elements, and combinations of elements, between the six segments.
, standalone).
negligible benefits, and/or higher impacts than other concepts felements..
Concept for Loveland
Urban:
Morning
Drive to N Garfield
Ave
INCREASES
SAFETY?
ACCOMMODATES
TRAVEL DEMAND?
INCREASES
TRAVEL RELIABILITY?
SUPPORTS
LOCAL
MOBILITY?
ACCESS AND
RESULT
LEVEL 1 EVALUATION
of
COMMENTS
No Action
N
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Although
is advanced
the
No Action does not meet the purpose and need, it
as a baseline condition for comparison.
Roadway Elements
Add lanes
Y
V
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add / expand auxiliary lanes
Y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add frontage roads
N
N
V
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
Segment does not require frontage roads
Design Criteria (lane width, horizontal & vertical, curves,
freight movement)
le
Y
Y
Y
Carried
Forward as Core Concept
Access
Median Improvements
V
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Medians would be built in conjunction with other projects.
Consolidate access
Y
N
Y
Y
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
An ACP is being developed for
adopted the individual interchange/intersection
public streets identified in the
public projects and are considered
projects. Consolidation of access
with local development regardless
this segment. Once the ACP is
improvements at
ACP will be implemented with
supplemental to those
to private properties will occur
of what happens on US 34.
Wilson Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
V
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Taft Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Parking
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Parking concerns at Lake Loveland would
conjunction with other projects.
be addressed
in
Multimodal Elements
Bicycle and pedestrian regional connections along US 34
Y
N
V
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Planned bike lanes. Planned Regional Bike Route.
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility
improvements/enhancements
V
N
Y
Y
Carried
Forward as Supplemental Element
Transit service on US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Important to fill in gaps
Other Physical Elements
Drainage improvements
V
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Evaluate storm sewer drainage
throughout Loveland
Wildlife crossings
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
This segment falls within an urban area, with limited need for
wildlife crossing identified
Localized safety improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried
Forward as Supplemental Element
Railroad crossing improvements
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
No railroads located within this segment
Utilities
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
Modifications to existing utilities would be built in conjunction
with other projects.
Operational Elements
Existing Technologies
V
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Emerging Technologies
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Incident management
Y
N
N
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Accessible to maintenance personal
Y
N
N
N
Carried
Forward as Supplemental Element
Notes: From Morning Drive to Taft Avenue the typical section is 4 lanes with a painted median, variable shoulder widths, and sidewalks. An area of the shoulder is striped as a bike lane. Between Taft Avenue and North Garfield Avenue the median is raised with variable shoulder widths and sidewalks.
Loveland Urban Level 1
Page 13
Table 2
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Loveland 6 -Lane Segment
Level 1 Evaluation Table
NOTE: At Level 1, each segment is being evaluated individually. Subsequent levels of evaluation will include a review of the dependencies and continuity of elements, and combinations of elements, between the six segments.
Level 1 result classifications are defined as:
Carried Forward as Core Concept = has the potential to address the project's purpose and need by itself (i.e., standalone).
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element = has the potential to enhance the Core Concept(s).
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation = will not be evaluated further in the study due to comparatively negligible benefits, and/or higher impacts than other concepts/elements.
Eliminated = does not meet the Purpose and Need established within this study.
Concept for Loveland 6 -Lane: N Garfield Ave to Rocky Mountain
Ave
INCREASES
SAFELY?
ACCOMMODATES
TRAVEL DEMAND?
INCREASES
TRAVEL RELIABLITY?
SUPPORTS
LOCAL
MOBILITY?
ACCESS
AND
RESULT
LEVEL 1 EVALUATION
of
COMMEN
No Action
N
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Although the No Action does not meet the purpose and
is advanced as a baseline condition for comparison.
need, it
Roadway Elements
Add lanes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add
/ expand auxiliary lanes
Y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add
frontage roads
N
N
Y
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
Segment does not require frontage roads
Design Criteria (lane width,
freight movement)
horizontal & vertical, curves,
y
V
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Access
Median Improvements
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Medians would be built in conjunction with other projects.
Consolidate access
V
N
Y
Y
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
An
adopted
public
public
projects.
with
ACP is being
the
streets
projects
Consolidation
local development
developed
individual
identified
and
for this segment. Once the ACP
interchange/intersection improvements
in the ACP will be implemented
are considered supplemental to those
of access to private properties will
regardless of what happens on
is
at
with
occur
US 34.
Cleveland Avenue / Lincoln Avenue (US 287) intersection
improvements
y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Parking
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
Parking impacts to businesses will be evaluated in conjunction
with other projects. No specific locations identified.
Multimadal Elements
Bicycle and pedestrian regional connections along US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward
as Supplemental Element
Planned Regional Bikeway 8: BNSF Fort Collins/Berthoud .
Planned bike lanes.
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility
improvements/enhancements
Y
N
V
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Minimize US 34 as a barrier.
Transit service on US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Important to complete missing gaps.
Other Physical Elements _
Drainage improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Evaluate storm sewer drainage throughout Loveland
Wildlife crossings
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
This segment falls within an urban area, with limited need for
wildlife crossing identified
Localized safety improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Railroad crossing improvements
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
The RR crosses under
will be evaluated
US 34 in this segment. Impacts to the RR
with roadway alternatives.
Utilities
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
Modifications to existing utilities would be built in conjunction
with other projects.
Operational Elements a
l
Existing
Technologies
Y
Y
Y
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Emerging Technologies
V
Y
Y
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Incident management
N
N
V
V
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Accessible to maintenance personal
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Notes: From North Garfield Avenue to Monroe Avenue the typical section is 4 lanes with a raised median, variable shoulder widths and sidewalks. The typical section from Monroe Avenue to Denver Avenue is 6-10' lanes with a raised median, 1 foot shoulders and sidewalks. Between Denver Avenue and Rocky Mountain Avenue the typical section is 4
lanes with a depressed median, 3' inside shoulders and variable outside shoulders. Sidewalks are detached at various locations. The City of Loveland is reconstructing this segment to a 6 lane typical section.
Loveland 6 -Lane Level 1
Page 14
Table 2
COLORADO
Depavannot of Mt Apo tati on.
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 1 Evaluation Table
NOTE: At Level 1, each segment is being evaluated individually. Subsequent levels of evaluation will include a review of the dependencies and continuity of elements, and combinations of elements, between the six segments.
Level 1 result classifications are defined as:
Carried Forward as Core Concept = has the potential to address the project's purpose and need by itself (i.e., standalone).
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element = has the potential to enhance the Core Concept(s).
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation = will not be evaluated further in the study due to comparatively negligible benefits, and/or higher impacts than other concepts/elements.
Eliminated = does not meet the Purpose and Need established within this study.
Concepts
Hwy 257
for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson
_
Pkwy to East of
INCREASES
SAFETY?
ACCOMMODATES
TRAVEL DEMAND?
INCREASES
TRAVEL REUABIUTY?
SUPPORTS
LOCAL
MOBILITY?
ACCESS AND
RESULT
LEVEL 1
EVALUATION
of
COMMENTS
No Action
N
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Although the No Action does not meet the purpose and need, it is
advanced as a baseline condition for comparison.
Roadway Elements
Add lanes
V
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add / expand auxiliary lanes
V
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add frontage roads
N
N
V
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
Segment does not require frontage roads
Design Criteria (lane width, horizontal & vertical, curves, freight
movement)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Access
Median Improvements
V
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Medians would be built in conjunction with other projects.
Consolidate access
Y
N
Y
Y
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
This segment has an adopted ACP. The individual
interchange/intersection improvements at public streets identified in the
ACP will be implemented with public projects and are considered
supplemental to those projects. Consolidation of access to private
properties will occur with local development regardless of what happens
on US 34..
Larimer Parkway (LCR 3E) intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
LCR 3 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
WCR 13 intersection improvements
V
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
WCR 15 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
WCR 17 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Us 34 Business intersection improvements
Y
Y
V
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
WCR 19/US 257 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Parking
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation
Parking impacts to businesses will be evaluated in conjunction with other
projects. No specific locations identified.
Multimodal Elements
Bicycle and pedestrian regional connections along US 34
Y
N
N
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental
Element
Planned Regional Bikeways 4 and 9 cross US 34
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements/enhancements
Y
N
N
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
The west end of the project has the potential for sidewalk connections
and pedestrian crossings.
Transit service on US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental
Element
This was attempted in the past US 34 Express. Ridership was low, talk
with NFRMPO about lessons learned.
Other Physical Elements
Drainage improvements
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Drainage improvements will be evaluated
projects. No specific locations identified.
in conjunction with other
Wildlife crossings
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Wildlife related crashes not identified as an issue in this segment,
therefore the need for crossings is minimal
Localized safety improvements
'1
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Railroad crossing improvements
N
`f
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Grade Separated rail would be very helpful in this segment.
Utilities
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
Modifications to existing utilities would be built in conjunction with other
projects.
Operational Elements
Existing Technologies
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Emerging Technologies
V
r`
,s
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Incident management
Y
N
V
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Accessible to maintenance personal
N
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental
Element
Notes: The typical section is 4 lanes with a depressed median, 3' inside shoulders and variable width outside shoulders.
Johnstown -Greeley Level 1
Page 15
Table 2
COLORADO
partm ant of Trmnspcurtati as i
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 1 Evaluation Table
NOTE: At Level 1, each segment is being evaluated individually. Subsequent levels of evaluation will include a review of the dependencies and continuity of elements, and combinations of elements, between the six segments.
Level 1 result classifications are defined as:
Carried Forward as Core Concept = has the potential to address the project's purpose and need by itself (i.e., standalone).
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element = has the potential to enhance the Core Concept(s).
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation = will not be evaluated further in the study due to comparatively negligible benefits, andfor higher impacts than other concepts/elements.
Eliminated = does not meet the Purpose and Need established within this study.
Concepts
for Greeley
Expressway: East
of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
INCREASES
SAFETY?
ACCOMMODATES
TRAVEL
DEMAND?
INCREASES
TRAVEL RELIABILITY?
SURPOR7
LOCAL
MOBIUT
ACCESS AND
n
i_
RESULT
LEVEL 1
EVALUATION
of
COMMENTS
No Action
N
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Although the No Action does not meet the purpose and need, it is advanced
as a baseline condition for comparison.
Roadway Elements
Add lanes
Y
'V'
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add
/ expand
auxiliary lanes
M
V
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add frontage roads
N
N
'Y
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Segment does not require frontage roads
Design Criteria (lane width, horizontal & vertical, curves, freight
movement)
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Access
Median Improvements
Y
N
Y
V
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Medians would be built in conjunction with other projects.
Consolidate access
Y
N
Y
Y
Not recommended for Further
Evaluation.
This segment has an adopted ACP. The
improvements at public streets identified
with public projects and are considered
Consolidation of access to private properties
development regardless of what happens
individual interchange/intersection
in the ACP will be implemented
supplemental to those projects.
will occur with local
on US 34.
Promontory Parkway
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
95th Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
83rd Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
There is a temporary signal that needs to be upgraded at this location.
71st Ave/65th Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
47th Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
35th Ave intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
23rd Ave intersection improvements
V
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
17th Ave intersection improvements
y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Parking
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Parking impacts to businesses will be evaluated in conjunction with other
projects. No specific locations identified.
Multimodal Elements
Bicycle and pedestrian regional connections along US 34
Y
N
Y
V
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Proposed Bypass Trail parallels US 34/Existing Bypass Trail at 61st. Planned
Regional Bikeway.
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements/enhancements
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Proposed Sheep Draw Trail would
complete missing gaps. Several planned
intersection improvements in eastern
cross near 95th Ave. Important to
pedestrian and trail oriented
portion.
Transit service on US 34
Y
N
Y
V
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
This was attempted in the past as part of the US 34 Express. Ridership was
low talk to NFRMPO for lessons learned.
Other Physical Elements
Drainage improvements
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Drainage improvements will be evaluated in conjunction with other
projects. No specific locations identified.
Wildlife crossings
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Wildlife related crashes not identified as an issue in this segment, therefore
the need for crossings is minimal
Localized safety improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Railroad crossing improvements
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
No railroads located within this segment
Utilities
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further
Evaluation.
Modifications to existing utilities would be built in conjunction with other
projects.
Operational Elements
Existing Technologies
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Emerging Technologies
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Incident management
V
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental
Element
Accessible to maintenance personal
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Notes: The typical section is 4 lanes with a depressed median, 1'-4' inside shoulders and variable width outside shoulders.
Greeley Expressway Level 1
Page 16
Table 2
COLORADO
lepartrttent of Transpa tatirnt
East End Segment
Level 1 Evaluation Table
NOTE: At Level 1, each segment is being evaluated individually. Subsequent levels of evaluation will include a review of the dependencies and continuity of elements, and combinations of elements, between the six segments.
Level 1 result classifications are defined as:
Carried Forward as Core Concept = has the potential to address the project's purpose and need by itself li.e., standalone).
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element = has the potential to enhance the Core Concept(s).
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation = will not be evaluated further in the study due to comparatively negligible benefits, and/or higher impacts than other concepts/elements.
Eliminated = does not meet the Purpose and Need established within this study.
Concepts
for East End: lst Ave to Weld
County Road
49
(WCR 49)
INCREASES
SAFETY?
ACCOMMODATES
TRAVEL
DEMAND?
INCREASES
TRAVEL RELIABILITY?
SUPPORTS
LOCAL
MOBILITY?
ACCESS AND
RESULT
LEVEL 1
of
COMMENTS
EVALUATION
No Action
N
Y
N
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Although the No Action does not meet the purpose and need, it is
advanced as a baseline condition for comparison.
Roadway Elements
Add lanes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Add / expand auxiliary lanes
Y
V
Y
Y
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Add frontage roads
N
N
Y
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Segment does not require frontage roads
Design Criteria (lane width, horizontal & vertical, curves, freight
movement)
Y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Access
Median Improvements
Y
N
N
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Medians would be built in conjunction with other projects.
Consolidate access
V
N
Y
Y
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
This segment has an adopted ACP. The individual interchange/intersection
improvements at public streets identified in the ACP will be implemented
with public projects and are considered supplemental to those projects.
Consolidation of access to private properties will occur with local
development regardless of what happens on US 34.
27th Street (frontage road) intersection improvements
Y
Y
y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Future projects would need to comply with the ACP
WCR 45 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Future projects would need to comply with the ACP
US 34 Business intersection improvements
V
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
WCR 45.5 intersection improvements
V
Y
V
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Future projects would need to comply with the ACP
WCR 47 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
V
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Future projects would need to comply with the ACP
WCR 47.5 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Future projects would need to comply with the ACP
WCR 49 intersection improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Core Concept
Future projects would need to comply with the ACP
Parking
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Parking impacts to businesses will be evaluated in conjunction with other
projects. No specific locations identified.
Multimodal Elements
Bicycle and pedestrian regional connections along US 34
Y
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
South Platte/American Discovery Trail crosses under US 34. Improvements
would need to consider the proposed regional trail that follows the South
Platte River. US 34 is shown as a Regional Bikeway in the NOCO Non
Motorized Plan.
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements/enhancements
V
N
N
V
Carried Forward as Supplemental
Element
Currently there are no proposed sidewalks or trails in this area to connect
to.
Transit service on US 34
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
This area does not have existing or proposed transit services.
Other Physical Elements
Drainage improvements
N
N
N
N
Not recommended for Further Evaluation.
Drainage improvements will be evaluated
projects. No specific locations identified.
in conjunction with other
Wildlife crossings
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Localized safety improvements
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Railroad crossing improvements
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
There is not an active railway in this segment.
Utilities
N
N
N
N
Not Recommended for Further Evaluation.
Modifications to existing utilities would be built in conjunction with other
projects.
Operational Elements
Existing Technologies
V
N
Y
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Existing signalized intersections have corridor surveillance, additional
locations would not improve corridor surveillance
Emerging Technologies
Y
N
V
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Rural setting of Segment is not conducive to maximizing benefit from this
supplemental element.
Incident management
V
N
V
Y
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Accessible to maintenance personal
Y
N
N
N
Carried Forward as Supplemental Element
Notes: The typical section is 4 lanes with a painted median and 10' shoulders.
East End Level 1
Page 17
7.0 Level 2 Concepts and Evaluation
For Level 2 Evaluation, the Core Concepts were further refined into either segment wide improvements
and/or concepts at specific locations (i.e. at "Accesses"). Conceptual designs were developed for each
concept and an approximate footprint determined if that concept was outside of existing right-of-way.
The PEL team used these concept layouts and a Level 2 rubric to evaluate, compare, and quantify (if
applicable) each concept. The results are shown in the evaluation matrices in this section.
This section summarizes how Level 2 Concepts were developed and evaluated for each segment.
7.1 Level 2 Concept Development
Roadway improvements (improvements along a stretch of US 34) and access improvements
(improvements at intersection locations) identified as core concepts within the Level 1 evaluationwere
further developed and refined to meet the needs of the roadway segment or a specific access location
within the segment. Design details were added to concepts, as appropriate, to understand traffic
operations and potential environmental effects.
The roadway improvements and the core concepts access improvements were evaluated separately in
Level 2. Concepts considered throughout the corridor are described below:
• Added Lanes — 2 additional lanes (one each way) throughout the length of each segment
• Localized design deficiencies - identified in the Existing Conditions Report (Appendix B to
the PEL Report) and discussed in the Purpose and Need.
• Intersections — improvements were considered to meet the purpose and Need —
specifically traffic demand and safety. Attachment 01 provides Intersection Crash
Analysis data.
At the intersections listed in each segment's concept descriptions, at least one of the below
options were considered as a concept:
• Restricted access — Reduce full movement to "3/4" (lefts in, right turns only, no left -outs) or
right -turn -only.
• Signalization — locations where signal warrants are anticipated to be met in before or in the
Year 2040 planning horizon and at locations previously identified in the ACP.
• New/improved auxiliary lanes - locations where auxiliary lanes would improve safety and/
or traffic flow.
• Non -Traditional solutions:
o Channelized T — at T intersections, provides a dedicated auxiliary lane for left
turning vehicles
o Indirect Lefts - either signalized or unsignalized
• Roundabout intersection - an alternative to signalization which may be a reasonable
solution at selected locations.
• Grade separated interchange - Locations at identified high accident intersections and/or
locations with high conflicting traffic and travel delay, mostly locations previously identified
in the ACP.
Page 18
7.1.1 Concept Development - Foothills, Loveland Urban, and Loveland 6 -Lanes
Segments
The Foothills, Loveland Urban, and Loveland 6 -Lane segments, on the west side of 1-25, had fewer
reasonable concepts considered than other segments, since much of that segment is urbanized and
unlikely to change and portions are constrained by the Big Thompson River. The 2006 EA also previously
defined and cleared improvements in the Loveland 6 -Lane segment.
The concepts by segment are organized in the table below, with graphics or verbal descriptions of what
was considered at each location. In this area, an Access Control Plan (ACP) is being developed
concurrent with this PEL (to be completed after the PEL). The concepts developed for this segment
adhere to best -practice Access Control Plan principles, so should be consistent with the future ACP.
Table 3 - Level 2 Concepts — Foothills Segment, illustrates the Roadway and Access category concept
descriptions developed for the Foothills segment.
Table 3- Level 2 Concepts— Foothills Segment
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
Roadway
Add/improve
shoulders,
Road
Drive
to
Morning
-
Glade
1•_4' Glade Rd toMorrringDr 2"_8'
Shoulder
Shoulder
�.variesl
• 17 ..
12'
I
(varies)
Ti avel Lane
Travel Lane
*
a
c
Roadway
Add/improve
auxiliary
or
shoulders,
and
Morning
left
Rossum
turn
lanes,
-
Drive
lanes
LCR
to
right
27;
and
Roadway
8'
12
12'
it
12'
r,
Shoulder
Lane
turn
Lane
1
Lane
haulei:r
(-1-sr
1- _
: -
i=T_
Roadway
to
(5
Morning
improve
-lanes
- Add
capacity
Rossum
Drive)
lanes
to
l
—►
1
-.._-_
e,
i�
4
r?"
`
-
i"
-
—Ayv
a .
F
-
s
___.:_
I
-_perars.-- . rar--\\;\ I
II
erihl
i, • 11
IL.
--t la t `; 1
I
Page 19
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
Access—
Added
Left
LCR
27
turn lane
°J
9
M
1�
r
Access—
Glade
Road
Traffic
signal
added
when
warranted.
No
conceptual
design
necessary.
lanes.
lanes
Access—
Morning
Cascade.
two-way
more
transition
defined
on
on
Provide
the
the
Rossum
Drive
Provide
left
fro
/'
turn
m
east
west
a
to
to 3
----____� _—
C
,/
``+
.�
,,_'
`
1
-'"
-
r \�\
1
Slanes
/ —
i
!
t----i�,
Access—
at
Rossum
Roundabout
Drive
r'
IV
1
Access—
(Existing
a
defined
would
with
Morning
a
Channelized
it
n
r��e(i
median
be
by
Improve
ed
Drive
condition
striping;
improved
T
islands)
at
is
it
i
-
1
'-'
,
a , d
.
i`;:
�
s ;,
,
,
-
`
•;
y
=_
„iij
r,
i
_
, , :ly r arid
-
- 4
--piz
� _
�' _
t
! • .,
.
Healthy Choice ,
..-
111
Page 20
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
Access
at
Morning
—
Roundabout
Drive
y
'
_._,
M
q
1
''
' AA
�roil
'L
Access—
Median,
Morning
Raised
Rossum
Drive
to
e
i
'�
1�
u
�
I
ar.
1 1 ''
t
r
Page 21
Table 4 - Level 2 Concepts — Loveland Urban Segment, illustrates the Roadway and Access category
concept descriptions developed for the Loveland Urban segment.
Table 4 - Level 2 Concepts - Loveland Urban Segment
Roadway
or Access
Concept
lanes
Roadway
-
at major
Add
intersections
/ expand
auxiliary
intersection
category.
revised
further
description.
when
properties
consistent
concept
with
Future
existing
Auxiliary
redevelop
with
refinement
the
needs
lane
and/or
State
was
are
needs
Highway
completed
access
addressed
would
points
Access
in the
be evaluated
are
Code.
beyond
the
Access
added
No
or
Roadway
entire segment,
arterial
- Add
additional
results
in
lanes
6 -lane
on
No
description.
further
concept
refinement
was completed
beyond
the
Access
turns
rights)
all
—
directions
Wilson
Ave.
(shared
—
Double
thru-
-left
Traffic analysis
existing
right turn
pavement.
lanes
concept
and
(Re
add
that
-allocate
a
would
2nd left
pavement
turn
be
a restriping
used
lane')
for
project
separate
on
Access
turns
rights)
all
— Taft
directions
Ave.
—
Double
-left
thru-
Traffic
existing
right
analysis
turn
pavement.
lanes
concept
and
(Re
add
-allocate
that
a
would
2nd left
pavement
turn
be
a restriping
used
lane)
for
project
separate
on
(shared
Page 22
Table 5 - Level 2 Concepts — Loveland 6 -Lane provides concept descriptions for Loveland 6. -Lane
segment. Because the 2007 EA identified proposed improvements for most of this corridor, few
reasonable concepts were identified to meet the Purpose and Need. At the request of the City of
Loveland, the Study team conducted additional analysis at the Cleveland/Lincoln (US 287) intersection
area.
Table 5 - Level 2 Concepts: Loveland 6 -Lane
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
intersections
Roadway
auxiliary
lanes
- Add
/ expand
at major
Intersection
Future
redevelop
the
completed
State
Auxiliary
Highway
and/or
beyond
with
laneneeds
existing
access
Access
the
description.
needs
would
points
Code.
are
are
No
be
added
addressed
further
evaluated
or
concept
revised
in the
when
Access
consistent
refinement
properties
category.
with
was
Roadway-
through
from
Lincoln
lanes,
Add
to
6
additional
-lane
Monroe
arterial
'�'''
N Garfield
Ave
to Greeley
&
Loveland
Ditch
Side Pkwy
Bike
Travel
Lane Travel Travel
2'
Median
�'
Travel
Travel 1•
I Travel ' Lane Bike Pkwy si,
Walk Varies
Lan
I
Bares Lane Lane
Varies
Lane
Lane Varies ane Varies Walk
6'---0-'I D'
7'
7�'�{�12'
4"-52'
T---I--D-12'� T 0-1'0' 6'
utilities �!
—O42'--�—
Left
Left
a
Left Len—Ut11RIe5
—12'-1—•
i
Turn
Lane
Turn
Lane
Tire Turn
Lane Lane
i
o
cr
1 2'
12'
SQL'
w-8'
1,.2' 1 2'
0
is
From 2007
US 34
Environmental
County
.176'
Road
Assessment
No.
3
-
US
287 to
Larimer
Roadway
through
25
to
Boise
lanes,
— Add
additional
8 -lane
arterial,
l-
No
description.
further
concept refinement
was completed
beyond
the
double
updated
1997
Access—
East-West
left
Cleveland
from
turn
lanes.
2007
corridor
/
EA
Lincoln
Design
and
study.
y .
_ -
q
�„
=
_
'
'
-
-
eQII\
‘
�.fr.�-
I`,.,"
s
t��_
-
L
_
_
-----
r_- _ ----_
=�,f.�-z__-A
Mrel
r-
............................................
1
lane
Access
(from
Hourglass
1997
— Cleveland
East-West
Roundabout
/
Lincoln
study)
2-
*
a
a
,A
'
°F `�
%iltS
_,--
= . If
-- .
+'
:-,
.._
.
.
'�
, �i4
' —
�eea
_i
—
3=_
i
or
eas M
_
_ .mot
Lilt -1--1
ft
_
— t
(omit
'
e u
` a
I
at
r-
a d i
1- •
i
i
.'
(5
„,
if
iin
LS
�2
'_ a
r_ni
1
�i
- -
44
!
44
_.
a; r
W:' - U s*. mss.
Page 23
I oad
or
Access
Concept
Access
Have
make
out
be
-of
added
left
—
a
-direction.
right
Indirect
turns
at
and
15th
from
left
and
go
Signals
one
turn
US
13th.
34
lanes.
block
would
_
_-
h-,--)
.:
(-
�_ _':__
:
"•'i
:,
'P
+rr
7
$IC'
r
..
C
e
.
or st
so
i'Ma
irk
ti
r
'In
s_
IiillEaSIL 11'
Access
Updated
2040
ROW
assignment,
roundabout
traffic
availability,
-
3
design
-lane
volumes,
and
design
roundabouts
to
Advance
other
consider
elements.
current
modern
lane
,1
4�--, �\
�'�hrF�
.1
,
�-
f
i
—,
'
��
a
'
�
J'/,f/off/'1�
J
f•K.1
„tier,
fl
J
-
_ --
1(
t
11
art
= I
I
--
i
urrice I I
ii '
lirraly W 'nY
ft'
7.1.2 Level 2 Concept Development - Johnstown — Greeley and Greeley
Expressway Segments
There are multiple options available for the Johnstown -Greeley and Greeley Expressway segments. The
concept of widening / adding lanes in these segments was evaluated by looking at the cross section
widening opportunities. The original construction of these segments of US 4 provided a generous
median and right-of-way throughout most of these two segments, so the ability to widen in these
segments should be relatively straightforward. The conceptual approach to achieving a 6 -lane cross
section is described and shown below;
• Lorimer Pkwy to 71st Ave. (Johnstown -Greeley and part of the Greeley Expressway) -
Existing 52 ft. median, widen additional lanes into median, results in a remainder 28 ft. median
+� 71st Ave. to 23rd Ave. (Greeley Expressway) -
Existing 28 ft. median, widen far additional lanes to the outside (existing shoulder becomes a
lane, widening primarily provides new shoulder)
23rd Ave. to 17th / 11th (Greeley Expressway) -
Existing median is variable, overall ROW is narrower, 6 lane cross section could fit with median
narrowing, reduced shoulder & turn lane widths at some locations.
Page 24
Figure 3 below shows the attributes of the cross sections described above.
Figure 3 - Level 2 Roadway Concepts: Widening to 6 Lanes in Johnstown - Greeley and Greeley
Expressway Segments
7-10"
4,
Shoulder
(varies)
immaNNES
4' Shoulder
12'
4 _
New Lane
At intersections im.4
12'
s
Travel Lane
At intersections a,
Approach to Achieving
6 -Through Lane
Cross Section
Centerra Parkway
to 71st Ave
21
Median
Approach to Achieving
6 -Through Lane
Cross Section
listAve to 23rd Ave
4' Shoulder
12'
y t
New Lane
4' Shoulder
24'
Left Turni
Raised
Median
4' Shoulder
12'
Travel Lane
2r-1Or
i r
Shoulder
(varies)
Page 25
In the Johnstown -Greeley, Greeley Expressway, and East End segments, the US 34 Access Control Plan
(ACP) from 2003 was the guiding document to determine possible signalized, interchange, and limited
turn locations. A summary graphic of the 2003 ACP is shown in Figure 4 below:
Figure 4 - 2003 US 34 Access Control Plan
a
4
M
r
4
r
N
r
i
•
4
i
I
I
4
4
N
i
I
4
a
WINDSOR
2YT t s rs rte! 1t i 7fi if i4f4*4 S
4-)
4i MO SIP
A
WELD
w
Configuration
previously determined
or will be determined by
ongoing study
Restricted Turns Ultimate Interchange
htersection Interim Traffic Signal
•, Ultimate
Interchange
Ultimate Traffic um. Existing ACP Limits
Sill
This ACP has been in place for several years, and local jurisdictions have honored the ACP during
ongoing private land development projects and public roadway projects. CDOT and the jurisdictions
have been able to partner to secure additional right-of-way at many of the locations identified as
ultimate interchanges. This provided some initial guidance to the project team in developing
interchange concepts and provided more focus on the possible range of concepts. While it is possible
for the PEL process to deviate from the ACP, this ACP was developed using well -established access
management and design principles, so changes to the plan were not deemed necessary.
The concept development for the interchanges was done with a very high-level and conceptual
engineering approach due to the lack of detailed mapping. In general, the interchanges were
conceptually designed on a "flat earth" assumption for vertical elements.
Interchange Considerations
Level 2 Access Concepts included grade separated interchanges at several locations. At proposed
interchanges, a reasonably conservative interchange footprint was designed to estimate the
environment impacts and the approximate ROW required at locations where ROW was not already
preserved. A conceptual cost range for interchange, intersection, or roadway segment improvements
could be determined by developing a conceptual design.
At all locations where an interchange was a potential long-term concept, the Standard Diamond
Interchange (SDI) was the initial concept developed. A SDI is the most common interchange type,
usually meets traffic needs, results in a reasonably conservative footprint, is consistent with the ACP and
previous Right -of -Way (ROW) preservation, and generally is cost-efficient when ROW is available. An
SDI has flexibility with both profiles (over-under) and traffic control type for different traffic demands
(standard signals, diverging diamond, roundabouts).
Page 26
At locations where the SDI footprint would likely impact developed properties, a Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUD was shown as the base concept. The primary benefit of the SPUI is to be able to fit
more constrained ROW footprints, although there is less operational flexibility of the traffic control type,
and generally higher costs for bridge structures and walls. Finally, there are several locations in this
corridor where a unique or custom interchange design will likely be required to fit constraints. The
interchange concept approach is summarized in Table 6 below:
Table 6 - Interchange Type Development Approach
I
Standard
Diamond
{SDI)
•
•
•
Driver
easy
signing
Typically
effective
Operationally
efficient
traffic
options
for
familiarity,
control
directional
cost
with
several
• Likely
acquisition
optimize
cost
effectiveness
need
design
to
ROW
and
1
N
Thi;tz.s.c,
34
Standard Diamond
Cross Street
Diverging
Diamond
(DDI)
N
•
•
•
•
Easy
signing
Typically
effective
Well
locations
left
Usually
footprint
turns
for
suited
directional
smaller
cost
with
than
to
high
SDI
ROW
•
ideas
Some
resistance
configurations
public
!
to new
7
"�„
iiii
Diverging Diamond -NV
4 7
Cross Street
Diamond
with
Roundabout
intersections
•
•
•
•
Very
history
Easy
signing
Typically
effective
Good
familiarity
Colorado
Usually
footprint
good
for
driver
directional
smaller
cost
than
safety
in
SDI
ROW
•
If traffic
high
warrant
some
related
signing,
assignment,
confusion
enough
concerns
to
lane
volume
3 -lanes,
additional
to
driver
is
st
Ler
All
N
rvecivsits
34
.t•
Diamond with
Roundabouts
I
Cross
Street
Single
Point Urban Interchange
(SPUI)
A404'441..0
•
impacts
•
•
Ability
ROW
properties
Good
Easy
signing
area,
traffic
for
to
to
fit
limits
adjacent
a narrow
capacity
•
•
intersection,
High
structure
retaining
Less
traffic
due
clearance
cost
flexible
tolar
operations
and
wal
g
times,
with
e
for
usually
is
long
bridge
etc.
red
Sin
sinePoint
�
�directional
Urban interchange
Crass Street
Other
Unique
interchange
types
• Adapted
specific
to site
constraints
•
•
Driver
Additional
unique
familiarity
features
costs
for
Page 27
Another consideration at the PEL level of conceptual design was the most reasonable profile concept for
US 34 and for the cross street at the likely interchange locations. It appears that the most likely design
for interchanges along US 34 east of 1-25 will have US 34 elevated over the cross street. More detailed
design work may reveal other profile concepts to be feasible or cost effective, but constraints exist at
most locations that indicate that elevating US 34 over cross streets would be the most -likely scenario,
for reasons listed below;
• At railroad crossings, it is usually more feasible and cost effective to go over the railroad due to
railroad owner preferences and less construction complexity.
• Both railroads have canals or irrigation ditches nearby, and in addition the distance to convey
drainage of the lowered area to a natural channel makes lowering mainline US 34 difficult
throughout this corridor.
in developed areas, raising or lowering the cross streets may impact adjacent development
access onto cross streets and/or require retaining walls in some cases.
• At most locations in this corridor there has been a ROW dedication or preservation that is best
suited to the cross streets and ramps staying mostly at -grade, with US 34 mainline making the
vertical change (over or under).
• Existing cross street profiles are not flat, at some locations they fall away from US 34 at a rate
where a cross street profile change at U5 34 would result in the new cross street profile
"chasing" the existing profile for quite a distance. This occurs at both 47th and 83rd.
Page 28
Figure 5 below summarizes the US 4 or cross street profiles that were evaluated at a conceptual level
for this PEL concepts analysis.
Figure 5 - Interchange and Cross Street Profile Concepts
US 34 over cross street
at existing elevation
Cross street under [15 34
at existing elevation
Cross Street
Most likely profile scenario for
interchanges/ crossings east of 1-25
Page 29
Tables 7 and 8, Level 2 Concepts Johnstown — Greeley and Level 2 Concepts Greeley Expressway provide
conceptual design graphics at the intersection and interchange locations where the GIS mapping and
property information was used as a basis for a design concept. Additional information learned at each
location during the PEL process is included to assist future project teams when a higher level of study
and design is undertaken.
Table 7 — Level 2 Concepts —Johnstown — Greeley Segment
Roadway
or Access
Access —
Interchange
at Larimer
Pkwy
Access —
Interchange
at LCR 3
Concept
a
The romp intersections
of Centerro Pkwy would
need to include ES is
W8 through knee
through the signals to
serve the Lorimar Pkwy
ramps
Lorimer Pkway romps
would connect to the
4uture Centers
Parkway romps.
Most likely interchange wouin
be a "Single -Point" or SPUI
with US 34 over Lorimer Pkwy..
Ronald Reagan Blvd.
1 W
I
Sea CR 3 interchange
Icr continuation of US
34 over the UPRR
Like4y ROW acquisition
maimed in NE quodrer
N
S
(Ut
a as
PH
cult Gvut�t-I
property linewark, nol
-fl'. To Loun y
CI property boundaries en
Most Ilke y ties gel
sale tai a ..S
car Int Lr'dti .
Ronald Reagan Blvd.
Pay 2003 Acetyl CentrolPtar, inttlal
■bid bs Plod inter;octio`1.
Ultimate - when ..S 3' 'a recarstructed
over the UPRR, a bridge is cansMwctsd
et/near old CR 3, and the ire :eel pelage
all converted to Ritil-lr/ict,t-oc t.
ti
PrODIer
e-Lcrth, best -fit to
cwork, 44t..oi
Page 30
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
Access
Interchange
at WCR
13
irai
O
r-:eccky-Lavctcnd Ccra
r
f
f
✓ Yost Rely design would take US .34
over 4.he CWRR ace to adjacent canal
r,
! and vt'►er Roaagrcpnc cvrrsirci7ts
!
1 !
MN
Ifflesein..."="Liisre.
.
1
. routine Road
cul-de-sac Wenn, cc
coordinate tf:'vu
Due to **voted refit o? Atw US 34
r over the condi bow culverts nit! k&y
es re tacec w :ta t e'cigeh
access with drent
fl.k,n
_
y;
of QIenfn .
ep
_
-I Raundoocule crc *own as the printery
Otterralive tar ttiis hterchcrge boceuso
z
CI
I-
I
the lower speed design could shoe mar*
obalki gang q'odee to be net. ifi
pnrtieiIv', getting the We orrarnp horn
the ot-grodeGW.RR crossing on CR 13 ,K
fo the Us 34 be. ...- eves tie MM.
—
er
-
C
i•a' Y1a +oo' coo
Access
Access
at
WCR
15
—
r
ii
_ �ti
ti
i
Page 31
Roadway
or Access
Access -
Interchange
at WCR 17
1
/
Estimated RA.tit+. footprint on the other J -/
quadrants Is @quoito the R.U.W. dedication
in place in the northwest quadrert
/
Concept
N'
J
1
i
i
1
Most likely design would take US i
/ over C'R It due to drernoge god
/ through interthcrge
r
r
ti.
ti
_
•-Standard dlarnerd interchange configuration
shown as a reasonably conservative footprint.
Otter diamond configurdtons possible Oe.
rotrdaboc.ts cr divergiiq diorr onc)
0
W,
aCif
Page 32
Table 8 — Level 2 Concepts — Greeley Expressway Segment
IRoadway
or Access
Concept
Access —
Interchange
at
Promontory
Pkwy
Access —
interchange
at 83rd Ave.
�:or�dcrC demonc interetange cor•iguraCCM
510 WI 35 C '1ff5C1Ct'Y7jr ccrserti•3t M!
foc:p'nt. Qther ciurronel eor'igurfl::ons
possbte Ge. •CundQ CUta or dvcGing
aorrond) or Si-rgis Paint (SP.,!)
i
Lics: 'e3eb e
motile love US vl go
over ,Procncr:ory P.cw
J
et -
R711 acq_ sUan Or cedcc:ion .n t/
fair grsarrant a 10 p+ev-de sisece
fcr da r,nd Hierchcr•
too
AO te
Mrlois from Gcog e-Ecrth, best -fl to Cody GIS
Property Ins.crk, ectiSgrowty ooundries way very
Previously dedicated or
preserved RC'N
northern two queCrcnts
Some ROW acquisition
Ikel In southwest
rant
Aerials from Google-Eorthr best -fit to County GIS
property 6neworkr actual property boundaries moy vary
Page 33
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
Access —
Interchange
at 71st
Ave
--
.�-�Ns:N._
�` CV?' /
;r' ?'
�
�l__� --�
N
1 r
__1�
— `, I
�~i-i—
( 1 rr�'\
Ali
P e>1 \
„tit
(r _
4\
liwuni.p.........,
;#mitim'smignigio
iv'
I
min mono Oil: ,,
I
-1 k
IC
I
_
ti r ' •
.
d.1 —I
I
rI
jL
I err ,
1�
itt
aril
ttFu I ia�i,
till
A►�
'S
t
r+
—
L1AC%
1
I
.1
1_ti l
I
___LL
Y
_
_
-Imo'-+__�.+aT
i+'•'. �� -
rr.
„.-"\---...__-=r_7..=_..,
~
~
-
-
I`s
1
—_______.•
I — Ii_
1.
l�r+�'.
_,
�,- �'4. 'rte' 1
-I
�.f
.. /}
1, /
_•
f
_
,, -- \
.) 1
r
4-L
I E
[
I
/
/
/
r—'�
�H
I—
fS
yis;
I
_.I..J._i
: I '—I
I I
L.
1
I
Interchange
Access
at
65th
—
J� Ave.PotentiolFrantage
4.
�►
—
Rood
65
provided
relocation
by Greeley
design
'Ilia
-
Proposed out -de -sec
on i.
Frontage Rood
-
zerEast
�
off
�!f
--
P'reviouely dedicated �'
preserved RDW on
r
Meal
M
fea ale design -
southwest auodrentwould
Over
have 34 94 '
65th Ave.
- Single Pant
(SRA)
S
interchange
configuration
shown due
to development
an
north aide
a pp. a6p•
of US 34
,yap0
L-1
ffiJiC). air
zip
I
H1
• m, G ... a -Earth b f" t S
I k actually° Oa ndarieerr4 vary
}�--
ED
et y
Page 34
Access —
Interchae
at 47th Ave
Access —
Interchange
at 35th Ave.
1
Prev.cJsly dedicated or
preserved ROW on all
four quadrants
SNIP
Centerpiece Drive
Standord diamond interchange
configuration shown es a reasonably 1
conservative footprint. Other diamond
configuraitons posvble Cie, diverging
d anwnd or Smile Point -SPUD
Coo'. - or - it
y li w• ., - c- rty. b .und ie rn or
‘;$
r
ai
4.
to
r
The roundabout is a fteuibie
solution for this location since it
Slows the westbound off -ramp to
have access to 28th St., 1"
dscourages wrong -way traffic on
the ramp, and allows 26th St. to
retain 2 -way access -
A2 sume that the eastbound
a cramp wiilbe no further south
than the existing US 34 pave-nen
to not impact the cemetery,
9
Aerids from Googie-Ea th, best--fb t county i.
property [rework, actua property a dories rniy vary
�--. q l
Page 35
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
Access
Channefized
-T
Ave.
—
at 17th
\L
?.\HTTk
Lli
_
Ns . er •i ct,on to north a cn :?lr awen,c-
of ,
-
— - except for r),-at.LG:rions
^.-'nc
r
T"
I
or Ida
i:ratcgy
world
kcap
a tut
-Unit
S
[gut for
MAI:bound
traffic
(omega
a
_
....grccrt
.1116
pcdx:r on pushes
'No
wok
button).
This
claws 2
(�
�^
t
e' tuna out of :l?:n Ave.t a i
fir an it':
-
arms to
prcvdc
rccrly
3 -lanes
or
1114l.restaouna
t.J'n
erotion lone ;.0 west` aunc
acre jo'n
.2S ,',4
cepacit
i
II
1
[
I
---e.-a-"---L
5
®
N
E
#%
L
•
I
ur
20p 40C our
/
groper lire+vork,
aouncorl
may vary
t.,
,y
actaalpropertf
a
l
L
I
I
�
r
i
T
Access—
Interchanger
at 17th
Ave.
iii±di
i
\c-
H--\
\--H
W
I
I I I 1 t i
.,
Most feos�ale design,
_
__
■auto nave US 34 go
17th Ave-
L
over
-
1
1
e�
Raising
the US
34
]]
k
roadway
wexild
require
I��
_
retaining
walls
on
bats,
the
north
and
south
sides
at
the hi
httw�
wo
jjTT-
j
With this
alternative,
17th Avenue
cross
there
would be
no
section would hove `y
connection
between
US
�-
3 -lases, blue tones,
and
3# and
]7th Avenue..
.-.
sidewalks
6
��
r
,
a. el
t a° sass ica eoa
, Vfi-13
yak -fit to ClItY G�
-
property
firework, actual
property,boundarl
s may vary
legend for Tables 7 and
= Proposed Us 34 Improvements
= Local Roadways
Bridge Structures
=Raised Median Areas
= Potential Future Right -of -Way Line
Retaining Walls
Page 36
7.1.3 Concept Development - East End Segment
The East End segment Access category concepts utilized the US 34 Access Control Plan (ACP) from 2003
as the guiding document to determine possible signalized, and limited turn locations.
Table 9 - Level 2 Concepts— East End Segment, illustrates the Roadway and Access category concept
descriptions developed for the East End segment.
Table 9 - Level 2 Concepts — East End Segment
Roadway
or
Access
Concept
lanes,
Roadway
additional
expressway
results
-
through
Add
in
6
-lane
Not developed
beyond
the
description.
Access
Street
Road),
(Frontage
— 27th / 28th
% Access
Concept
boundaries.
Adjacent
would
to US
Likely
fit
34.
within
to
existing
be driven
by
pavement
redevelopment
and
ROW
I
Access—
reduce
in/right-out
WCR
to right-
45
Concept
boundaries.
would
Consistent
fit
within
existing
with
ACP.
pavement and
ROW
_l
qv,c
t�
,� .s se
Access
45
signalize
to
US
—
east,
34
Re
-align
line
Business,
up
WCR
Re -alignment
with
the
ACP.
of
WCR
45 would
likely
occur with
redevelopment,
consistent
F
-
1
diwith
-,.
ai
_____„,,,,,,,.,
•
0
c
Page 37
Roadway
or
Access
Conce
• t
Intersection,
Access — WCR
to % access
45.5
reduce
Concept
would
fit within
existing
pavement and
ROW
boundaries.
Consistent
with
ACP.
Likely
occurring
with
redevelopment
of
adjacent
parcels
Intersection,
Access - WCR
to 34 access
47
reduce
Concept
would
fit
within
existing
pavement and
ROW
boundaries.
Consistent
with
ACP.
Likely
occurring
with
redevelopment
of
adjacent
parcels
Intersection,
Access - WCR
to 3 access
47.5
reduce
Concept
would
fit within existing
and
Row
pavement
-_
�, ,,
E.
boundaries.
Consistent with
ACP.
- "�-'--.
Likely
occurring with
redevelopment
of adjacent
parcels
-a �f-
X1'7 a
p-' �"'l � �
7
1
7.2 Level 2 Evaluation Process
The purpose of the Level 2 evaluation was to compare how well concepts perform to meet the project
Purpose and Need while balancing environmental effects. The Level 2 evaluation criteria expanded on
measures from the Level 1 evaluation and provided additional criteria based on project goals.
The roadway and access concepts developed for Level 2 were compared to determine how well each
concept met the following evaluation criteria.
• Safety
Reduce crashes
o Reduce crash severity
Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
Improve roadway geometry
• Travel Demand
o Reduce congestion
o Serve demand
• Reliability
o Improve travel reliability
o Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
o Quality of traffic operations
• Mobility
o Provide local and regional route connectivity
o Enhance nonmotorized opportunities
o Provide additional travel choices
o Improve bicycle connectivity
o Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Page 38
• Freight
o Accommodate truck requirements
• Environmental
o Identify environmental effects
• Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
n Included in community land use and transportation plans
Improvements that were identified as supplemental elements in the Level 1 evaluation, including
existing and emerging technology were not evaluated in Level 2 but were retained to be included in
alternatives packaging and evaluation in Level 3.
7.2.1 Level 2 Evaluation Criteria
Specific performance measures were qualitatively compared, with some performance measures based
on quantitative measures, either with actual data (i.e. many of the traffic measures) or comparable
based on readily apparent information (i.e. safety comparisons, land area comparisons). The
performance measures were guided and informed by the technical work by the project team.
To guide the evaluation of the concepts in a consistent manner, the project team developed a rubric.
The rubric was the guidance of what the project team considered in each category while completing the
evaluation matrix. The use of color coding for each performance measure (green=positive, yellow =
neutral or no change, red=negative) provides a quick visual indication as to how concepts compare for
each performance measure.
The criteria, performance measures and rating definitions used to evaluate the Level 2 Concepts are
described in Table 10 - Level 2 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions,
below:
Table 10 Level 2 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions
Page 39
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
US 34 PEL
Level 2 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Ratings
Access Elemen,
A
Roadwa
Element
Safety
•
•
•'
• Improve
Reduce
Reduce
severity
Enhance
pedestrian/bike
safety
geometry
crashes
crash
roadway
Vehicle/vehicle
(change)
conflict
points
Decrease
exposure
= The
to
conflict
number
of vehicle/vehicle
points would
be reduced
conflict
as
a result
points
would
of this
decrease
concept
and/or
Neutral
balanced
=
the
or
number
would
of
not change
conflict
from
points and/or
existing
exposure
conditions
to conflict
points is
Increase
conflict
-
points
The
number
would
of
increase
vehicle/vehicle
as
a result
conflict
of
this
concept
points
and/or exposure
to
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle
conflict
points
(change)
Decrease
and/or
exposure
= The
number
to conflict
of
vehicle/pedestrian-bike
points
would
be reduced
conflict
as
a result
points
would
of this
concept
decrease
Neutral
balanced
= the
or
number
would
of
not change
conflict
from
points
existing
and/or
exposure
conditions
to conflict
points is
Increase
to conflict
=
The
points
number
would
of vehicle/pedestrian-bike
increase
as
a
result
of
this
conflict
concept
points and/or
exposure
Projected
crashes
(change)
total
number
of
Decrease
decrease
= The
(over
existing
projected
conditions)
number
of crashes
with
this
and/or
concept
exposure
to crashes
would
Neutral
change
=
substantially
the
number
of
from
projected
existing
crashes
conditions
and/or
exposure
to crashes
would
not
increase
Increase =
(over
The
existing
projected
conditions)
number
of crashes
with
this
and/or
concept
exposure
to crashes
would
Projected
and/or fatal
number
crashes
of injury
(change)
Decrease
decrease
= The
(over
existing
projected
conditions)
number
of crashes
with
this
and/or
concept
exposure
to crashes
would
No
not
Change
change
= the
substantially
number
of
from
projected
existing
crashes
conditions
and/or
exposure
to crashes
would
increase
Increase =
(over
The
existing
projected
conditions)
number
of crashes
with
this
and/or
concept
exposure
to crashes
would
Page 40
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Rating
-
,
,a •s
E
,i ,
k-
r.,
_ Elements
Travel
Demand
•
•
Reduce
congestion
Serve demand
Change
Traveled
in
(qualitative)
Vehicle
Miles
Decrease = There
existing conditions,
would
be a decrease
in qualitative
out of direction
travel
over
No Change
over
existing
= there
conditions
would
be minimal
change
in qualitative
out of direction
travel
Increase =
existing conditions
There
would
be in increase in qualitative
out of direction
travel
over
Level
of Service (L
► (change)
Improves
or more letter
no action
= Access
grade
LOS
when
improves
compared
by one
to
Improves
improves
Highway
when
or
compared
=
by
HCM
Urban
a
letter
to
LOS
Streets
for
grade
no
action
the
segment
or
Multilane
more
No
the
Change = Access
same as no action
LOS grade remains
No
Highway
not
action
Change
change
=HCM
or Urban
when
compared
LOS
Streets
for the
segment
to
Multilane
no
does
Worsens
or more letter
no action
= Access
grade
LOS
when
worsens
compared
by one
to
Worsens
Highway
worsens
compared
or
by
=
to
HCM
Urban
a
letter
no
action
LOS for
Streets
grade
the
segment
or
Multilane
more
when
Vehicle
(hours)
Hours
of Delay
(VHD)
Not Applicable
for Access Alternatives
Improves
improves
= VHD
compared
for
the segment
to no action
No
not
than
Change
significantly
for the
= VHD
no
action
for
statistically
the
segment
different
is
Worsens
worsens
= VHD
compared
for
the
to
segment
no action
Page 41
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
e
(Measurement)
ormance
�easu
rye
� - #
ngs
Access
Elements
Roadway
Elements
Reliability
• Improve
•
•
reliability
Provide
emergency
for
communities
Quality
Operations
adjacent
travel
of
Traffic
access
Travel
Time
Index
(ratio)
Not Applicable
for Access Alternatives
Improves
the
= US 34
segment improves
travel
time index
by 5% or
for
more
No
by
less
Change
than
= US 34
5%
travel
time changes
Worsens
worsens
= US 34
by 5% or
travel
more
time
index
location/segment
(%
Travel
change/minutes)
Time
by
Improves = US 34
by 5% or more.
travel
time improves
Improves =
segment improves
action
Travel
time
compared
for
the
US
to
the
34
no
No
by
less
Change
than
= US 34
5%segment
travel
time changes
No Change
action
=Travel
worsens
compared
time
for
the
to the
US 34
no
Worsens = US 34 travel
5% or more
time worsens
by
Worsens
segment
action
=Travel
worsens
time
compared
for the
US
to the
34
no
Page 42
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
a#egry
C(Measurement)
riterla
Performance
Measure
Ratings
Access
Elementte
4 Roadway
Elements
Mobilit
Y
•
�►
• Improve
•
Provide
Regional
C• Enhance
Motorized
Opportunities
Provide
travel
connectivity
Ability
preclude
transit/rail
onnectirity
choices
to
Local
additional
Route
Non-
bicycle
not
options
and
Access
(qualitative)
to transit
facilities
Improves
corridor
= This
for
motorized
concept
would
and
non
improve
-motorized
access
users
to
transit
facilities
in
the
US 34
No Change
US 34
corridor
=
This
concept
compared
to
would
existing
not change
conditions
accessibility
of
transit
facilities
in the
Worsens
corridor
= This
for
concept
motorized
would
and
non
reduce
-motorized
accessibility
users
of transit facilities
in the
US 34
Reduce
pedestrian
(qualitative)
barriers
and
for
bicycle
WS
travel
Yes =
bicyclists
This
concept
would
reduce
barriers to north/south
travel
for
pedestrians
and
No
pedestrians
Change
=
and
This
concept
bicyclists
would
not change
barriers to north/south
travel
for
No
pedestrians
= This
concept
and
would
bicyclists
create
additional
barriers
to north/south
travel
for
Improve
bicycle
(qualitative)
continuity
and
pedestrian
for
EPA/
travel
Yes
and
=
bicyclists
This
concept
would
improve
continuity of east/west travel
for pedestrians
No Change
bicyclists
=
over
This
concept
existing conditions
would
not change
east/west
travel
for
pedestrians
and
No
bicyclists
=
This
concept
would
disrupt
continuity
of east/west
travel
for
pedestrians
and
Page 43
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Ratings
Access
Elements
Roadway
Elements
Freight
• Accommodate
truck
requirements
Minimize
and/or
(YIN)
turning
out -of -direction
restrictions
travel
Yes
restrictions
= This
concept
for
freight
would
vehicles
minimize
out -of -direction
travel
and/or
access
No
change
change
= Out of direction
travel
and/or
access restrictions
for freight
do
not
No = This
restrictions
concept
for freight
would
vehicles
increase
out -of -direction
travel
and/or
impose
new access
Geometry accommodates
turning movements (V/N)
truck
Yes = The
Geometry
geometry
will
prevent
of
this
trucks
concept
from
can
impeding
accommodate
other
lanes
truck
and
turning
sidewalks
requirements.
No
requirements
change
= The
of
geometry
freight
vehicles
of
this
concept
are accommodated.
does
not
change
how turning
No
of
= The
freight
geometry
vehicles.
of this
Geometry
concept
will
will
cause
not accommodate
trucks to impede
the
other
turning
requirements
lanes and
sidewalks
Environmental
Identification
environmental
effects
of
Relative
(Good,
environmental
Fair,
Poor)
effects
Good
would
= This
have
concept
beneficial
would
environmental
result
in
limited
effects
adverse
environmental
effects
and/or
Fair =
mitigated
This
concept
would
have some adverse environmental
effects
that
could
be
Poor
require
=
This
extensive
concept
mitigation
would
have environmental
effects that
could
be substantial
or
Page 44
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Ratings
Access
Elements
Roadway
Elements
_
Transportation
Community/
LandUse,and
Priorities
• Included
community
use
transportation
plans
in
and
land
including
Sufficient
planned
Poor)
transportation
ACP
ROW
items
to accommodate
(Good,
projects,
Good = There
is sufficient
ROW
to accommodate
this concept
Fair,
Fair =
This
concept
could
require
acquisition
of adjacent
undeveloped
properties
Poor
properties
= Concept
would
require
acquisition
of
ROW from one or more developed
Consistent
(qualitative)
with
local
plans
Yes =
This
concept
appears
to
be consistent with
adopted
local
and regional
plans
Mixed
plans,
=
while
This
concept
in conflict
appears
with
others
to
be consistent with
some adopted
local/regional
No
= This
concept
appears
to
be inconsistent
with
adopted
local
and
regional
plans
Consistent
(qualitative)
with
ACP
Yes =
This
concept
is consistent with
the
ACP
for this
location
No
= This
concept
is inconsistent with
the
ACP
for this
location
support
qualitative
economic development
Yes =
economic
This
concept
development
would
at
not
this
preclude
location
Yes=
economic
This concept
development
would
not
in this
preclude
segment
location
Neutral
business
preclude
=
relocation
economic
This
concept
development
could
but does
result
not
in
at this
Neutral=
business
preclude
segment
relocation
economic
This
concept
development
but
could
does
result
not
in
at this
No
economic
this
this
=
location
This
segment
concept
development
(for
(for
could
roadway
access
concepts)
preclude
opportunities
concepts)
in
f at
No=
economic
this
this
segment
concept
development
could
preclude
opportunities
in
Page 45
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Catego
Criteria
a
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Ratings.
-
,; •-
_
�,
j
Roadway
Elements
Assessment
Result
Carry
forward
= Applies
only
to the
No
Action
Recommended
alternative
with
= Option
further
definition
will
be evaluated
and
conceptual
further
as
design.
part of
the
corridor
Feasible,
due
to
but
comparatively
not
recommend
negligible
=
Option
benefits
will
and
not
higher
be evaluated
impacts
than
further
other
in the
options.
study
Eliminated
study
or the
= Option
option
does not meet
is unreasonable
the
due
Purpose
to impacts
and
and/or
Need
established
infeasibility.
with
this
Page 46
7.2.2 Level 2 Evaluation Results
The defined Leve 2 Evaluation results had three potential outcomes, as shown in thematrices:
• Recommended - Concepts were carried forward into Level 3 Evaluation
• Feasible but not recommended - These concepts were not carried forward into the Level 3
Evaluation. In the future, these concepts may be reconsidered based on the known needs at the
time funding is available to pursue a project.
• Eliminated — Concepts were not carried forward into Level 3 Evaluation
Below is a summary of the Concepts assessed to be Feasible but not recommended:
Foothills:
Roadway
o Add Lanes —This concept is not recommended because traffic does not warrant the
additional capacity and the additional travel lanes would result in poor ROW and
environmental impacts.
• Access
Morning Drive — Roundabout — Due to the proximity of the signal at Cascade Ave. this
concept is not recommended.
Loveland Urban:
• Roadway Elements
o Add Lanes to 6 through entire segment —The ROW required for this alternative would
be extensive compared to other concepts, and the additional capacity provides
relatively little benefit to safety or travel demand for the additional impacts. Therefore,
this concept has been eliminated from further consideration.
Loveland 6 Lane:
No concepts were considered to be Feasible but not recommended.
Johnstown -Greeley:
• Access
o LCR 3E Indirect Lefts — This concept is not recommended because it is inconsistent with
local plans, including the adopted ACP for LCR 3E,
o LCR 3 Indirect Lefts - This concept is not recommended because it is inconsistent with
local plans, including the adopted ACP for LCR 3.
o WCR 15 Indirect Lefts — This concept is not recommended because it is inconsistent with
local plans, including the adopted ACP for WCR 15.
Greeley Expressway
• Access
o 95th Avenue Indirect Lefts —This concept is not recommended because it is inconsistent
with local plans, including the adopted ACP for 95th Avenue.
East End
• Roadway Elements
o Add Lanes to 6 through entire segment —This concept is not recommended because
future traffic volumes do not necessitate additional capacity in this roadway segment.
Page 47
Below is a summary of the Concepts Eliminated:
Loveland 6 Lane:
• Roadway Elements
a Add Lanes to yield 8 lanes from 1-25 to Boise Ave.— Although this concept would improve
reliability and meet travel demand, it is inconsistent with local plans, therefore it has
been eliminated from further consideration.
• Access
a Cleveland Ave./Lincoln Ave. Hourglass Roundabout — This concept would not improve
the LOS at this intersection unlike other concepts proposed for this location, therefore it
has been eliminated from further consideration.
The remaining concepts were carried forward into alternatives packaging and Level 3 evaluationwith
the No Action Alternative.
The more comprehensive summary of the Level 2 work completed by the project team is contained in
the Level 2 Evaluation Table shown in Table 11 below:
Table 1.1— Level 2 Evaluation Table
Page 48
Table 11
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Foothills Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Roadway Elements
Concepts for Foothills: Larimer County Road 27 (LCR 27) to Morning Drive
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 1- 2 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
criteria
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
No
Action
Minimal
Modifications
Shoulders)
Add / Expand Auxiliary
Lanes at Major
Intersections
Add
4 Lanes Rossum
Additional
to Morning
Lanes
Drive
(improve
Number of Lanes
2
2
2 to 4
5
Roadway Classification
Rural principal arterial - other
Rural
principal arterial - other
Rural principal arterial - other
Rural principal
arterial - other
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Neutral
Less congestion, but more conflicts
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decreases
More space between vehicles/pedestrians-bikes
Neutral
More lanes = more conflict points & exposure, yet no
pedestrian -bike crossing exist
Neutral
More lanes = more conflict points & exposure, yet no pedestrian -bike
crossing exist
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Potential Reduction
Decrease
Potential Reduction
Neutral
Less congestion, but more conflicts
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Potential Reduction
Decrease
Potential Reduction
Neutral
Less congestion, but more conflicts
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No Change (LOS A)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Vehicle Hours
of Delay (VHD) (hours)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Qualityoftrafficoperations
Travel Time index (ratio)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Travel Time by location/segment (%change/minutes)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Mobility
* Provide local and regional route connectivity
g
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
* Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
g
Improves
Shoulder space = improves E W connectivity. Transit on east
p /
side
No Change
Improves
If shoulders added improved E/W connectivity. Transit on east side
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
no existing N/S controlled bike -pedestrian crossings
No
More lanes = greater N/S barriers
No
More lanes = greater N/S barriers
Improve continuity for E/W
(qualitative)
bicycle and pedestrian travel
No Change
Yes
Shoulder space = improves E/W connectivity
No
Increase in vehicular right -in movements
Yes
If shoulders added improved E/W connectivity
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No Change
No Change
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (1/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated); Poor
[Good (limited); Fair, (some
(substantial/difficult to
Fair/poor
Increase in noise
Fair
Potential impacts from
potentially historic, changes
considered an adverse impact.
ROW acquisition.
to the
Portions of US 34 are
alignment could be
Fair
Potential impacts from
potentially historic, changes
considered an adverse impact.
ROW acquisition. Portions of US 34 are
to the alignment could be
Poor
Potential impacts from ROW acquisition including improvements in a
flood plain and park lands. Portions of US 34 are potentially historic,
changes to the alignment could be considered an adverse impact.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation
projects, including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not Applicable
Good, varies
Fair
Less ROW than GP lanes
Poor
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes - see LCUASS
Yes - see NFRMPO Non -Motorized Plan corridor #11
Yes - see LCUASS
Yes - see Loveland Street Plan
Yes - see NFRMPO Non -Motorized Plan Corridor
#11
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Feasible but not Recommended
This option is not recommended because traffic does not warrant the
additional capacity, and the additional travel lanes would result in poor
ROW and environmental impacts.
Comments
Consideration for planned Multimodal
segment include: RNMC#11
at LCR 2% RNMC#3 that follows
Loveland's proposed side path
Connection to Devil's Backbone
improvements in this
along US 34, RNMC #12 crossing
Big Thompson River, and
along Big Barnes Ditch.
and Blue Sky Trail.
Related to intersection improvements
Notes:
Some design options will transition into adjacent segments.
Foothills (Roadway)
Page 49
Table 11
COLORADO
Departnieni of Trangsaflat ;esn
Foothills Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Foothills: Lan men County Road 27 (LCR 27) to Morning Drive
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 1- 2 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Criteria
Performance Measure
(measurement)
No Action
ICR 27 Intersection
Improvements
Glade
Road Intersection
Improvements
Rossum to Cascade
Improvements
Left Turn lane
Traffic Signal
2-WayLeft
Turn Lane
Roundabout at Rossum
Florida
T at Morning Dr
Roundabout
at Morning Dr
Raised Median
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral
Decrease
Controlled
movements
vehicle/bike/pedestrian
Decrease
Greater space between
vehicles/bicycles
Increase
Roundabout = more vehicle / bike-
pedestrian conflict/exposure
Increase
Traffic E/W always moving and greater
crossing distance
Increase
Roundabout = more
pedestrian conflict/exposure•
vehicle / bike-
Decrease
N/S pedestrian -bike movement
discouraged, possibility for
pedestrian refuge
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Neutral
Decrease
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
No change
No Change
No Change
No change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Increases
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No change
No Change
LOS improves from F/F to B/B
No change
LOS improves from F/F to B/B
LOS improves from F/F to A/A
LOS improves from F/F to B/C
Improves LOS at Morning Dr
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VH D) (hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No change
No Change
Worsens
by 5%
No change
Worsens by 9%
No change (worsen by -1%)
Worsens by 11%
No change
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit fad lities (qualitative)
No change
No change
Improves
(controlled
crossing)
pedestrian -bike
Improves
(shoulder improves E/W travel to
transit)
Worsens
Roundabout = difficult pedestrian-
bike movement
Worsens
N/S pedestrian -bike movement restricted
by E/W movement
Worsens
Roundabout = difficult
movement
pedestrian -bike
No change
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No change
No change
Yes
(controlled
crossing)
pedestrian -bike
Yes
(median act as refuge)
No
Roundabout= difficult pedestrian-
bike movement
No
N/S pedestrian -bike movement restricted
by E/W movement
No
Roundabout =difficult pedestrian -bike
movement
Yes
Median act as refuge
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian
travel (qualitative)
No change
No change
Yes
Controlled
crossing
pedestrian -bike
Yes
Shoulder improves E/W travel
No
Roundabout = difficult pedestrian-
bike movement
Yes
Continual E/W bike -pedestrian on south
side
No
Roundabout = difficult
movement
pedestrian -bike
Yes
Less left -in turns
Freight
Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction
travel (VI)•
No change
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements
(Y/N)
No change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects [Good (limited); Fair,
(some effects that can be mitigated); Poor
Fair/poor
Increase in noise
Fair
Potential impacts from ROW
acquisition and possibly within the
(substantial/difficult to mitigate)] ROW acquisitions to widening
floodplain.
Fair
Potential
floodplain,
to the south.
improvements within the
potential park impact
Fair
Potential noise and impacts from
Fair
Potential impacts from ROW
acquisition. US 34 is potentially
historic in this area,
alignment could be considered an
adverse impact.
Fair
Potential impacts from ROW
Skyrock road is potentially
changes to the alignment
considered an adverse impact.
acquisition.
historic,
could be
Fair
Potential impacts from ROW acquisition.
Assuming any impacts to sidewalks would
historic, changes to the alignment could be
considered an adverse impact.
Good
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation
projects, including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not Applicable
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
See NFRMPO Non -Motorized Plan
corridor #11
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Neutral
Yes
Yes
Neutral
Neutral
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Feasible but not recommended
Option is not recommended because of the
potential conflicts caused by its proximity
to Cascade Avenue
Recommended
Comments
Consideration for planned Multi modal
improvements in this segment include:
RNMC#11 along US 34, RNMC #12 crossing
at LCR 29, RNMC #3 that follows Big
Thompson River, and Loveland's proposed
side path along Big Barnes Ditch.
Connection to Devil's Backbone and Blue
Sky Trail
no specific alternatives discussed.
What are the needs? signal
warrant?
Option can be mixed and match to
accommodate need
Option is recommended because it
supports business access by
providing a safe place for vehicle to U-
turn i n the area.
Option can be mixed and match to
accommodate need.
Option can be mixed and
accommodate need
match to
Due to the close proximity of the signal at
Cascade Avenue, this option is not
recommended.
Option can be mixed and match to
accommodate need
Foothills (Access)
Page 50
Table 11
COLORADO
Department at Trartspen ticiri
Loveland Urban Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Roadway Elements
Concepts for Loveland Urban: Morning Drive to N Garfield Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figure 3 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Criteria
Performance Measure
(measurement)
No Action
Add / Expand
at Major
intersections
Auxiliary
Lanes
Add Additional
5 Lane
Lanes
Arterial
Number of lanes
5
5
6
Roadway Classification
Urban principal arterial - other
Urban principal arterial - other
Urban principal arterial - other
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Neutral
Less congestion, yet> conflict points
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Increases
Neutral
Neutral
Less congestion, yet> conflict points
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Increases
Neutral
Neutral
Less congestion, yet> conflict points
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
No Change
Improves from LOS F to C in Eastbound PM
Improves from LOS F to C in Eastbound PM
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
No Change
No Change (improves 2%)
Improves 20%
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index (ratio)
No Change
No change (improves 3%)
Improves 5%
Travel Time by location/segment
(% change/minutes)
No Change
No Change (improves 3%)
Improves 7%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
* Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes =greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
Increase in vehicular right -in movements
Yes
If shoulders added = better E/W continuity
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated);
[Good
Poor (substantial/difficult
(limited); Fair,
(some
to
Fair - increase in noise
Poor
Increase in noise and potential ROW acquisition. Taft is
considered potentially historic, changes to alignment could
be considered adverse impact.
Poor
Increase in noise and potential ROW acquisition. Taft is considered
potentially historic, changes to alignment could be considered adverse
impact.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
including ACP items (Good,
Fair, Poor)
planned transportation projects,
Not Applicable
Poor
Poor
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Mixed
No -Loveland Street Plan
Yes - see NFRMPO Non -Motorized Plan corridor #11, and Loveland's bike
Lanes
Consistent with ACP
(qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Neutral
Neutral
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Feasible, but not recommend
The ROW required for this alternative would be extensive compared to
other options, and the additional capacity provides relatively little
benefit to safety or travel demand for the additional impacts. Therefore
this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
Comments
Consideration for planned Multimodal improvements in this
segment include: City of Loveland Bicycle Plan improvements
on Wilson and Taft Intersection as well as new bike lanes
from where existing bike lanes end (Namaqua Dr) to where
existing bike lanes start again (east of Garfield). NFRMPO
proposes a non -motorize corridor along US 34 as a side path.
ROW acquisition process/need/requirements could be
limiting in some locations.
ROW acquisition is a limiting factor
Loveland Urban (Roadway)
Page 51
Table 11
COLORADO
Dnpartrueat nspertati art
Loveland Urban Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Loveland Urban: Morning Drive to N Garfield Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figure 3 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Criteria
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
NoAction
Wilson
Ave Intersection
Improvements
Taft
Ave Intersection
Improvements
p
Double Left Turn Lanes All
Directions
w/ Shared
Right/Thru
Lanes
Double
Left Turn Lanes SRI & WB I
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
- Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increases
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Increases
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
Na change
No Change
Access LOS grade remains the same as no action (LOS D)
No Change
Access LOS grade remains the same as no action (LOS D}
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability III
• Improve travel reliability
* Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No change
Improves by 5%
Improves by 17%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
N/C
Worsens
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Worsens
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
N/C
No
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
N/C
No
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No change
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No change
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effectsFair-
Relative environmental effects
can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult
[Good (limited); Fair, (some
to mitigate)]
effects that
increase in noise
Poor
Increase in noise and potential ROW acquisition
Poor
Increase in noise and potential ROW acquisition. Taft is considered
potentially historic, changes to alignment could be considered adverse
impact.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not Applicable
Poor
Poor
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
If bike -pedestrian improvements (Loveland
Bike -Pedestrian Plan)
Yes
If bike -pedestrian improvements
(Loveland Bike -Pedestrian Plan)
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Neutral
Neutral
Resu It
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Consideration for planned Multimodal improvements in this
segment include: City of Loveland Bicycle Plan improvements on
Wilson and Taft Intersection as well as new bike lanes from where
existing bike lanes end (Namaqua Dr) to where existing bike lanes
start again (east of Garfield). NFRMPO proposes a non -motorize
corridor along US 34 as a side path.
Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan calls for improvements in this
intersection.
ROW acquisition process/need/requirements could be limiting in
some locations.
Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan calls for improvements in this
intersection.
ROW acquisition process/need/requirements could be limiting in some
locations.
Loveland Urban (Access)
Page 52
Table Al
COLORADO
D ptrtm€ntelTransportation
Loveland 6 -Lane Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Roadway Elements
Concepts for Loveland 6 -Lane: N Garfield Ave to Rocky Mountain Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 4 - 5 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Criteria
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
No Action
Add
/ Expand Auxiliary
at Mahar Intersections
Lanes
Add
6 Lane Arterial
from
Additional
Lincoln
Lanes
to Monroe Ave
Add Additional
B Lane Arterial
West
Lanes
of 1-25 to Boise
Number of lanes
4 - N. Garfield Ave. to Monroe Ave.
5 - Monroe Ave. to Rocky Mountain Ave.
6
6
8
Roadway classification
Urban principal arterial - other
Urban principal arterial - other
Urban principal arterial - other
Urban principal arterial - other
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
P
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points
(change)
Neutral
Decrease
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflict points
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflict points
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes
(change)
Increase
More congestion - more crashes
g
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflictpoints
g ,
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflictpoints
g ,
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflict points
g ,
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Increase
More congestion - more crashes
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflict
points
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflict points
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflict points
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
No change (LOS F/F)
No Change
No Change
Improves from F/F to C/D
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
No Change
No Change (improves 3%)
No Change (1% improvement)
Improves 57%
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index (ratio)
No Change
g
No change (worsens 4%)
g
No Change (4% improvement)
{'
Improves 541
Travel Time by location segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
No change (worsens 4%)
Improves 5%
Improves 54%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non notarized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure.
Important transit nodes in this segment
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure.
Important transit nodes in this segment
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure. Important transit nodes in
this segment
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No Change
No
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Na
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes = greater crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
Increase in vehicular right -in movements
Yes
If shoulders added = better
E/W continuity
Yes
If shoulders added = better
E/W continuity
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
Relative environmental effects
that can be mitigated); Poor
(substantial/difficult
[Good
(limited); Fair,
to mitigate)]
Poor
Noise impacts, ROW acquisition, potential impact to
,
potentially historic. Shifting the roadway alignment may be a
adverse impact.
Poor
, ROW acquisition, potential impact to potentially
and 287 is considered potentially historic properties, and 287 is considered
historic properties, and 287 is considered potentially historic.
Shifting the roadway alignment may be a adverse impact.
Poor
Noise impacts, ROW acquisition, potential impact to
potentially historic. Shifting the roadway alignment may
be a adverse impact.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not Applicable
Poor in 287 to Monroe segment
Poor in 287 to Monroe segment
Poor
Consistent with local
plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes - See NFRMPO RNMC#11
along U5 34
and Loveland proposed bike lanes
No
Consistent with ACP
(qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Assessment
_alMin—
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Eliminated
Although this alternative would
meet travel demand, it is inconsistent
therefore it has been eliminated
consideration.
improve reliability and
with local plans,
from further
Comments
Consideration for planned multimodal improvements in this segment include: NFRMPO Bicycle and Non -Motorized Plans: RNMC #8 BNSF Fort Collins/Berthoud which
Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian plan as a medium priority commuter trail. Consideration for access points is important. Future planned bike lanes on US 34 from Garfield
Future Planned Enhanced bike lanes from Madison to east of 1-25. Additionally, a future planned recreational trail north of US 34 from Denver Ave to Boyd Lake Ave.(Loveland
Pedestrian Plan)
is recognized on
to Madison and
Bicycle and
Loveland's Bicycle and Pedestrian
Planned Enhanced bike lanes
25. Which also aligns with
Motorized Plans corridor
NFRMPO
M.
plans calls for Future
from Madison to east of I -
Bicycle and Non -
Loveland 6 -Lane (Roadway)
Page 53
Table 11
COLORADO
Dapargmcn.t of Transpartatian
Loveland 6 -Lane Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Loveland 6 -Lane: N Garfield Ave to Rocky Mountain Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 4 - 5 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Performance
Mea i I _
I
.
Cleveland Avenue
f Lincoln
Avenue(US
287) Intersection
Improvements
(measurement),
Double
Left Turn Lanes
Hourglass Roundabout
Indirect
Left Turn Lanes
3 -Lane Roundabout
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
(more lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure)
Increase
(roundabout = more vehicle / bike -pedestrian
conflict/exposure)
Neutral
(conflict/exposure is just shifted)
Increase
(roundabout & lanes = more vehicle / bike-
pedestrian conflict/exposure)
Projected total number of crashes
(change)
Not Applicable
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Unknown
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Not Applicable
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Unknown
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No change
No Change
No Change
Increase
No Change
Level of Service
(LOS) (change)
No change
Cleveland: Improves from LOS C/F to LOS C/D
Lincoln: Improves from LOS C/D to LOS B/D
No Change
Access LOS worsens from LOS F / F to LOS F / F
Cleveland: Improves from LOS C/F to LOS B/B
Lincoln: Improves from LOS C/D to LOS B/C
Improves
Access LOS improves from LOS F /F to LOS E / D
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index
(ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (%
change/minutes)
No change
Improves by 34%
Improves by 47%
Improves 42%
Improves by 55%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities
(qualitative)
No change
Worsens
(more lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure)
Worsens
(roundabout = more vehicle / bike -pedestrian
conflict/exposure)
No Change
(Left -in changed to right -in, no transit access
improvement)
Worsens
(roundabout & lanes = more vehicle / bike-
pedestrian conflict/exposure)
Reduce barriers for N/S
pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No change
No
(more lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure)
No
(roundabout = more vehicle / bike -pedestrian
conflict/exposure)
No change
No
(roundabout & lanes = more vehicle / bike-
pedestrian conflict/exposure)
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No change
No
(more lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure)
No
(roundabout = more vehicle / bike -pedestrian
conflict/exposure)
No Change
(E/W continuity break shifted location)
No
(roundabout & lanes = more vehicle / bike -
pedestrian conflict/exposure)
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No change
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements ()IN)
No change
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effectsto
Relative environmental effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult
[Good (limited); Fair,
to
mitigate)]
Increase in noise
Potential ROW acquisition
Poor
Noise impacts, ROW acquisition, potential impact
potentially historic properties, and 287 is
considered potentially historic. Shifting the
roadway alignment may be an adverse impact.
Potential noise and socioeconomic impacts
Poor
Noise impacts, ROW acquisition, potential impact
to potentially historic properties, and 287 is
considered potentially historic. Shifting the
roadway alignment may be a adverse impact.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation
plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
including ACP items (Good,
planned transportation projects,
Fair, Poor)
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Mixed
Mixed
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Neutral
Yes
Neutral
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Eliminated
This concept would not improve LOS at this
intersection unlike other options proposed for
this location, therefore it has been eliminated
from further consideration.
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Refer to text below for additional
information on the No Action alternative.
Concept would not improve LOS at this
intersection, unlike other concepts proposed at
this location.
Consideration for planned multimodal improvements in this segment include: NFRMP Bicycle and Non -Motorized Plans: RNMC #8 BNSF Fort Collins/Berthoud which is recognized on Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian plan as a medium priority
commuter trail. Consideration for access points is important. Future planned bike lanes on US 34 from Garfield to Madison and Future Planned Enhanced bike lanes from Madison to east of I-25. Additionally, a future planned recreational trail
north of US 34 from Denver Ave to Boyd Lake Ave.(Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan).
Loveland 6 -Lane (Access)
Page 54
Table 11
COLORADO
Department of Trane.partauon
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Roadway Elements
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 5 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Performance
Measure
(measurement)
No Action
Add / Expand
at Major
Intersections
Auxiliary
Lanes
6 Lane Urban
Add
additional
Principal
Arterial
lanes
Expressway
Number of lanes
4
4
6
Roadway classification
Urban principal arterial expressway
Urban principal arterial expressway
Urban principal arterial expressway
Safety
Reduce crashes
. Reduce crash severity
Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points
(change)
Neutral
Decreases
Neutral
Less congestion, yet more conflicts
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes
(change)
Increase
Neutral
Aux. lanes do less for congestion
Decrease
Less congestion, addresses high conflict crash types
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Increase
No Change
Aux. lanes do less for congestion
Decrease
Less congestion, addresses high conflict crash types
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS)
(change)
No Change
No Change
Improves from F/F to B/C
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
No Change
No Change
Improves - Saves approximately 9500 vehicle hours of delay per year in the peak
hour
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index
(ratio)
No Change
No Change
Improves 51%
Travel Time by location/segment
(% change/minutes)
No Change
No Change
Improves 56%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities
(qualitative)
No Change
Current transit facilities in segment: Park -n -Ride east of 1-25
and bus stop on shops
Improves
Vehicular access to park -n -ride.
No change
for bikes -pedestrians
Improves
Vehicular access to park -n -ride. No change for bikes -pedestrians
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No Change
No
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
Increase in vehicular right -in movements
Yes
If shoulders added = better E/W continuity
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult
[Good
(limited); Fair, (some
to
effects
mitigate)]
Fair
Increase in noise
Fair
ROW acquisition, potential for noise impacts, and impacts to potentially
historic resources (ditch and other)
Fair
ROW acquisition, potential for noise impacts, and impacts to potentially historic
resources (ditch and other)
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not applicable
Good
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Mixed
Yes
No - Concept could preclude RNMC#11
along US 34
dependent on ROW
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Consideration for planned multimodal
NFRMPO Bicycle and Non -Motorized
used trail from WCR 13 to CO 257
overpass/underpass of us 34 needed).
overpass/underpass of US 34).
Johnstown also has a neighborhood
Windsor has bike lanes planned along
Greeley has bike lanes/Site path planned
Johnstown also has transit service
NFRMPO RTE also highlights Transit
GET Strategic plans mentions proposed
improvements in this segment include:
Plans: RNMC #11 US 34 Segments B and C. Segment B (1-25 to WCR 13) bike lanes to LCR 3
(north or south side considerations). RNMC #4-B: Great Western is seen as a corridor that parallels
RNMC 9, segments B -C: Johnstown Timnath is seen as shoulder improvements conducive
trail planned between WCR 13 and WCR 15 heading southeast along the Loveland Greeley ditch,
WCR 15 going north.
along WCR 17, 131st Ave. and along Hwy 257.
planned along WCR 17 as well as on Hwy 257.
corridors along US 34 as well as a corridor from the existing Park -n -Ride on Hwy 257 going north
regional service from Greeley to Loveland along US 34 and to Windsor along WCR 17
(also recognized on the Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan). Segment C is seen as a shared
the Great Western Railroad. Significant infrastructure (protected crossing signal,
for bikes lanes and recognizes significance infrastructure (protected crossing signal,
as well as one traveling N/S along WCR 17.
to Windsor.
Johnstown -Greeley (Roadway)
Page 55
Table 11
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra /Thom pson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 6 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Perforrnance
(measurement)
Measure
Latimer
Parkway
Improvements
(LCR
3E)
Intersection
one plus Signal
Interchange
5 Lane with Interchange
Indirect
Left Turn Lanes
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict
points (change)
Neutral
Increase
More lanes, more conflict points
Neutral
Grade Separated crossing,
Neutral
More lanes
crossing
and more exposure, yet grade separated
Decrease
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Increase
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No Change
Improves from LOS E/F to LOS D/C
Improves from LOS E/F to LOS C/D
Improves from LOS E/F to LOS C/C
Improves
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
Improves 19%
Improves 41%
Improves 42%
Improves through travel time
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Current transit facilities in segment: Park -n -Ride
east of I-25 and bus stop by shops
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and
ped movement in intersection
Improves
Interchange improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
and grade separated crossing
Improves
Interchange
and grade separated
improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
crossing
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle
travel (qualitative)
No Change
No
More lanes = more crossing distance for
pedestrian -bike crossing
No
more crossing distance and crossing points
No
more lanes, more crossing distance and crossing
points
No Cha nge
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Improve continu ity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian
(qualitative)
travel
No Change
Yes
possible shoulder improvements
Yes
grade separated controlled
pedestrian -bike crossing
Yes
grade separated controlled pedestrian -bike crossing
and possible shoulder improvements
No Cha nge
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult
[Good (limited);
Fair, (some effects
to mitigate)]
Fair
Increase in noise
Fair
May require ROW configuration could impact
potentially historic canal and property in NE
quadrant.
Poor
ROW acquisition, potential for noise impacts, and
impacts to potentially historic resources (ditch and
other)
Poor
ROW acquisition, potential for noise impacts, and
impacts to potentially historic resources (ditch and
other)
Good
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
No
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Feasible, but not recommended
This option is not recommended because it is
inconsistent with local plans including the adopted
ACP for LCR 3E. If the ACP is revised this design option
would work as an interim project.
Comments
Refer to text below for additional information on
the No Action alternative.
2040 traffic demand exceeds capacity for this
alternative
2040 traffic demand exceeds capacity for this
alternative, assuming 4 lanes on US34
Assume no impact to the railroad crossing. RR is
potentially historic.
2040 traffic demand exceeds capacity for this
alternative, assuming 4 lanes on U534
Johnstown -Greeley (Access)
Page 56
Table 11
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 6 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
Intersection
Larlmer
Parkway
Improvements
(LCR
3E]
Interchange
5 Lane with Interchange
Indirect
Left Turn Lanes
Extended No Action Comments
Consideration for planned multimodal improvements
NFRMPO Bicycle and Non -Motorized Plans: RNMC
south side considerations). RNMC #4-B: Great Western
shoulder improvements conducive for bikes lanes
Johnstown also has a neighborhood trail planned between
Windsor has bike lanes planned along WCR 15 going
Greeley has bike lanes/Site path planned along WCR
Johnstown also has transit service planned along WCR
NFRMPO RTE also highlights Transit corridors along
GET Strategic plans mentions proposed regional service
in this segment include:
#11 US 34 Segments B and C. Segment B (1-25 to WCR
is seen as a corridor that parallels the Great Western
and recognizes significance infrastructure (protected
WCR 13 and WCR 15 heading southeast along
north.
17, 131st Ave. and along Hwy 257.
17 as well as on Hwy 257.
US 34 as well as a corridor from the existing Park -n
from Greeley to Loveland along US 34 and to
13) bike lanes to LCR
Railroad. Significant
crossing signal, overpass/underpass
the Loveland Greeley
-Ride on Hwy 257 going
Windsor along WCR 17
3 (also recognized on the Loveland
infrastructure (protected crossing
of US 34).
ditch, as well as one traveling
north to Windsor.
Bicycle and
signal,
N/S along WCR
Pedestrian Plan). Segment C is seen as
overpass/underpass of us 34 needed). RNMC
17.
a shared used trail from WCR 13 to CO 257 (north or
9, segments B -C: Johnstown Timnath is seen as
Johnstown -Greeley (Access)
Page 57
Table 11
Safety
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 6 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recomrr
Performance Measure
(measurement)
r
Interchange
LCR3
Intersection Improvements
5 Lane with Interchange
Indirect Left Turn Lanes
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Increase
More lanes, more conflict points
Neutral
Grade Separated crossing,
Neutral
More lanes and more exposure, yet grade separated
crossing
Decrease
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No Change (LOS F/F)
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not Applicable
No Change
No Change
Increase
Improves from LOS F/F to D/D
Improves from LOS F/F to C/C
Improves
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Improves 31%
Improves 81%
Improves 81%
Not Applicable
No Change
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Improves
Interchange improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
and grade separated crossing
Improves
Interchange improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
and grade separated crossing
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No
More lanes = more crossing distance for pedestrian -bike
crossing
No
more crossing distance and crossing points
No
more lanes, more crossing distance and crossing points
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
Yes
possible shoulder improvements
Yes
grade separated controlled pedestrian -bike crossing
Yes
grade separated controlled pedestrian -bike crossing and
possible shoulder improvements
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects [Good (limited); Fair, (some effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult to mitigate)]
Fair
ROW acquisition and impact to potentially historic
railroad.
Poor
Impacts from ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially
historic property, railroad, canal, roadway. LCR 3 is
potentially historic and changing the roadway
alignment could be considered an adverse impact.
Poor
Impacts from ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially
historic property, railroad, canal, roadway. LCR 3 is
potentially historic and changing the roadway
alignment could be considered an adverse impact.
Good
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Fa i r
Poor
Poor
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
No
No
No
Result
Comments
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
2040 traffic demand exceeds capacity for this
alternative, assuming 4 lanes on US 34
Feasible, but not recommended
This option is not recommended because it is
inconsistent with local plans including the adopted ACP
for LCR 3. If the ACP is revised this design option would
work as an interim project.
2040 traffic demand exceeds capacity for this
alternative, assuming 4 lanes on US 34
Johnstown -Greeley (Access)
Page 58
Table 11
Safety
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 6 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recomrr
Performance Measure
(measurement)
Interchange
WCR 13
Intersection Improvements
Interchange and realignment of WCR 13
5 Lane with interchange
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Increase
More lanes, more conflict points
Neutral
Grade Separated crossing, yet more exposure
Neutral
More lanes and greater distance, yet grade separeted
crossing
Neutral
More lanes and more exposure, yet grade separated
crossing
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
Improves from LOS D/C to LOS C/C
No Change
No Change
Improves from LOS D/C to LOS C/C
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
No Change (improves 1%)
Improves 19%
Improves 19%
Improves 21%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivitymore
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
Improves
Interchange improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
and grade separated crossing
Improves
Interchange improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
and grade separated crossing
Improves
Interchange improves vehicular access to park -n -ride
and grade separated crossing
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No Change
Current signal allows for control vehicle, bike and ped
movement in intersection
No
crossing distance and crossing points
No
more crossing distance and crossing points
No
more lanes, more crossing distance and crossing points
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
Yes
possible shoulder improvements
Yes
grade separated controlled pedestrian -bike crossing
Yes
grade separated controlled pedestrian -bike crossing
Yes
grade separated controlled pedestrian -bike crossing and
possible shoulder improvements
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects [Good (limited); Fair, (some effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult to mitigate)]
Good
Poor
Impacts from ROW acquisitions, impact to potentially
historic canal and railroad, possible wetland impacts.
Poor
Impacts from ROW acquisitions, impact to potentially
historic canal and railroad, possible wetland impacts.
Poor
Impacts from ROW acquisitions, impact to potentially
historic canal and railroad, possible wetland impacts.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Fair
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
Mixed
Yes
No - could preclude RNMC#9 and #4 US crossings and
Johnstown Neigh Trail
Poor
Poor
Poor
Mixed
Yes
No - could preclude RNMC #9 and #4 US crossings and
Johnstown Neigh Trail
Mixed - local plans keep CR 13 on alignment
Mixed
Yes
No - could preclude RNMC #9 and #4 US crossings and
Johnstown Neigh Trail
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Neutral
Yes
Result
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Careful consideration to NFRMPO Regional Bicycle
Plan. WCR 13 is an important regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian node.
Careful consideration to NFRMPO Regional Bicycle
Plan. WCR 13 is an important regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian node.
Careful consideration to NFRMPO Regional Bicycle
Plan. WCR 13 is an important regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian node.
Careful consideration to NFRMPO Regional Bicycle
Plan. WCR 13 is an important regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian node.
Johnstown -Greeley (Access)
Page 59
Table 11
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 6 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recomrr
-i41 14I'
Performance Measure
(measurement)
314 Movement
WCR MM.
Intersection Improvements
I= Indirect Lefts
WCR17
Intersection Improvements
6 Lane plus Signal
Interchange
6 Lane with Interchange
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Decrease
Left -out conflict point removed
Neutral
Conflict shift location
Increase
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
Increase
Increase
No Change (LOS F/F)
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not Applicable
No Change
No Change
No Change
Improves
Improves from LOS F/F to LOS C/F
Improves from LOS F/F to LOS C/D
Improves from LOS F/F to LOS B/C
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
No Change
No Change
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Improves 61%
Improves 69%
Improves 70%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
Worsens
Left -out towards park -n -ride removed
No Change
Worsens
Signal exists, more lanes
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n -ride and
crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n -ride and
crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No
N/5 pedestrian bike movement restricted
No Change
No
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
E/W lanes do not increase
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects [Good (limited); Fair, (some effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult to mitigate)]
Fair
Unknown if potential to impact potentially
historical marker on northwest side of 34 or
impact alignment of WCR 15.
Fair
Unknown if potential to impact potentially
historical marker on northwest side of 34 or
impact alignment of WCR 15.
Good
Poor
ROW from State Land board Mineral lease area (not
sure of impacts), ROW acquisitions, and impacts to
unnamed tributary, potential impact to shared use
path
Poor
ROW from State Land board Mineral lease area (not
sure of impacts), ROW acquisitions, and impacts to
unnamed tributary, potential impact to shared use
path
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
Yes
Good
No
No
No
Fair
Fair
Fair
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
•Asssrrtertt
Result
Recommended
Feasible, but not recommended
This option is not recommended because it is
inconsistent with local plans including the
adopted ACP for WCR 15. If the ACP is revised this
design option would work as an interim project.
Comments
Not consistent with the ACP or local plans.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Johnstown -Greeley (Access)
Page 60
Table 11
COLORADO
Department. S Transpertation
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 6 - 9 for graphics of all items that where recomrr
��i iii,
Performance Measure
(measurement)
In#ersertlon
WCR 19/SH
Improvements
257
Intersection
US 34 Business
Improvements
6 -Lane Crossectlan,
Signalize
Na Changes
SH 257 Ramps
to WCR 19,
Widen
WB US 34 Business
on Ramp (2 Lane)
Safety
r
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Decrease
Neutral Less congestion yet more conflicts
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict
points (change)
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Decrease
Neutral
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Decrease
No Change
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No Change
No Change (LOS D)
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
No Change (improves 2%)
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n -ride and crossing
for bikes -pedestrians
No Change
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No Change
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No Change
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects
that can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult
[Good (limited); Fair, (some effects
to mitigate)]
Good
Fair
Potential ROW acquisition
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
A:s...SII-Iellit
Result
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Johnstown -Greeley (Access)
Page 61
Table 11
COLORADO
Dnpartrueat nspertati on
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Roadway Elements
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 10 - 13 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Criteria
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
No
Action
Add
/ Expand
at Major
Intersections
Auxiliary
Lanes
_
b Lane Urban
Add
Additional
Principal
Lanes
Arterial
Expressway
Number of lanes
4
4
6
Roadway classification
Urban principal arterial expressway
Urban principal arterial expressway
Urban principal arterial expressway
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict paints (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Neutral Less congestion, yet more conflicts
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Increases
Neutral
Aux. lanes do less for congestion
Decrease
Less congest, addresses high conflict crash type
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Increases
No Change
Aux. lanes do less for congestion
Decrease
Less congest, addresses high conflict crash type
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No Change LOS F/F
No Change
Improves from F/F to B/B
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
No Change
No Change
Saves 2800 vehicle hours of delay per year in the peak hour
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index (ratio)
No Change
No Change
Improves 39%
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
No Change
Improves 49%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
P Y
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
Na Change
No
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes = reater crossing distance/conflicts/exposure
g
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
No Change
No
Increase in vehicular right -in movements
Yes
If shoulder = better E/W continuity
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effectsROW
Relative environmental effects
mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult
[Good (limited); Fair,
to mitigate)]
(some effects that can be
Fair
Increase in noise
Fair
acquisition, impacts to potentially historic ditch, and
increase in noise
Poor
ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially historic ditch, noise
due to elevated main lane.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects, including ACP
items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not applicable
Good
Less impact than general purpose lanes
Fair
Varies, wider roadway template
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Support economic development
(qualitative)
No
Neutral
Neutral
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Consideration for planned multimodal improvements in this
segment include: RNMC #11 along US 34, N/S bike lanes and
bike routes from Greeley. Intersection improvements (47th,
35th, 23rd, and 11th), as well as grade separated crossings
(Reservoir Rd and 17th Ave)
Greeley Expressway (Roadway)
Page 62
Table 11
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 10 - 13 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
t- 1
Promontory Parkway
-
6 -Lane plus
Signal
SPUI
Interchange
Interchange
6 -Lane with
SPUI
Interchange
6 -Lane Interchange
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
No Change
Improves from LOS
B/C to LOS A/C
Worsens from LOS
B/C to C/C
Worsens from
LOS B/C to C/C
Improves from LOS B/C to B/B
Improves from LOS B/C to B/B
Vehicle Hours
of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
No Change
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
No Change
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
Improves 16%
Improves 31%
Improves 31%
Improves 32%
Improves 32%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities
(qualitative)
No Change
Improves
Signal improves access to park -n -ride
and crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n-
ride and crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n-
ride and crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n-
ride and crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Improves
Interchange improves access to park -n-
ride and crossing for bikes -pedestrians
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
E/W lanes do not increase
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated);
[Good
Poor (substantial/difficult
(limited);
Fair,
(some
to
Fair
Increase in noise
Good
Poor
ROW acquisition,
historic property,
Potential impacts
timing dependent.
impacts to potentially
wetlands and ponds.
to proposed trail,
Poor
ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially
historic property, wetlands and ponds.
Potential impacts to proposed trail,
timing dependent.
Poor
ROW acquisition, impacts
historic property, wetlands
Potential impacts to proposed
timing dependent.
to potentially
and ponds.
trail,
Poor
ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially
historic property, wetlands and ponds.
Potential impacts to proposed trail,
timing dependent.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation
plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
projects, including ACP items (Good,
planned
Fair,
transportation
Poor)
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Consistent with local
plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development
(qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Consideration for
in this segment
bike lanes and routes
improvements (47th,
grade separated
planned
include: RNMC
from
35th,
crossings (Reservoir
multimodal improvements
#11 along US 34, N/S
Greeley. Intersection
23rd, and 11th), as well as
Rd and 17th Av)
Greeley Expressway (Access)
Page 63
Table 11
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 10 - 13 for graphics of all items that w
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
Intersection
95th
Ave
Improvements
Intersection
83rd
Ave
Improvements
3/4 Movement
1
Indirect
Left Turn Lanes
6 -lane plus
Signal
Interchange
6 -Lanes with
Interchange
Indirect
Left Turn Lanes
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Decrease
Left -out conflict removed
Neutral
Neutral
More lanes, yet controlled movement
Neutral
More lanes, yet controlled movement
Neutral
More lanes, yet controlled movement
Neutral
Conflict points location shifts
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(qualitative)
Increase
Increase
No Change
No Change
No Change
Increase
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
No Change (LOS
F/F)
Improves
No Change (LOS F/F)
Improves from F/F to C/D
Improves from F/F to B/C
Improves
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
Not Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/.segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
No
Change
Improves by 21°%
Improves 65%
Improves 65%
Improves
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
Improves
Signal =controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
Improves
Interchange= controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
Improves
Interchange = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
No Change
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No
N/S movement restricted
No
Change
Yes
Signal = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
Yes
Interchange = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
Yes
Interchange = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
No Change
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
Change
Yes
Signal = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
Yes
Interchange = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
Yes
Interchange = controlled bike -pedestrian
movement
No Change
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No
Na
Yes
Yes
Yes
Na
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated);
[Good
Poor (substantial/difficult
(limited);
Fair,
(some
to
Fair to Poor
Widen to the median, potential impacts to
floodplain, trails, park, wetlands
Fair to Poor
Widen to the median, potential impacts to
floodplain, trails, park, wetlands
Good
Fair
ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially
historic ditch, noise due to elevated main
lane.
Fair
ROW acquisition, impacts to potentially
historic ditch, noise due to elevated main
lane.
Good - If at 71st. If also at 65th then that
will need to be assessed.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation
plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
projects, including ACP items
planned transportation
(Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Consistent with local
plans (qualitative)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Support economic development
(qualitative)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Result
Recommended
Feasible, but not recommended
This option is not recommended because it is
inconsistent with local plans including the
adopted ACP for 95th Ave. If the ACP is revised
this design option would work as an interim
project.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Greeley Expressway (Access)
Page 64
Table 11
COLORADO
Department at Transportation
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 10 - 13 for graphics of all items that w
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
Intersection
71st
Ave66th
Improvements
Ave
list: 3/4 Movement
65th: 6 -Lane plus
_
Signal
list:
3/4
65th:
Movement
SPUI
71st:
65th:
WWI
Overpass
Split
Interchang
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Increase
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
Increases
Increases
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
No Change
LOS F/F at 71st
LOS F/F at 65th
No Change (LOS F/F) at 71st
Improves from LOS F/F to C/C at 65th
Improves from LOS F/F to C/C at 71st
Improves from LOS F/F to C/C at 65th
Improves from LOS F/F to C/C at 71st
Improves from LOS F/F to C/C at 65th
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/.segment (% change/minutes)
Improves 54%
Improves 70%
Improves 70%
Improves 70%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
Decrease
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease
More lanes/interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease
interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease interchange= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No
More lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
No
Na
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated);
[Good
Poor (substantial/difficult
(limited);
Fair,
(some
to
Fair
Minimal ROW acquisition, potential
impacts to two historic ditches, and
potential visual and noise impacts
Fair
Minimal ROW acquisition, potential
impacts to two potentially historic ditches,
and potential visual and noise impacts
Fair
Minimal ROW acquisition,
potentially historic ditches,
impacts due to elevating 34.
road would be required that
would require ROW, and potential
stream and wetland.
impacts to two
noise and visual
The local access
potentially
impact to
Fair
Minimal ROW acquisition,
potentially historic
impacts due to elevating
road would be required
would require ROW,
stream and wetland.
impacts to two
ditches, noise and visual
34. The local access
that potentially
and potential impact to
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation
plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
projects, including ACP items
planned transportation
(Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Consistent with local
plans (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Support economic development
(qualitative)
Yes
Yes
No
Result
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
this does not include the U turn option,
this is the 3/4 per the ACP
this does not include the U turn option,
this is the 3/4 per the ACP
May support adjacent development
goals/would require change to ACP
Greeley Expressway (Access)
Page 65
Table 11
COLORADO
Department at Transpertati on
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 10 - 13 for graphics of all items that w
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
Intersection
47th
Ave
Improvements
Intersection
35th
Improvements
Ave
Intersection
23rd
Improvements
Ave
ane plus
Signal
Interchange
6 -lane plus
Signal
Interchange
Minor
Changes
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Increase
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
chan e
Increase
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossing
g
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Increase
Interchange = more crossingIncrease
g
distance/conflicts/exposure
Double left NB = more conflict points
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Increase
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Increase
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
Improves from LOS E/F
to E/E
Improves from E/F to C/C
No Change (LOS D/F)
Improves from D/F to C/C
No Change
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/.segment (% change/minutes)
No change (improves 3%)
Improves 30%
Improves 38%
Improves 61%
No Change
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
Decrease
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease
Interchange= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease
More lanes = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease
Interchange= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
Decrease
More conflict points. area important transit
node
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No
More lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
More lanes= more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No
Double NB more conflict points
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No change in E/W lanes
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No Change
No change in E/W lanes
No
Interchange = more crossing
distance/conflicts/exposure
No Change
No change in E/W lanes
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated);
[Good
Poor (substantial/difficult
(limited);
Fair,
(some
to
Fair
Potential to impact to two potentially
historic canals.
Fair
Potential impacts to trail, minimal ROW
acquisition, potential impacts to two
potentially historic ditches, potential to
increase noise and visual impacts due to
elevating US 34.
Good
Poor ROW acquisition from park, noise
receptors, visual impact, trail relocation,
and impacts to potentially historic ditch.
Good
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation
plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
projects, including ACP items
planned transportation
(Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Consistent with local
plans (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development
(qualitative)
Yes
Ye.s
Yes
Yes
Yes
Result
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Greeley Expressway (Access)
Page 66
Table 11
COLORADO
Department at Transpertati on
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figures 10 - 13 for graphics of all items that w
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
Intersection
17th
Ave
Improvements
rd Et Channellzed
T
Overpass
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Decrease
No west N/S pedestrian bike movement
Decrease
Eliminates any left -turn and right -turn conflict
points
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(qualitative)
No Change
Increases
Level of Service
(LOS)
(change)
Improves from LOS F/F to DIE
Improves from LOS F/F to B/B
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
(hours)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/.segment (% change/minutes)
Improves 30%
Improves 44%
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
Decrease
Always moving E/W traffic
Improves
Greater N/S connectivity improves access to
important transit node south of US34
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No
Always moving E/W traffic
Yes
Grade separated crossing reduces N/S barriers
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No
Right turn lane decreases E/W continuity
No
Overpass limits access to E/W connectivity at
this location
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects
can be mitigated);
[Good
Poor (substantial/difficult
(limited);
Fair,
(some
to
Good
Fair
Potential impacts to trail, minimal ROW
acquisition, potential to increase noise and
visual impacts due to elevating US 34.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation
plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate
projects, including ACP items
planned transportation
(Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Good
Consistent with local
plans (qualitative)
Mixed - consistent with ACP but concept does
not include grade separated concept from
Greeley Bicycle Master Plan
Yes
Follows Greeley's Bicycle Master Plan grade
separated crossing
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
Yes
Yes
Support economic development
(qualitative)
Yes
Yes
'(:_:sFir:
Result
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Grade separated crossing from Greeley Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan not included in concept
Grade separated crossing from Greeley Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan included in concept.
Overpass concept should consider existing
Grade separated crossing to the east on 15th
Ave Ct, and incorporate that in concept to be
maintained
Greeley Expressway (Access)
Page 67
Table 11
COLORADO
ntriartnitrit of Transpensn tin
East End Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Roadway Elements
Concepts for East End: 1st Ave to Weld County Road 49 (WCR 49)
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figure 14 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Criteria
_
Performance Measure
(measurement)
No
Action
6 Lane Rural
Prindpral
Add
Lanes
Arterial - Expressway
Number of Lanes
4
6
Roadway Classification
Rural principal arterial - expressway
Rural principal arterial - expressway
Safety
• Reduce crashes
Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral
Less congestion more conflicts
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral•
Increase
More lanes = more conflicts
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Increase
Neutral
Less congestion more conflicts
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Increase
Neutral
Less congestion more conflicts
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No Change (LOS A/A)
No Change
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
No Change
Improves by9%
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
Travel lime index (ratio)
No Change
No Change
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No Change
No Change
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non -motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Worsens
More lanes = greater crossing distance/conflict/exposure
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
More
lanes=greatercrossingdistance/conflict/exposure
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No
Greater right -in movements
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel
(Y/N )
No Change
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental
effects that
mitigate)]
effects [Good (limited); Fair, (some
can be mitigated); Poor (substantial/difficult to
Fair
Increase in noise
Poor
ROW acquisition, impacts to Waters of the US (S. Platte
River), within a floadplain, potential impacts to potentially
historic properties, trails, and noise receptors.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient
projects,
ROW to accommodate planned transportation
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not applicable
Fair
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
If multimodal improvements are considered in the concept
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Result
Carry forward
Feasible, but not recommended
This option is not recommended because future traffic
volumes do not necessitate additional capacity in this
roadway segment.
Comments
Multimodal considerations in this segment include: RNMC
#11. along US and the crossing of RNMC#1 with US 34
Future traffic volumes do not necessitate a 6 -lane cross
section in this segment.
East End (Roadway)
Page 68
Table 11
ICO LORADO
Department at Transportation
East End Segment
Level 2 Evaluation Table - Access
Concepts for East End: 1st Ave to Weld County Road 49 (WCR 49)
Refer to Level 2 Rubric for explanation of performance measure terms and Figure 14 for graphics of all items that where recommended.
Performance Measure
(measurement)
nth/MN
(Frontage
Intersection
Street
Road)
Improvement
WCR 45
Intersection Improvements
US 34 Business_______________
section
WCR 45.5
Improvements
WCR 47
Intersection Improvements
WCR 47.5
Intersection Impror►eme
No Acdo ;
3/4 Movement
Realign
Intersection
Right -in
/ Right -out
Signalization
3/4
Movement
3/4 Movement
3/4 Movement
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Decreases
Left-out/left-in movement
removed
Decreases
Controlled movements
Neutral
Decreases
Left -out movement removed
Decreases
Left -out movement removed
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes
(change)
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Neutral
Decreases
Decreases
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(qualitative)
No change
Increases
No change
Increases
No Change
Increases
Increases
Increases
Level of Service (LOS) (change)
No change
Improves
No change
No change
Improves
Improves
Improves
Improves
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) (hours)
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel Time index (ratio)
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Travel Time by location/segment (% change/minutes)
No change
No change
No change
No change
Worsens
No change
No change
No change
Mobility
• Provide local and regional route connectivity
• Enhance non motorized opportunities
• Provide additional travel choices
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Ability to not preclude transit/rail options
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Worsens
Left -out vehicular movement towards
transit facilities restricted
Worsens
Left -out vehicular movement towards
transit facilities restricted
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No
WS movement restricted
Yes
Controlled movements
No Change
No
WS movement restricted
No
WS movement restricted
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian
travel (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Yes
Less conflict points fore/w
continuity
Yes
Controlled movements
No Change
No Change
No Change
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction
travel (Y/N)
No Change
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements
(Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects [Good (limited); Fair,
(some effects that can be mitigated); Poor
(substantial/difficult to mitigate)]
Fair
Increase in noise
Fair
Increase in noiseWithin
Fair
If within ROW, potentially
historic property adjacent
Fair
If within ROW, potentially historic
property adjacent
Fair
floodplain
Fair
Increase in noise
Good
Good
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned
transportation projects, including ACP items (Good,
Fair, Poor)
Not applicable
Good
Fai r
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Comments
Consideration for RNMC#1 intersection
with US 34 west of WCR 45 along the
river
East End (Access)
Page 69
8.0 Level 3 Alternatives and Evaluation
8.1 Level 3 Alternative Description
For the Level 3 evaluation, the roadway and access elements advancing from the Level 2 evaluation
were combined with the supplemental elements (including existing and emerging technologies)that
advanced out of the Level 1 evaluation to create alternative packages that could be furtherevaluated.
Table 12, below, lists the alternatives, and the concepts used to compile the alternatives that design
options that were evaluated in Level 3. At some access locations, more than one concept that advanced
outof Level 2 was included in the alternative packages. These are listed as design options within each
alternative.
Table 12 - Alternatives Evaluated in Level 3
Foothills
Segment
Concepts
Included
Alternative
Lanes
at
1: 2 -Lane
Intersections
Cross Section with Added of Expanded
and Modifications to Shoulders
A uxil
ary
Roadway
Add/expand
the
2 -lane
cross
auxiliary
section
lanes
while
at
major intersections
adding standard
shoulders
to
maximize the
capacity
of
Access
Intersection
Improvements:
•
•
•
•
Eastbound
New
Option
Option
Option
Option
traffic
left
signal
1:
2:
3:
4:
Rossum
2
Roundabout
Channelized
Raised
-turn
-Way
at
lane
Left
Glade
to
Median
-turn
at
Cascade
1.CR
Road
at
T at
Lane
Rossum
Morning
27
Drive
Supplemental
Elements
Median
connections
safety
management,
improvements,
improvements,
along
Maintenance
US
34,
Existing
Consolidate
Transit
access,
technologies,
service
access,
Parking,
on
Bicycle
US
34,
Emerging
Drainage
and
Wildlife
technologies,
improvements
pedestrian
crossings,
regional
Localized
Incident
Loveland
Urban
Segment
Concepts
Included
Alternative
Major
1: 4
Intersections
-Lane
Cross Section with Added or Expanded Auxiliary
Lanes at
Roadway
Add/expand
4
-lane
cross
auxiliary
section
lanes at major
intersections to maximize the
capacity
of
the
Access
Wilson
Taft
Double
Avenue
Double
Avenue
left
left
Improvements:
-turn
-turn
Improvements:
lanes all
lanes southbound
directions
with
and
right
westbound
through
-lanes
Supplemental
Elements
Median
connections
improvements,
management,
improvements,
along
Maintenance
Consolidate
US 34, Transit
Existing technologies,
access,
service
access,
Parking,
Bicycle
on US
Emerging
34,
technologies,
Drainage
and
Localized
improvements
pedestrian
safety
Incident
regional
Page 70
L Loveland
6 -Lane
Segm
rent
Included
Concepts
Alternative
Major
Intersections
1: 6
-Lone
Cross Sections with Added or Expanded Auxiliary Lanes at
Roadway
Add additional
lanes from Lincoln
to
Monroe
to create a 6 -lane cross section
Access
Cleveland
•
•
Option
Option
Option
Avenue
1:
2: Indirect
3:
Double
3 -Lane
Lincoln
Left
Left
Roundabout
-turn
-turn
Avenue
Lanes
Lanes
(US 287) Improvements:
Supplemental
Elements
improvements
Median
connections
Existing
improvements,
technologies,
along
US 34,
Emerging
Consolidate
Transit
access,
service
technologies,
on
Bicycle
US
Incident
34,
and
Localized
pedestrian
management,
regional
safety improvements,
Drainage
Johnstown
-Greeley
Segrnen
`t
Concepts
Included
Alternative
Section
1:
with
4 -Lane
Interchanges
Cross
Alternative
Interchanges
2: 6 -Lane
Cross Section with
Roadway'
Existing
interchanges
4 -lane
cross section
with
Add
section
lanes to
with
create
interchanges
a 6 -lane
cross
Access
Interchange
Interchange
WCR
•
•
Interchan
No
for
Widen
US
Option
Option
realignment
Movement
improvements
WCR
34
13:
at
at
1: Interchange
2: Interchange
g a
19 and
the west
Business
at
at'k�IfCR
Larimer
LCR
of
SH
-bound
(2
WCR
Vs/CR
-Lane)
3
R
17
are
257
15
Pkwy
at
and
13
proposed
on
-ram
(LCR
WCR
p
3E)
13
to
Interchange
Interchange
•
•
Interchange
WCR
New
changes
Widen
34
realignment
Movement
Option
Option
Business
13:
signals
to
the
at
at
1: Interchange
2: Interchange
at
at
atSH257
WCR
west
(2 -Lane)
Larimer
LCR
of
WCR
19
-bound
WCR
3
WCR
15
17
Parkway
at
and
13
Ramps
on -ramp
WCR
with
(LCR
13
to
3E)
no
US
Supplemental
Elements
Consolidate
pedestrian
along
34,
Railroad,
Emerging
management,
Localized
US
34,
Existing
technologies,
regional
access,
Transit
safety
Maintenance
technologies,
Bicycle
connections
service
improvements,
Incident
and
on
access
US
Median
access,
connections
on
Railroad,
technologies,
Maintenance
US
34,
Bicycle
improvements,
Existing
Localized
along
Incident
access
and
technologies,
pedestrian
US 34,
safety
Consolidate
management,
Transit
improvements,
regional
Emerging
service
Page 71
Greeley
Expressway
Segment
Included
Concepts
Interchanges
Alternative 1: 4 -Lane
Cross Section with
Alternative
Interchanges
2: 6 -Lane
Cross Section with
Roadway
Existing
interchanges
4 -lane
cross section with
Add
section
lanes to
with
create
interchanges
a 6 -lane
cross
Access
Promontory
•
•
Interchange
71st
•
•
•
Interchange
Interchange
Minor
17th
•
•
Movement
lane
Option
Option
Option
Avenue
Option
an
Option
Option
Avenue
Option
Avenue
Avenue/65th
overpass
Changes
Avenue:
and
1:
2:
1:
2:
3:
1:
2:
Interchange
with
at
a
Parkway:
SPUI
at
3/4
SPUI
Split
at
Add
Overpass
at
channelized
83rd
a
at
47th
35th
at
95th
Movement
a
SPUI
at
65th
diamond
Avenue:
23rd
third
Avenue
71st
Avenue
Avenue
:
Avenue
at
over
Avenue
Avenue
eastbound
65th
Avenue
Tat
17th
at
Avenue
17th
71st
with
Promontory
• Option
• Option
Movement
Interchange
71st
• Option
Avenue
• Option
overpass
• Option
Interchange
Interchange
Minor
17th
• Option
and
• Option
Avenue/65th
Avenue:
Changes
a channelized
1:
2: Interchange
1:
with
2:
at
3:
1:
2:
Parkway:
SPUI
at
3/4
SPUI
Split
at
at
Add
Overpass
at
83rd
a
65th
47th
35th
at
95th
Movement
a
SPUI
at
diamond
Avenue:
23rd
third
Avenue
71st
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Tat
Avenue
at
over
65th
Avenue
Avenue
eastbound
17th
17th
at
71st
Avenue
with
Avenue
Avenue
lane
an
Supplemental
Elements
Consolidate
pedestrian
US
Localized
technologies,
Maintenance
management
34,
Transit
access,
regional
safety
access,
service
improvements,
Emerging
Bicycle
connections
on
technologies,
Incident
US
and
34,
along
Existing
Incident
Median
Bicycle
along
Localized
technologies,
US
improvements,
and
34,
safety
management,
pedestrian
Transit
improvements,
Emerging
service
Consolidate
regional
technologies,
Maintenance
on
connections
US
access,
34,
Existing
access
Page 72
East
End
Segment
Included
Concepts
Alternative 1: 4 -Lane Cross Section with Intersections
Roadway
Existing
4 -lane
cross section with
intersections
Access
3/4
WCR
• Option
• Option
Signalization
3/4
3/4
3/4
Movement
Movement
Movement
Movement
45 Improvements:
1:
2:
Realign
Right-in/Right
at
at
US
at
at
at
27th/28th
Intersection
34
WCR
WCR
WCR
Business
45.5
47
47.5
Street (frontage
out
road)
Supplemental
Elements
Median
connections
Existing
improvements,
technologies,
along
US
34,
Emerging
Consolidate
Wildlife
crossings,
technologies,
access,
Bicycle
localized
Incident
and
safety
management
pedestrian
improvements,
regional
SPUi= single -point urban interchange
Page 73
The Supplemental Elements that were carried forward from Level 1 should be accommodated as the
recommended alternatives are implemented. The Supplemental Elements that are included in the
alternatives (by segment) are shown in Table 13,
Table 13 - Level 3 Supplemental Elements
Supplemental
Element
Segment
Foothills
Segment
Loveland
Urban
2
Segment
3
Loveland
6 -Lane
Johnstown-
Segment
Greeley
4
Segment
Greeley
Expressway
5
Segment
6
East
End
1
Median
Improvements
f
f
,
i
Bicycle
Connections
and
Pedestrian
V
/
f
/
/
Vi'
Transit Service along
34
US
le
J
f
f
Improvements
Localized
Safety
f
/
Ve
Ve
i
Railroad
Improvements
f
Existing
enhancements
technology
*
V
f
f
/
/
I
Emerging
Enhancements
Technology
✓
v
Ve
✓
f
f
Incident
Management
f
Ve
Ve
f
Ve
f
Maintenance
Access
f
Net
VI
it
VI
f
Parking
Improvements
/
if
Drainage
Improvements
f
V
Ve
Wildlife
Crossing
V
V%
* The Technology Elements of the corridor are addressed in Attachment 02 of this report.
Page 74
8.2 Level 3 Evaluation Criteria
The purpose of the Level 3 evaluation was to evaluate the segment -wide alternatives against the project
Purpose and Need while balancing environmental effects. The Level 3 evaluation criteria expanded on
the Level 2 evaluation and provided additional criteria based on the project goals.
In addition to the Level 2 evaluation criteria, the following criteria were added:
• Travel Demand
o Improve operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Improvements that were identified as supplemental elements in the Level 1 evaluation were included in
the alternatives packaging and evaluation in Level 3.
8.2.1 Level 3 Evaluation Criteria
A discussion on the development of rubrics for evaluating the concepts and alternatives was presented
in Section 7.2.1. For the Level 3 evaluation Performance Measures were added and the rating
definitions were added or modified to reflect a segment -wide evaluation.
The criteria, performance measures and rating definitions used to evaluate the Level 3 Alternatives are
described in Table 14 — Level 3 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions,
below:
Table 14 Level 3, Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions
Page 75
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
US 34 PEL
Level 3 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, and Rating Definitions
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Recommended
Segment
-wide
Alternative
Rating
Definition
Safety
•
•
• Improve
Reduce
Reduce
severityIncrease
Enhance
pedestrian/bike
safety
geometry
crashesNeutral
crash
roadway
Vehicle/vehicle
points
(change)
conflict
Decrease
to conflict
=
points
The
number
would
of vehicle/vehicle
be reduced
under
conflict
this
alternative
points would
decrease
and/or
exposure
Neutral
would
=
not
The
change
number
of conflict
from existing
conditions
points
and/or
under
exposure
this
alternative
to
conflict
points
is
balanced
or
Increase
would
=
increase
The
number
under
this
of vehicle/vehicle
alternative
conflict
points and/or
exposure
to conflict
points
Vehicle/pedestrian-
bicycle
(change)
conflict
points
Decrease
exposure
=
to
The
conflict
number
of vehicle/pedestrian-bike
points would
be
reduced
under
conflict
this
alternative
points
would
decrease
and/or
Neutral
would
=
not
the
change
number
of conflict
from existing
conditions
points
and/or
under
exposure
this
alternative
to conflict
points
is
balanced
or
conflict
=
points
The number
would
of vehicle/pedestrian-bike
increase
under
this
alternative
conflict
points and/or
exposure
to
Projected
of
crashes
total
(change)
number
Decrease =
(over existing
The
conditions)
projected
number
under
this
of crashes
alternative
and/or
exposure
to crashes
would
decrease
Neutral
substantially
=
The
number
from
of
existing
projected
conditions
crashes
under
and/or
this
alternative
exposure
to crashes
would
not change
Increase =
(over existing
The
conditions)
projected
number
under
this
of crashes
alternative
and/or
exposure
to crashes
would
increase
injury
Projected
and/or
crasheschange
number
fatal
of
Decrease
(over
=
existing
The
conditions)
projected
number
under
this
of crashes
alternative
and/or
exposure
to crashes
would
decrease
No
change
Change
substantially
= The
number
from
of
existing
projected
conditions
crashes
and/or
under
this
exposure
alternative
to crashes
would
not
Increase =
(over existing
The
conditions)
projected
number
under
this
of crashes
alternative
and/or
exposure
to crashes
would
increase
Page 76
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Reim
_
ended
Seg
_.ent_
l • e Alternative
Rating
Definitions
Travel
Demand
•
•
(Improve
Reduce
Serve
to adjacent
parallel
demand
congestion
operations
routes
and
Traveled
Change
in Vehicle
(qualitative)
Miles
Decrease
conditions
-
under
There
this
would
alternative
be a decrease in qualitative
out
of direction travel
over existing
No Change =
existing conditions
There
would
under
be minimal
this alternative
change
in qualitative
out
of direction
travel
over
Increase
conditions
= There
under
would
this
alternative
be in increase in qualitative
out
of direction
travel
over existing
Overall
(LOS)
(change)
level
of
Service
Improves
more
= Overall
letter grade
when
LOS ratings
compared
at intersections
and
to no action under
roadway
this
alternative
segments improves
by one or
No
as
Change
no action
= Overall
under
this
LOS
alternative
ratings
at intersections
and
roadway
segments
remains the
same
Worsens
more
= Overall
letter grade
LOS
when
ratings
compared
at intersections
to no action
and
under
roadway
this
alternative
segments
worsen
by one or
Vehicle
'HC;
hours
Hours
of
Delay
Improves
= VHD
improves
compared
to no action under
this
alternative
No
alternative
Change
= VHD
is not significantly
statistically
different
than
for
the
no action under
this
Worsens = VHD
worsens compared
to
no action under
this
alternative
Effect
on parallel
roads
Improves =
Reduces
average daily
traffic volume
on
parallel
roads
Neutral
= Average daily
traffic volume
is unaffected
on
parallel
roads
Worsens = Increases
average
daily
traffic
volume
on
parallel
roads
Reliability
•
•
•
improve
reliability
Provide
access
communities
Quality
Operations
travel
emergency
for
ofTraffi
adjacent
Travel
(ratio)
Time
Index
Improves
= US 34
travel
time index
improves
by 5% or more under
this
alternative
No
Change
= US 34
travel
time index
changes
by
less than
5% under
this
alternative
Worsens = US 34
travel
time index
worsens
by 5% or more under
this
alternative
Travel
(%
change
Time
of
by segment
minutes)
_compared
Improves
= US
to the
34 travel
no action
time improves
under
this
alternative
by 5% or more within
the
segment improves
overall
No Change
overall
compared
= US
34
travel
to the
time changes
no action
under
by
this
less
alternative
than
5% within
the
segment
and
worsens
Worsens
compared
= US
to the
34
travel
no action
time worsens
under
this
by
alternative
5% or more within
the
segment
worsens overall
Page 77
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Rem
mended
Segment
-wide
,.
term
Ire Rati
: Definitions
Mobility
•
•
• Improve
•
Provide
Regional
Connectivity
Accommodate
future
service
Enhance
Motorized
Opportunities
connectivity
Accommodate
bicycle
pedestrian
transit
Local
and
Route
Non-
bicycle
travel
and
Access
facilities
to transit
(qualitative)
Improves
for motorized
=
This
alternative
and
non -motorized
would
improve
users
access
to transit facilities
in the
US 34
corridor
No
corridor
Change
=
compared
This
alternative
to existing
would
conditions
not change
accessibility
of transit facilities
in the
US 34
Worsens
corridor
= This
for
alternative
motorized
and
would
non -motorized
reduce
accessibility
users
of transit facilities
in the
US 34
Accommodate
transit
facilities
service
(qualitative)
future
and
Good
= This
alternative
accommodates
planned
service and
facilities
in the
US 34
corridor
Fair =
This alternative
has minor impacts
to
planned
transit
service in the
US 34
corridor
Poor
corridor
=
This
alternative
has substantial
impacts
to
planned
transit service in the
US 34
deduce
pedestrian
travel
(qualitative)
barriers
and
bicycle
for
N/S
Yes =
bicyclists
This
alternative
would
reduce
barriers to north/south
travel
for
pedestrians
and
No
pedestrians
Change
=
and
This
alternative
bic
y cl
fists
would
not change
barriers to north/south
travel
for
No
and
=
bicyclists
This
alternative
would
create additional
barriers to north/south
travel
for
pedestrians
Improve
E/W
pedestrian
(qualitative)
bicycle
continuity
and
travel
for
Yes =
bicyclists
This
alternative
would
improve
continuity of east/west travel
for
pedestrians
and
No
bicyclists
Change
=
over
This
alternative
existing
conditions
would
not
change
east/west travel
for
pedestrians
and
No
bicyclists
=
This
alternative
would
disrupt
continuity
of east/west
travel
for
pedestrians
and
Accommodate
regional
corridors
non
(qualitative)
-motorized
planned
Good
motorized
= this
alternative
corridors
along
has no
and
impacts
across
to the
US 34.
implementation
of the
planned
regional
non -
Fair =
corridors
This
along
alternative
and
across
has minor
US
34.
adverse
impact
to
the
planned
regional
non -motorized
Poor
corridors
=
This
along
alternative
and across
has substantial
US
34.
impacts
to the
planned
regional
non -motorized
Page 78
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Recommended
Segment
-wide
Alternative
Rating
Definitions
Freight
a
Accommodate
truck requirements
Minimize
restrictions
of
-direction
turning
and/or
travel
out-
(V/N)
Yes -
freight
This
vehicles
alternative
would
minimize out -of -direction
travel
and/or
access restrictions
for
No
change
= Out
of direction
travel
and/or
access restrictions
for
freight
do
not change
No
restrictions
= This
alternative
for freight
would
vehicles
increase out -of -direction
travel
and/or
impose
new access
Geometry
accommodates
turning
(V/N)
movements
truck
Yes = The
Geometry
geometry
will
prevent
of this
trucks
alternative
from impeding
can
accommodate
other
lanes
truck
and
sidewalks
turning
requirements.
No
of
change
freight
=
vehicles
The
geometry
are accommodated.
of
this
alternative
does
not change
how
turning
requirements
No
freight
=
The
vehicles.
geometry
of this
Geometry
alternative
will
will
cause trucks
not
to
accommodate
impede
other
lanes
the
turning
and
requirements
sidewalks
of
Environmental
•
•
Identification
Relative
environmental
effects
environmental
effects
rating
of
of
Relative
effects
Poor)
environmental
(Good,
Fair,
Good
would
= This
have
alternative
beneficial
would
environmental
result
in
effects
limited
to
adverse
the
environmental
resources
listed.
effects
and/or
Fair =
mitigated
This
alternative
to
the
resources
would
listed.
have some adverse
environmental
effects that
could
be
Poor
require
=
This
extensive
alternative
would
mitigation
to
have
the
environmental
resources listed.
effects that
could
be substantial
or
Page 79
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Category
Criteria
Performance
(Measurement)
Measure
Recommended
Segment
-wide
,.
term.
ye Rating
Deflnl
dons
Transportation
Community,
E and
Priorities
Use, and
• Included
community
use
transportation
plans
and
in
land
including
Sufficient
accommodate
transportation
(Good,
ROW
ACP
Fair,
items
Poor)
to
planned
projects,
Good
parcels
= There
is sufficient
ROW
to accommodate
this
alternative,
include
number
of
include
Fair
=
This alternative
number
of
would
parcels
require
acquisition
of adjacent
undeveloped
properties,
Poor
properties,
=
This
alternative
include
number
would
of
require
parcels
acquisition
of
ROW from one or more
developed
Consistent
plans
(qualitative)
with
local
Yes = This
alternative
appears
to
be consistent
with
adopted
local
and
regional
plans
Mixed
while
=
in conflict
This
alternative
with
others
appears
pppplans,
to
be consistent
with
some adopted
local/regional
No
= This
alternative
appears
to
be inconsistent with
adopted
local
and
regional
plans
Consistent
(qualitative)
with
ACP
Yes = This
alternative
is consistent with
the
ACP
for this
location
No
= This
alternative
is inconsistent with
the
ACP
for this
location
Support
development
(qualitative)
economic
Yes = This
alternative
would
not
preclude
economic
development
in this
segment
Neutral
economic
=
This
development
alternative
in
could
this
result
segment
in
business relocation
but
would
not
preclude
No
= This
alternative
could
preclude
economic development
opportunities
in this
segment
Cost
• Segment
Conceptual
Cost
Cost
(2017
or
U.S.
Range
Dollars)
of Cost
No
(excludes
Rating
=
right-of-way
Cost
or range of cost
costs)
which
include
planning
design,
and construction
costs
Assessment
Result
Carry forward = Applies
only to the
No
Action
Recommended
=
This
is
the recommended
alternative
for this
segment
Feasible,
due
Elements
discussed
to
comparatively
but
of
further
this
not
alternative
recommend
in
the
negligible
"Implementation
would
=
benefits
This
alternative
be feasible
and
Plan".
higher
as
will
an
not
impacts
interim
be evaluated
than
improvement
other
further
alternatives,
and
in
the
will
study
be
Eliminated
study
or the
=
alternative
This
alternative
is unreasonable
does not
meet
due
the
to impacts
Purpose
and
and/or
Need
infeasibility.
established
with
this
Page 80
A summary of conceptual cost can be found in Attachment 03 of this report. Specific conceptual cost
data can be found in Attachment 04 of this report.
8.2.2 Level 3 Evaluation Results
The defined Level 3 Evaluation results had three potential outcomes, as shown in the matrices;
• Recommended — Alternative is recommended as the ultimate configuration in this segment
• Feasible but not recommended — This alternative is not recommended as the ultimate
configuration in this segment, but this alternative might be implemented — either in whole or in
part- as a phasing step toward the Recommended Alternative
• Eliminated — Alternatives were not carried forward
Below is a summary of the Alternatives assessed to be either Feasible but not recommended or
Eliminated:
Foothills, Loveland Urban, Loveland 6 Lane, and East End:
No alternative was considered to be either Feasible but not recommended or was Eliminated.
Johnstown -Greeley and Greeley Expressway:
The Level 3 evaluation resulted in one alternative in the Johnstown -Greeley segment and one
alternative in the Greeley Expressway segment not being recommended. In both segments, Alternative
1, 4 -Lane Cross Section with Interchanges, was not recommended for furtherconsideration
because the 6 -lane cross section would achieve the following:
• Eliminate a transition that reduces traffic conflicts, providing consistency with the 6 -lane
highway section near 1-2S, and better connect with the 1-25 Interchange Project and US 34/US
85 Project (separate projects)
• Better accommodate incident management
• Provide flexibility and be more resilient to accommodate unforeseen growth
Not require additional ROW over the 4 -lane cross section
• Have a relatively similar cost to the 4 -lane cross section
• Provide more flexibility to accommodate express lanes, bus rapid transit options, and/orfuture
emerging technologies
The matrix in each segment will vary based on the number of alternatives and the other unique
characteristics within each segment. Similar to the Level 2 results, the most comprehensive summary of
the Level 3 work completed by the project team is contained in the Level 3 Evaluation matrices, which
are shown in Table 15 below:
Table 15 — Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Page 81
Table 15
COLORADO
Do par tenant of TY a nspartati Ott
Foothills Segment
Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Concepts for Foothills: La rimer County Road 27 (LCR 27) to Morning Drive
C tea
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
NoAction
j2ane
Alternative 1.
roadway cross section
intersections
with added
or expanded
to shoulders
auxiliary
lanes at]
and modifications
Figure 1 ,
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decrease- aux
lanes improves safety
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase
(auxiliary lanes at intersections increase exposure and conflict points)
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease- aux lanes improves safety
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease- aux lanes improves safety
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
• Improve operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Change in vehicle miles traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
Overall level of service (LOS) (change)
No Change (LOS A)
No Change
Vehicle hours of delay (VHD) (hours)
No Change
No Change
Effect on parallel roads (ADT)
Neutral
Neutral
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel time index (ratio)
No Change
No Change
Travel time by segment (% change of minutes)
No change
No Change
Mobility
• Provide Local and Regional Route Connectivity
• Accommodate future transit service
• Enhance Non -Motorized Opportunities
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No change
Worsens
(improvements make access to transit
on east for bikes/peds difficult)
Accommodate future transit service and facilitates (qualitative)
N/A (No planned transit service or facilities in segment)
N/A (No planned transit service or facilities in segment)
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No change
No (Increased lanes at intersections and intersection options that
difficult for bikes and peds to travel)
are
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
No change
No (Increased right -in movements and intersection options that are
difficult for bikes/peds to travel)
Accommodate planned regional non -motorized corridors (qualitative)
Fair (no improvements accommodate the RNMC # 3 which
parallels US 34, yet does not implement segments of the
RNMC #3)
Good (accommodates
consideration should
corridor with US
34
RNMC #3 along the Big Thompson River. Further
be given to the potential crossings of this planned
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No change
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (YIN)
No change
Yes
Environmental
• Relative rating of environmental effects
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects (Good, Fair, Poor)
Fair
Increase in noise
Fair
- 1 10Q year
-1 cultural resource
- 6 stream and/or
-1 potential
floodplain encroachment
site (US 34 mainline, 5LR.13318.2)
water body crossings
noise analysis area in residential area at Butte Rd.
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Fair minimal footprint
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Yes
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Cost
• Segment Conceptual Cost
Cost or Range of Cost (US. Dollars)
$5 M
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Comments
Disclaimer: The most reasonable design options were included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A future NEPA team may reevaluate design options at individual locations.
L3 Foothills (Alternatives)
Page 82
Table 15
COLORADO
Dap!rtmaat of Try nspartati att
Loveland Urban Segment
Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Concepts for Loveland Urban: Morning Drive to N Garfield Ave
Criteria
Performance
(measurement}
Measure
No
Action
4 -lane
roadway cross section
with intersections
Rgure
2
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase (more aux lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts and exposure
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Neutral (less congestion, more traffic)
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Neutral (less congestion, more traffic)
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
• Improve operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Change in vehicle miles traveled (qualitative)
No change
No change
Overall level of service (LOS) (change)
No change
Improves from B/F to B/C
Vehicle hours of delay (VHD) (hours)
No change
No change
Effect on parallel roads (ADT)
Neutral
Neutral
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel time index (ratio)
No change
No change
Travel time by segment (°% change of minutes)
No change
No change
Mobility
• Provide Local and Regional Route Connectivity
• Accommodate future transit service
• Enhance Nan Motorized Opportunities
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
N/C
Worsens (more aux lanes = more crossing distance/conflicts/exposure to
get to transit located to the east)
Accommodate future transit service and facilitates (qualitative)
N/A
N/A (No planned transit service or facilities in segment)
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
N/C
No (more aux lanes and more left -turn movements)
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
N/C
No (increase vehicular
right -in and left -in movements)
Accommodate planned regional non -motorized corridors (qualitative)
N/A
N/A (No Regional Non -Motorized Corridors (RNMC) adjacent or across US
34 in this segment. Yet consideration should be given to Segment of 3-A
of RNMC #3 that parallels US 34 to the south)
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No change
Good
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No change
Good
Environmental
• Relative rating of environmental effects
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects (Good, Fair, Poor)
Fair - increase in noise
Fair
- 2 potential cultural resource sites (Big Barnes Ditch, State of Liberty
Sculpture)
- 1 trail crossing under US 34
- 3 stream and/or water body crossings
- 2 potential noise analysis areas in area near Wilson Ave. and Taft Ave.
(residential area with 1 church)
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not Applicable
Poor - developed urban area, ROW impacts
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Mixed
Yes = Land Use
No = Does not implement City of Loveland Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (,
future bike lanes from Namaqua to Garfield)
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Cost
• Segment Conceptual Cost
Cost or Range of Cost (U.S. Dollars)
Undefined
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Comments
Disclaimer: The most reasonable design options were included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A future NEPA team may reevaluate design options at individual locations.
L3 Loveland Urban(Alternatives)
Page 83
Table 15
COLOR'AD'O
Deparhnertt at Transportation
Loveland 6 -Lane Segment
Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Concepts for Loveland 6 -Lane: N Garfield Ave to Rocky Mountain Ave
Criteria
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
No Action
Alternative
1
6 -lane roadway cross section
with Intersections
Figure
3
Safety
• Reduce
• Reduce
• Enhance
• Improve
crashes
crash severity
pedestrian/bike safety
roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase (Aux lanes increase exposure and conflict points)
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Not Applicable
Neutral (less congestion, more traffic)
Projected
number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Not Applicable
Neutral (less congestion, more traffic)
Travel Demand
• Reduce
• Serve demand
• Improve
congestion
operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Change in vehicle miles traveled (qualitative)
No change
No change
overall level of service (LOS) (change)
No change
No change
Vehicle hours of delay
(VHD) (hours)
No change
Improves by 5%
Effect on parallel roads (ADT)
Neutral
Neutral
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent
• Quality of traffic operations
communities
Travel time index (ratio)
No change
Improves by 9%
Trawl time by segment (% change of minutes)
No change
Improves by 9%
Mobility
• Provide Local and Regional Route Connectivity
• Accommodate future transit service
• Enhance Non -Motorized Opportunities
• Improve bicycle connectivity
P y
• Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No change
Worsens (more lanes = more crossing distance. Options make it more difficult
for bikes/peds
to travel. Areas is important access node)
Accommodate future transit service and facilitates (qualitative)
N/A
Fair
(Improvements
do not preclude future transit service, yet does not implement transit service in alternative NFRMPO Regional Transit Corridors #5, #8, #9)
Reduce barriers for WS pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No change
No
(Add aux lanes at intersection, increases the crossing distance and options make it harder for bikes and peds to navigate)
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
No change
No
(Intersection options make it harder for bike-ped travel)
Accommodate planned regional non -motorized corridors
(qualitative)
Poor
Poor
(Alternative does not implement RNMC #11 segment 11-A,(planned
p g
enhance bike lanes from RNMC #7(east of Boise o 1-25
Ave.)}
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction
travel (Y/N)
No change
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No change
Yes
Environmental
• Relative rating of environmental effects
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects (Good,
Fair, Poor)
Fair
Increase in noise
Fair
Option
- 1
- 4
- 1
additional
Option
- Same
1 and
cultural resources
stream and/or
noise analysis
lane
2:
as Option
3:
site (Columbine Cabin Court, 5LR.9881)
water body crossings
area in residential area between Monroe
1 plus potential noise impacts caused
Ave. and Lincoln Ave. (includes
by introduction of new traffic patterns
2 churches, residences, hotel, music school) caused by new
for indirect lefts
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Poor - Cleveland/Lincoln to Monroe
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Mixed
Yes = Land Use
No = Alternative does not include Loveland's
Enhanced bike lanes from Madison to east
Bicycle and
of 1-25.
Pedestrian Plan future planned bike lanes on US 34 from Garfield
to Madison and Future Planned
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Neutral
Cost
• Segment Conceptual Cost
Cost or Range of Cost (U.S. Dollars)
Loveland's budget numbers
Assessment
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Comments
Disclaimer: The most reasonable design options were included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A future NEPA team may reevaluate design options at individual locations.
L3Loveland 6-Lane(Alternatives)
Page 84
Table 15
(COLORADO
Dapartment of Transpanatio.n
Johnstown -Greeley Segment
Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Concepts for Johnstown -Greeley: Centerra/Thompson Pkwy to East of Hwy 257
Criteria-,
Performance
(measurement)
Measure
No Action
Alternative 1
Alternative Z
4 -lane
roadway cross section with interchanges
5 -lane roadway cross section with interchanges
Figure 4
Figure 5
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Neutral (Controlled movements, yet more locations)
Neutral (Controlled movements, yet increased exposure distance and locations)
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
• Improve operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Change in vehicle miles traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No change
Overall level of service (LOS) (change)
No Change
Improves from LOS F/F to C/D
Improves from LOS F/F to B/C
Vehicle hours of delay (VHD) (hours)
No Change
Improves
Improves
Effect on parallel roads (ADT)
Neutral
Neutral
Improves
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel time index (ratio)
No Change
Improves by 60%
Improves by 61%
Travel time by segment (% change of minutes)
No Change
Improves by 64%
Improves by 65%
Mobili
• Provide Local and Regional Route Connectivity
• Accommodate future transit service
• Enhance Non -Motorized Opportunities
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Current transit facilities in segment: Park -n -Ride east of 1-25 and
bus stop on shops
Improves (access to facilities on the west is improved)
Improves (controlled movement facilitate access to facilities on the West)
Accommodate future transit service and facilitates (qualitative)
Fair (no improvements to better accommodate future transit)
p
Fair
(accommodates future regional transit service along US 34,yet might have some impacts on planned
g g p p
Village Center on US 34 and WCR 13, located as to support the servicing by future regional transit system)
Fair
(accommodates future regional transit service along US 34, yet might have some impacts on planned
Village Center on US 34 and WCR 13, located as to support the servicing by future regional transit
system)
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No Change
No (interchanges would increase crossing distance/N/S barriers)
No (increased crossing distance and exposure by interchanges and number of lanes)
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
No Change
No (increased crossing distance and crossing points because of interchanges)
No (increased crossing distance and crossing points because of interchanges)
Accommodate planned regional non -motorized corridors (qualitative)
Fair (no improves do not preclude, yet do not implement RNMC
#11 along US 34 and grade separated crossing of RNMC #4 and
#9)
Fair (Interchanges at LCR 3E and
from 1-25 to LCR 3)
LCR 3 could have minor impacts on RNMC 11 segment 11-B (bike lanes
Fair (Interchanges at LCR 3E and LCR 3 could have minor impacts on RNMC 11 segment 11-B (bike
lanes from 1-25 to LCR 3)
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Environmental
• Relative rating of environmental effects
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects (Good, Fair,
Fair
Increase in noise
Poor
- 7 streams and/or water body crossings
- 2 noise analysis areas (hospital at LCR 3E, residential area south of US 34 at WCR 15)
LCR 3 and 3E:
Option 2:
- 1 cultural resource site (Loveland and Greeley Canal, 5LR.503.2)
Option 3:
- 5 cultural resource sites (railroad, 5LR.1815.3 and SLR.1815.12; Lauver Farm, 5LR.11297; Loveland and
Greeley Canal, 5LR.503.2; Zeller Farm, 5LR11299)
WCR 13:
Option 1:
- 3 cultural resource sites (Feeder Ditch Oklahoma; Great Western Railroad, 5WL.841; Loveland and
Greeley Canal, 5W L.898)
Option 2:
- Same cultural resource impacts as Option 1 plus one additional crossing of Loveland and Greeley Canal
(5W L.898)
- 1 potential wetland area
-1 oil/gas well potentially impacted
Poor
Same as Alternative 1
2 cultural resource sites (railroad; Zeller Farm, 5LR.11299) may have additional impacts from
widening US 34
* Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects, including ACP
items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Good
Fair
Fair
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
No
(alternative could impact proposed village center in Johnstown Comprehensive Plan)
Mixed
Yes
No (Alternative could impact proposed village center in Johnstown Comprehensive Plan)
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Cost
• Segrnent Conceptual Cost (2017 $)
Cost or Range of Cost (U.S. Dollars)
$280 M - $300 M
$310 M - $320 M
Assessment
MC
Result
Carry forward
Feasible, but not recommended
Recommended
Comments
Although not recommended for inclusion in the long-term Recommended Alternative, these
improvements are lower -cost and would support a phased approach to achieving the Recommended
Alternative (see Section 6.0).
This option was selected because it better accommodates incident management, provides flexibility
to accommodate unforeseen growth and is more resilient. This option eliminates a transition that
reduces traffic conflicts, providing consistency with the 6 -lane highway section near 125, and better
connect with the 125 Interchange Project and US 34/US 85 Project (separate studies). This option also
does not impact ROW, provides more flexibility for a relatively similar costs, and better
accommodates express lanes, BRT options, an/or future emerging technologies.
Disclaimer: The most reasonable design options were included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A future NEPA team may reevaluate design options at individual locations.
L3 Johnstown -Greeley (Alts.)
Page 85
Table 15
COLORADO
Departrnarit at Tranc.pertatian
Greeley Expressway Segment
Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Concepts for Greeley Expressway: East of Hwy 257 to West of 11th Ave
Criteria
Performance Measure
(measurement)
No Action
Alternative 1
Alternative
2
4 -lane
roadway cross section
with interchanges
6 -lane
roadway cross section
with
interchanges
Figure 6
Agure 7
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Increase (interchanges add conflict points and exposure)
Increase (interchanges + additional lanes add conflict points
and exposure)
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decrease
Decrease
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
• Improve operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Change in vehicle miles traveled (qualitative)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Overall level of service (LOS) (change)
No Change
Improves F/F to C/C
Improves from LOS F/F
to B/B
Vehicle hours of delay (VHD)
(hours)
No Change
Improves
Improves
Effect on parallel roads (ADT)
Neutral
Neutral
Improves
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel time index (ratio)
No Change
Improves by 39%
Improves by 39%
Travel time by segment (% change of minutes)
No Change
Improves by 49%
Improves by 49%
Mobility
• Provide Local and Regional Route Connectivity
• Accommodate future transit service
• Enhance Non -Motorized Opportunities
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
Worsens (interchanges increase crossing distance. Channelized
crossing points at in important transit node (Greeley Mall Transit
E/W traffic that is always moving)
T reduces the number of N/S
Center) while prioritizing
Worsens (additional lanes and interchanges increase crossing distance. Channelized T reduces the
number of N/S crossing points at in important transit node (Greeley Mall Transit Center) while
prioritizing E/W traffic that is always moving)
Accommodate future transit service and facilitates (qualitative)
Fair (alternative does not preclude transit service and
facilities, yet does not provide flexibility for future transit
service)
Fair (alternative does not preclude transit service and facilities, yet interchanges might make
it more difficult for transit stops and bike/ped crossings)
Fair (alternative does
better transit travel time,
for bike-ped crossings)
not preclude transit service and facilities. Additional lanes provide flexibility for
yet interchanges make it more difficult for stops that are close together and
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel (qualitative)
No Change
No (interchanges increase crossing distance. 3/4
Channelized T reduce the number of N/S crossing
Mall Transit Center) while prioritizing E/W traffic that
movements restrict N/S movement.
points at in important transit node (Greeley
is always moving)
No (6 lanes increase and interchanges N/Scrossing distance. 3/4 movements restrict N/S movement.
Channelized T reduce the number of N/S crossing points at in important transit node (Greeley Mall
Transit Center) while prioritizing E/W traffic that is always moving)
Improve continuity for E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
No Change
No (interchanges increase E/W barriers and distance to be crossed by bikes/peds)
No (interchanges increase E/W barriers and distance to be crossed by bikes/peds and aux lanes increase
right -in turn movements)
Accommodate planned regional non -motorized corridors (qualitative)
Poor (no accommodation of proposed RNMCs)
Good (accommodates future and existing segments of RN MC #11 and intersection of RNMC
#10)
Fair (additional lanes could have minor impacts on accommodating future segments of RNMC 11 (side
path/bike lanes or bike route) east of 35th due to space)
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No Change
Good
Good
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Good
Good
Environmental
• Relative rating of environmental effects
• Identification of environmental effects
Relative environmental effects (Good, Fair, Poor)
Fair
Increase in noise
Poor
- 1 100 -year floodplain encroachment
- 15 stream and/or water body crossings
- 1 hazardous materials site
- 7 noise analysis areas (residential areas NE of 83rd and US 34, between 71st and 47th on
both sides of US 34, between 23rd and 35th on both sides of US 34, and between 23rd and
11th on both sides of US 34)
- 4 water wells potentially impacted at 83rd
- 2 trail crossings
- 1 park/recreational site
-1 potential wetland area
- 1 cultural resource site (Greeley Canal, 5WL.898) at 3 different locations because of
new interchanges
Poor
Same as Alternative 1
plus
-1 cultural resource site (Loveland and Greeley Canal, 5WL.898) may have additional impacts from
widening of US 34
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportationplans
p
Sufficient ROW to
(Good, Fair, Poor)
accommodate planned transportation
projects, including ACP items
Good
Fair
Fair
Consistent with localplans (qualitative)
No
(Limits N/S bike/ped movements at 95th and 71st where
bicycle facilities are planned. Also grade separated crossing at
17th Ave is not included
Mixed
Yes
No (Limits N/S bike/ped movements at 95th and 71st where bicycle facilities are planned.
Also grade separated crossing at 17th Ave is not included"
Mixed
Yes
No (Limits N/S bike/ped
separated crossing at
movements at 95th and 71st where bicycle facilities are planned. Also grade
17th Ave is not included"
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Neutral
Neutral
Cost
• Segment Conceptual Cost (2017 $)
Cost or Range of Cost (U.S. Dollars)
$175 M - $185 M
$210 M - $220M
Result
Carry forward
Feasible but not recommended
Recommended
Comments
Although not recommended for inclusion in the long-term
improvements are lower -cost and would support a phased
Recommended Alternative (see Section 6.0).
Recommended Alternative, these
approach to achieving the
This option was selected because it better accommodates incident management,
accommodate unforeseen growth and is more resilient. This option eliminates
traffic conflicts, providing consistency with the 6 -lane highway section
the 125 Interchange Project and US 34/US 85 Project (separate studies).
ROW, provides more flexibility fora relatively similar costs, and better
options, an/or future emerging technologies.
provides flexibility to
a transition that reduces
near 1-25, and better connect with
This option also does not impact
accommodates express lanes, BRT
Disclaimer: The most reasonable design options were included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A future NEPA team may reevaluate design options at individual locations.
L3 Greeley Expressway (Alts.)
Page 86
Table 15
COLORADO
Dnpartrueat nspertati art
East End Segment
Level 3 Evaluation Table - Alternatives
Concepts for East End: 1st Ave to Weld County Road 49 (WCR 49
Criteria
Performance Measure
(measurement}
No Action
Alternative 1
4 -lane roadway
cross section with
intersections
Figure
8
Safety
• Reduce crashes
• Reduce crash severity
• Enhance pedestrian/bike safety
• Improve roadway geometry
Vehicle/vehicle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decreases - Access mgmt reduces conflicts
Vehicle/pedestrian-bicycle conflict points (change)
Neutral
Decreases (limits turn movements)
Projected total number of crashes (change)
Neutral
Decreases - Access mgmt reduces conflicts
Projected number of injury and/or fatal crashes (change)
Neutral
Decreases - Access mgmt reduces conflicts
Travel Demand
• Reduce congestion
• Serve demand
• Improve operations to adjacent and parallel routes
Change in vehicle miles traveled (qualitative)
No change
Increase
Overall level of service (LOS) (change)
No change
No change
Vehicle hours of delay (VHD)
(hours)
No change
No change
Effect on parallel roads (ADT)
Neutral
Neutral
Reliability
• Improve travel reliability
• Provide emergency access for adjacent communities
• Quality of traffic operations
Travel time index (ratio)
No change
No change
Travel time by segment (% change of minutes)
No change
No change
Mobility
• Provide Local and Regional Route Connectivity
• Accommodate future transit service
• Enhance Non -Motorized Opportunities
• Improve bicycle connectivity
• Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel
Access to transit facilities (qualitative)
No Change
No change (no transit facilities in this segment)
Accommodate future transit service and facilitates (qualitative)
No Change
N/A (alternative does not impact proposed transit service or facilities.
Yet, 3/4 movements limit access to proposed NFRMPO Regional Transit
Corridor and 1-25 EIS proposed transit center that would be located
towards the west)
Reduce barriers for N/S pedestrian and bicycle travel
(qualitative)
No Change
No (3/4 movements restrict N/S movement)
Improve continuity for
E/W bicycle and pedestrian travel (qualitative)
Yes (limits/controls movements)
Accommodate planned regional non -motorized corridors (qualitative)
Good (accommodates RNMC #1 further consideration should be give to
the potential crossing of RNMC #11 with RNMC #1)
Freight
• Accommodate truck requirements
Minimize turning restrictions and/or out -of -direction travel (Y/N)
No Change
No
Geometry accommodates truck turning movements (Y/N)
No Change
Yes- truck accommodation included with new construction
Environmental
• Relative rating of environmental effects
• Identification of environmental effectsIncrease
Relative environmental effects (Good, Fair Poor)
Fair
in noise
Fair
- 1 100 -year floodplain encroachment
- 1 potential wetland area (at floodplain)
6 streams and/or water body crossings
Community Land Use and Transportation Priorities
• Included in community land use and transportation plans
Sufficient ROW to accommodate planned transportation projects,
including ACP items (Good, Fair, Poor)
Not applicable
Fair- small corner acquisitions, CR 45 likely would be done via developer
dedication
Consistent with local plans (qualitative)
No
Mixed
Yes
No(alternative
multimodal
does not preclude, yet does not implement local planned
improvements (side path south of US 34))
Consistent with ACP (qualitative)
No
Yes
Support economic development (qualitative)
No
Yes
Cost
• Segment Conceptual Cost
Cost or Range of Cost (U.S. Dollars)
$3 M
Result
Carry forward
Recommended
Comments
Disclaimer: The most reasonable design options were included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A future NEPA team may reevaluate design options at individual locations.
L3 East End (Alternatives)
Page 87
9.0 Recommended Alternatives
Comparison of the alternatives against the Level 3 criteria resulted in the identification of a
Recommended Alternative with potential design options for each segment. The Recommended
Alternative meets the project Purpose and Need and project goals while minimizing environmenta
community impacts and setting a vision for the future of US 34.
and
The following improvements, listed by segment below and illustrated on Figures 6 through 11, comprise
the Recommended Alternativefor the US 34 corridor. These figures also show potential locations of
supplemental elements to the Recommended Alternative including potential wildlife crossings, drainage
improvements, parking improvements, transit elements, and a park and ride. Although future NEPA
studies may re-evaluate design options at individual locations, the most reasonable design options were
included in each alternative for Level 3 segment evaluation. A detailed discussion describing how the
multimodal facilities included in the supplemental elements would be incorporated into the
Recommended Alternative is included in PEL Section 2.3.1.
• Foothills Segment
o Alternative 1: 2 -Lane Cross Section with Added or Expanded Auxiliary Lanes at
Intersections and Modifications to Shoulders
• Loveland Urban Segment
Alternative 1: 4 -Lane Cross Section with Intersections
• Loveland 6 -Lane Segment
o Alternative 1: 6 -Lane Cross Sections with Intersections
• Johnstown -Greeley Segment
o Alternative 2: 6 -Lane Cross Section with Interchanges
• Greeley Expressway Segment
o Alternative 2: 6 -Lane Cross Section with Interchanges
• East End Segment
o Alternative 1: 4 -Lane Cross Section with Intersections
9.1 Consistency of Segments Adjacent to 1-25
The 1-25 Interchange Project study area, between and including Rocky Mountain Boulevard and
Ce nterra/Thom pson Parkways, was excluded from the US 34 P E L because its ultimate improvements are
defined in thel-25 EIS/Record of Decision (ROD) (CDOT, 2011). The improvements include a multi -level
directional interchange between US 34 and 1-25, with single -point interchanges at both Rocky Mountain
Boulevard and Centerra/Thompson Parkways on either side of I-25. An interim phase of these
improvementswill be constructed in 2018, with the addition of a third lane in each direction of US 34
within /2 to 'A mile eneither side of 1-25.
On the west side of 1-25 in the Loveland 6 -Lane segment, the Recommended Alternative is to complete
the construction of six lanes on US 34, which is consistent with both the interim 2018 6-laning project
and the ultimate 1-25 interchange improvements shown in the 1-25 ROD (CDOT, 2011). On the east side
of 1-25 in the Johnstown -Greeley Expressway segment, the Recommended Alternative is to implementa
series of interchanges, which were shown in the access control plan (CDOT, 2003b) and is consistent
with the 1-25 interchange improvements as shown in the 1-25 ROD.
Page 88
9.2 Consistency of Segments Adjacent to US 34 / US 85 Interchange
The US 34/US 85 project area (which includes 11th Avenue), located between the Greeley Expressway
and East End segments, is a complex interchange that is currently under study for preliminary design. It
is anticipated that recommendations for long-term improvements and phased implementation of that
alternative will be determined in late 2018.
A constraint for the Recommended Alternative in the Greeley Expressway segment is that the generous
ROW available east of 23rd Avenue begins to narrow moving eastward on US 34, through 17th Avenue,
and on to 11th Avenue. Within the current highway ROW, there is marginal space for six lanes with
turning lanes at the 11th Avenue intersection. The Recommended Alternative would accommodate this
minimum footprint. There are minimal ROW constraints east of the interchange moving into the East
End segment, but there is no identified need to widen US 34 to the east, therefore it is not anticipated
that there would be compatibility issues onthe east side of the interchange with the Recommended
Alternative.
Page 89
Alternatives Report Attachments
• Attachment 01 - Intersection Crash Analysis
• Attachment 02 - Technology Memorandum
• Attachment 03 - Intersection and Interchanges Cost Summary
• Attachment 04 - Intersection and Interchanges Cost Details
Page 90
US 34 PEL
Alternatives Report Attachment 01
Intersection Crash Analysis
1
County RD 17 - TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
r
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized
Total
4 -Leg Intersection
Crashes
; CD0,
.11
AADT Minor 5000 AADT Minor 10000
AADT Minor 15000 MDT Minor 20000 MDT Minor
—1000 —'
a 25000 MDT Minor — 30000 AADT Minor _ —r 35000 AADT Minor 4aO00 MDT Minor 45000 AADT Minor
45
40
Actual
Crashes
z31.4
ear (Cr()
O1 r to
O1
V
ci
CI- 9n
to
_
rast
rn
id
NA
Expected
Crashes
=15
w.
o�
S
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50000 60.000 70,000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
County RD 17- INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
15000 AAIDT Minor— 20000 AADT Minor
40000 AADT Minor- 45000 AADT Minor
30 . �a�� O 4O. DUO
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
2
County RD 15- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
1
25
20
O
5
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Total Crashes
100 AADT Minor —500 MDT Minor —1000 AADT Minor 2000 AADT Minor —4000 MDT Minor
7000 MDT Minor 10000 MDT Minor —13000 MDT Minor - -
22000 AADT Minor 25000 AADT Minor 28000 AADT Minor
-216000 MDT Minor 19000 MDT Minor
31 000 AADT Minor
-01•10
_00.0SISs
0.00 _
Expected Crashes ,3/43.4
Actual Crashes t3.2
10,000
20,1000
30,000 40,000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
50,000
60r000
70,000
County RD 15 - K !R* AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
6
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
as 100 AADT Minor
— 7000 AADT Minor
500 AADT Minor
10000 AAIJT Minor
1000 AADT Minor
13000 AADT Minor
22000 MDT Minor -- --- 25000 AADT Minor 28000 AADT Minor
Co
2O00 AADT Minor 4000 AADT Minor
16000 AADT Minor 19000 AADT Minor
31000 AADT Minor
air „al
wow
Expected Crashes 4.9
Actual Crashes M0.6
10;000
20,000
30,000 40_000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
50.000
70;000
3
CR 13 - TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnS�ignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Total Crashes
WCR 13 - INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
-2000 AADT Minor 4000 AADT Minor
-16000 AADT Minor 19OO0 AADT Minor
31000 AADT Minot
4
Promontory (#21)- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
C N
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 3 -Leg Intersection A tool
a.
Total Crashes CO `q
W0 MUT Minor 500 AADT Minor AADT Minor 2000 MDT Minor 3000 MDT Minor
- —1000
-4000 MDT Minor -- 5000 MDT Minor 6000 AADT Minor 7000 MDT Miners 8000 MDT Minor
7
Actual
Crashes
4
. J
s per Year 4
� r
J /r
6
`�
Expected
Crashes
t3
0
L
I ,
0 19,000 20,000 30,000 407000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
J
Promontory (#21) INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 3 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
5
95TH AVE (#22)- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
25
20
co
5
0
Urban 4 -Lane Divided U n ig nal ized 4 -Leg Intersection
Total Crashes
100 AADT Minor 500 AAUT Minor 1000 AADT Minor
7000 AADT Minor 10000 AADT Minor a13000 AADT Minor
22000 AA,DT Minor -.25000 AADT Minor 28000 AADT Minor
2000 AADT Minor
16000 AADT Minor
31000 AADT Minor
4000 AADT Minor
19000 AADT Minor
a
—
=5
......,°°e-,'..err:o...1
Expected
Crashes
Actual
Crashes
X4.8
0
10,000
20,000
30,000 40.000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
50,000
60,000
70,000
95TH AVE (#22)- INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
Expected Crashes at2
Actual Crashes =1
6
83RD AVE 023J- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
25
5
n
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Total Crashes
mk100 AADT Minor
—7000 AADT Minor
22000 AADT Minor - _
500 AADT Minor 'I.000 AADT Minor
10000 AADT Minor —13000 AADT Minor
,25000 AADT Minor - 28000 AADT Minor
2000 AADT Minor
16000 AADT Minor
31000 AADT Minor
4000 AADT Minor
19000 AADT Minor
1
F
Actual
Crashes
t9.6
__,„----r-
_,>-
-- --
pm-------
_-
Expected
Crashes
t6
0
10;000
20,000
30.000 40.00u
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
50,000
60,000
70,000
83RD AVE (#23)- INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
U 4
tti
} 3
a
Cr)
U
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Un igna►lized 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
100 AADT Minor
ca 7000 AADT Minor
22000 AADT Minor
500 AADT Minor 1000 AADT Minor —
as 10000 AADT Minor 13000 AADT Minor _
- 25000 .AADT Minor - 28000 AADT Minor _
—2001 AADT Minor —4000 AADT Minor
16000 AADT Minor 199000 AADT Minor
= 31000 AADT Minor
Actual
Crashes 44.
Expected
Crashes
t2
S
10,0..
20,000
30,000 40.n00
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
50,000
60.000
70,000
7
71ST AVE (#24)_ TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data,. January 2011 thru December 2015)
25
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Total Crashes
as100 AADT Minor
—7000 AADT Minor
22000 AADT Minor - _
500 AADT Minor a l000 AADT Minor
10000 AADT Minor a 13000 AADT Minor
25000 AADT Minor - 28000 AADT Minor
2000 AADT Minor x4000 AADT Minor
16000 AADT Minor
31000 AADT Minor
10000 AADT Minor
20 -
a
U
co 15 -
U)
U)
f�l
0 �U
en
Ct
rL-
5
0
Actual Crashes =$.5
101000
20,000
50,000
60,000
Expected Crashes 4
30.000 40,000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
70,000
715' AVE (#24)- INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
8
65TH AVE- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized
Total
4 -Leg Intersection
Crashes
* CST
.V
Minor 5000 AADT Minor 10000
AADT Minor 15000 MDT Minor 20000 MDT Minor
—1000 .AADT -'
--m 25000 MDT Minor — 30000 AADT Minor = —35000 AADT Minor 40000 MDT Minor 45000 AADT Minor
45
40
35
30
Actual
Crashes
t20.8
O
ti
O 25
r
0-
_.essosi
-
t 4,7
-
°- 20
.--
Expected
1
o
Q
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70r000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
A
65TH AVE - INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized. 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
:30.000 40.900
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
9
47TH AVE- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
r
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized
Total
4 -Leg Intersection
Crashes
, C Cs Oil
.1'
AADT Minor 5000 AADT Minor 10000
AADT Minor 15000 MDT Minor-' 20000 MDT Minor
---1000
25000 MDT Minor — 30000 AADT Minor 35000 AADT Minor 4a0O0 MDT Minor 45000 AADT Minor
45
.
40-
35
a
r_
Actual
Crashes
~32.8
=
O
O 25
-7-4 le lia-
____ a
_
`
f
o
0
-
0
Sc
ao
.
Expected
Crashes z23
10jed
f ??I'ller
II
-.0"eroor
5-
_.
_
0
-T
S
0 10,000 20,000 30'000 40,000 50,000 O0.O00 70r0O0
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
47TH AVE - INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Crashes per Year (CPY)
L.
12
10
6
4
2
C
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized. 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
1000 AADT Minor 5000 AADT Minor —10000 AADT Minor 15000 AADT Minor re 20000 AADT Minor
25000 AADT Minor -- 30000 MDT Minor ----s35000 AADT Minor 40000 AADT Minor- = - 45000 .MDT Minor
. '
/J
Expected
Crashes
t612
p
� r
Actual Crashes
.5.6
Y
00
10,000
20.000
O,riq_lO 40, DOD
Average Annual Daily Traffic (}WT)
00,000
70,000
10
351H AVE- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
r --s,
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized
Total
Minor 5000 AADT Minor 10000
4 -Leg Intersection * A,
Crashes . co i
AADT Minor 15000 MDT Minor 20000 MDT Minor
—1000 .AADT
a 25000 MDT Minor — 30000 AADT Minor = —35000 AADT Minor 4x000 MDT Minor w45000 AADT Minor
45
40
•
35
Crashes
0- 30
---
Actual
t31.4
O
O 25
�.r
,
-
C)
cL. 20
to
ao
15
��'
rg -
_
Expected
Crashes
z23
id
i0
i
5-
f +'
0
-T
i
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 00,000 70r000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
35TH AVE - INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized 4 -Leg intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
11
17THAVE- TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
f
30
Urban
200 AADT
4 -Lane
Divided Signalized
Total
AADT Minor 1000
3
-Leg
Intersection
AADT
AJ\DT
Minor
Minor
COif
4000 AADT Minor
14000 A,ADT Minor
`an.
Minor 500
Crashes
AADT Minor
AADT Minor
AADT Minor
2000
6000 AADT Minor 8000
.16000 AADT titnor : 10000
AADT Minor -10000
AADT Minor - 20000
— - -i 12000
Actual
Crashes
:18.6
As
I
an
sc-
`_
Expected
Crashes
t 12
0
L
1
-maw
1.OrOCO 20.000 30.000
Average Annual
40.00
Daily Traffic
0 .50,000
(AADT)
60,000
70,000
17TH AVE - INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized 3 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
12
11THAVEe TOTAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized
Total
4 -Leg Intersection
Crashes
* CD0T
.11
Minor 5000 AADT Minor 10000
AADT Minor 15000 MDT Minor 20000 MDT Minor
—1000 .AADT -'
-s 25000 MDT Minor — 30000 AADT Minor 35000 AADT Minor 4x000 MDT Minor - 45000 MDT Minor
45
40
Actual
Crashes
_
z3r
1.q
r Year (CPV)
Nc
01 O C
tr'
0
� �0 -
a
-.:_� ��
--==�
Expected
Crashes
ti23
0
-a-
is
I
•r
5
¢
r.
1
0
I r r
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 70r000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
11TH AVE - INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES (5 year data, January 2011 thru December 2015)
a
rd
12
10
6
.
2
Urban 4 -Lane Divided Signalized. 4 -Leg Intersection
Injury and Fatal Crashes
1000 AADT Minor 5000 AADT Minor —10000 AADT Minor 15000 AADT Minor re 2O000 AADT Minor
25000 AADT Minor -- - 30000 MDT Minor- —35000 AADT Minor 40000 AADT Minor n45000 MDT Minor
b —-
Actual Crashes 43.2
10,000
20.000
5 0. [0 CI C
50.000
Expected Crashes X6.6
:30.000 40,000
000
Average Annual Daily Traffic (}WT)
70.000
US 34 PEL
Alternatives Report Attachment 02
Technology Memorandum
FINAL
Existing and Emerging Technology in
Planning and Environmental Linkages
(PEL) Studies: US 34
Prepared for
Colorado Department of Transportation
December 2018
CH2M HILL, Inc.
9191 South Jamaica Street
Englewood, CO 80112
Introduction
This document describes the existing and emerging technology options considered for the US 34
Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The Level 1 evaluation determined that these
technology options alone would be insufficient to meet the project Purpose and Need, but could
supplement the core options; therefore, these options will be combined and packaged with core options
in the Level 3 evaluation as a supplemental element to optimize safety, travel, and operational benefits.
Recommendations for technology options were evaluated based on existing conditions and
characteristics of the corridor and their applicability for each segment is summarized below.
Existing Conditions
The project team inventoried technology options currently being used in all segments. These options
and their location are listed in Table 1.
ExistIng CRC Level
Table 2 shows the Connected Road Classification System (CRCS) level for each segment. CRCS, created
by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), is a scale programmed for classifying the operational
environment of a road relative to a deployment of connected vehicles/autonomous vehicles (AV/CV)
based on the level of technology and infrastructure associated with them; this roadway classification is a
draft classification system awaiting a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
evaluation. Additional information on CRCS levels is provided in Appendix A.
Table 1. Existing Technology by Segment
Option
US 85
Loveland Loveland Greeley by
Foothills Urban 6 -Lane I-25 byothers Johnstown -Greeley Expresswayothers East End
Advanced Signal Warning
Flashers
65th Avenue to
8th Avenue
Adaptive Traffic Signals
aria, ala
Variable Speed Limits
Dynamic
aa
Queue Warnings
aa
Ramp Metering
laa
laa
Wildlife Detection and Alert
Systems
laa
laa
Enhanced Communications
Infrastructure/Fiber Optic Lines
NW Frontage
Road
Segment -wide —
Centerra/Thompson
Parkway to East of SH 257
East of SH 257 to
W 27th Street
Improved Traveler Information
Signs
Enhanced Lane Markings
aa !alai
Road/Weather Information
Systems
Redwood
Drive
35th Avenue
Transit Signal Priority
Autonomous Vehicle Lanes
Mal
Still Camera -- -- Centerra Parkway
MP: Larimer Parkway,
County Line Road (2)a,
WCR 17
!alai Ma,
MP: County
Road 49
(2)a
Variable Message Board
ala
MP: Denver
Avenue (2)a
MP: 131st Avenue/ US 34
Business (4)3
M P : NW Frontage
Automatic Traffic Recorder Road MP: WCR 15
a (#) indicates number of devices at one location; device locations were rounded to 0.5 -mile.
MP = mile post
Table 2. Existing CRCS Level
Segment CRC Level
Foothills
Lore la n d Urban
Loveland 6 -Lane
Johnstown -Greeley
Greeley Expressway
East End
Level 2
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 4
Level 2
Note:
CRCS ranges from Level 1 to Level 6; Level 1 is the lowest level.
See Appendix A for more a detailed description of CRCS Levels.
Technology Options an Applicability (Level 1)
Advanced Signal Warning Flashers
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety
concerns with traffic signals on high-speed corridors. The option consists of signs with flashing beacons
that are activated when the signal is going to turn from green to yellow, and then stay flashing through
the red signal phase. Advanced signal warning flashers alert motorists before they arrive at a roadway
condition to reduce potential conflicts.
Flashers need to be placed strategically, where the greatest benefits will likely be captured such as
intersections with high occurrences of rear -end crashes. If flashers are placed with too much frequency
or have a low threshold to trigger the flashing phase, drivers may stop paying attention to them because
they do not alert drivers to different conditions.
Applicability
This option will be applicable at the locations where semi -isolated signals exist along high-speed
sections of US 34, particularly in the Johnstown -Greeley and Greeley Expressway segments. Example
signal locations include westbound at Centerra Parkway/Thompson Parkway, WCR 17 in both directions
of travel, and 65th Avenue in both directions of travel.
Adaptive Traffic signals
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address congestion and
operational performance. The option consists of traffic signal control technology in which traffic signal
timing changes are based on actual traffic demand to accommodate variable traffic patterns and reduce
traffic congestion. Ideally, a number of traffic signals would be connected to provide the most efficient
signal timing among multiple traffic signals.
Oftentimes a traffic signal will be activated for a cross street because cars have started queuing. To
minimize traffic delay, the adaptive traffic signals could communicate to coordinate cross traffic at the
same time. This would reduce the likelihood of drivers to stop at multiple traffic signals for traffic on
cross streets.
Applicability
Any signalized intersection in the study area could be a candidate for adaptive signal control. With traffic
conditions on US 34 varying based on time of day, time of year, special events and weather conditions,
deployments are anticipated at traffic signals along the US 4 corridor. However, any federally funded
intelligent transportation system (ITS) project requires that a Systems Engineering Analysis be
conducted to determine infrastructure and/or optimization need before implementation.
Variable Speed Lire its
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety and
recurring congestion. The option consists of dynamically adjusted speed limits to maintain safe travel
speeds based on traffic, weather, or other roadway conditions. The speed limits can be regulatory and
enforceable, or they can be recommended speed advisories.
The main benefits that would result from the implementation of variable speed limits are improving
safety by increasing uniform behavior of motorists and delaying onset of congestion.
Applicability
Variable speed limits may be applicable throughout all segments, but especially where congested traffic
conditions, school zones, high pedestrian activity areas, and/or weather conditions result in slow speed.
This option is less applicable in urban or low -speed areas (45 miles per hour or less) that are not access
controlled, particularly in the Foothills and Loveland Urban segments. This type of speed harmonization
will be more appropriate for expressways, particularly in adverse weather conditions and other variable
conditions.
Dynamic Lane Use
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it facilitates congestion and
incident management. Dynamic lanes are managed lanes that serve multiple uses and/or
accommodations based on time of day, congestion levels, and/or unfavorable roadway conditions.
Dynamic lanes allow for Active Transportation Demand Management (ATDM) enabling traffic
management centers (TMC) to close, restrict, or open lanes to designated or all vehicles. Lanes are
designated and communicated to drivers through Video Message Sign (VMS) or another form of digital
signaling. Examples of dynamic lane uses include transit lane, high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, peak
period lane or shoulder, toiling lane, emergency vehicle lane, autonomous or connected vehicle lane,
and climbing lane.
Applicability
Dynamic lanes are best suited for long regional corridors serving a high percentage of through -trips with
increasing trips and congestion in the foreseeable future. Loveland 6 -Lane, Johnstown -Greeley, and
Greeley Expressway are best suited for dynamic lanes especially if there is unforeseen future growth and
if regional transit is implemented on US 4.
Reversible Lane
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address recurring
congestion and improve multimodal operational performance. This option involves dynamically closing
or opening individual traffic lanes or allowable movements by use of advanced warning or lane use
control signs to improve traffic operations and respond to traffic congestion or incidents. Changing lane
assignments based on roadway conditions and peak period conditions maximizes the capacity of the
existing roadway.
There are a number of ways this can be integrated into the roadway system: reversing lane direction,
diverting traffic to another lane, changing a through -lane to a shared turn lane, and moving traffic to the
shoulder or a peak period lane.
Applicability
Reversible lanes are beneficial along segments that are highly directional during peak periods. For
example, HOV lanes on 1-25 north of Denver are directional southbound in the a.m. period as people
commute from suburbs to work; in the afternoon, the dominant direction is northbound, therefore the
HOV lanes are reversed. Based on existing traffic data, US 34 is not highly directional and therefore not a
good candidate for Reversible lanes.
Express Lanes
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address recurring
traffic congestion. Express lanes are managed lanes that increase roadway capacity and help manage
congestion on highways by adding lanes that provide choice to drivers. Motorists can choose to ride the
bus, carpool, or pay a toll to use express lanes as an alternative to the no -cost general-purpose lanes
that do not provide these options but likely are more congested. Express lane users can ride the bus,
carpool with two or more passengers (where HOV is allowed) or ride a motorcycle to use the lanes at no
cost. Drivers can also choose to pay a toil to use the lanes. Additionally, with other technology
integrations, express lanes can also allow for other dynamic use such as those detailed in the Dynamic
Lane Use section of this technical memorandum.
CDOT policy (1603.0) requires that managed lanes be strongly considered during the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) phase of planning and developing capacity improvements on state
highway facilities that are or will likely become congested.
Applicability
Express lanes are best suited for long regional corridors serving a high percentage of through -trips with
increasing trips and congestion in the foreseeable future. Loveland 6 -Lane, Johnstown -Greeley, and
Greeley Expressway are best suited for express lanes especially if there is unforeseen future growth and
if regional transit is implemented on US 34.
Queue Warnins
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address corridor safety
concerns. The option uses real-time information to alert motorists of downstream stopped traffic by use
of warning signs and flashing lights, thereby reducing rear -end crashes. The queue warnings need to be
located in the correct locations to alert drivers to upcoming queues without being activated all the time, so
drivers will pay attention to the warnings and respond accordingly.
Applicability
Queue warnings would be applicable in combination with advanced signal warning flashers in
high-speed locations such as the Johnstown -Greeley and Greeley Expressway segments. Like advanced
signal warnings, this option will be applicable at the locations where semi -isolated signals exist along
high-speed sections of US 34 and when transitioning between expressway sections.
Ramp Metering
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address recurring
traffic congestion and improve traffic operations. This option uses traffic signals and traffic detection
systems on interchange on -ramps to monitor expressway and ramp traffic and manage the flow of on -
ramp traffic to minimize impact to expressway traffic speed. In areas where the roadway congestion
occurs consistently, a ramp meter may be on all the time. In other cases, ramp metering may turn on
when congestion reaches certain threshold, often during peak period times.
Managing the flow of traffic requires enough storage on the ramps entering the highway to not create
gridlock on the local street system. Sometimes the queuing on the ramps can overflow on the cross
street providing access to the highway and the meter releases vehicles more quickly to clear the queue
from blocking cross street traffic. Consideration for ramp metering will be prioritized at expressway
interchange locations with high entering ramp volumes, to limit turbulence to mainline flow.
Applicability
Any expressway on -ramps with enough storage on the ramps could be considered candidates for ramp
metering.
Wildlife Detection and Alert Systems
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety
concerns with reduced crashes resulting from collisions with wild animals. This option consists of wildlife
detection systems, roadway markings, and signage with activated flashing warning beacons installed
along the roadway at known wildlife movement locations. The wildlife detection and alert systems are
most effective when the animals are naturally directed to the crossing, whether that is with fencing,
foliage, or topography. The alert systems need to be sensitive enough to pick up a wide variety of
species. However, if the alert system is too sensitive, thealert systems will be activated when there are
no animals present and motorists will become desensitized from the alert constantly being active.
Applicability
Wildlife detection systems are not recommended for any locations within this study. The existing
technology is currently not sufficiently reliable, although newer systems are currently being tested and
may hold future promise. Additionally, current US 34 roadway fiber optic lines do not extend to wildlife
concern areas located in the Foothills segment. Without the fiber optic lines, the roadway is unable to
support the integration of the technology required by wildlife detections systems. Furthermore, the
frequency of vehicle -wildlife collisions is below CDOT thresholds justifying their applications (25 crashes
per 1 mile over a 5 -year period). Potential wildlife crossing locations have been identified as a part of the
PFL. however, these crossings are to be implemented by a future project team if vehicle -wildlife
collisions meet CDOT's thresholds in the future.
Enhanced Communications Infrastructure/Fiber Optic Lines
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety
concerns and recurring traffic congestion. This option consists of enhanced fiber optic communication
infrastructure to support data transmission from vehicle detection systems, closed-circuit television
cameras, and other technology devices and vehicle -to -roadway technology.
Fiber optic lines can transmit data near lightspeed to advanced/adaptive ITS devices, vehicles, traffic
control centers, and mobile devices. This allows for nearly instantaneous communication necessary to
activate measures needed in the event of accident, unsafe weather conditions, congestion, and other
variable roadway conditions.
Installation of roadway fiber optics has the ability to support future advanced and adaptive ITS devices
through telecommunication networks and integrated communication systems. The technology can
improve the operation of the roadway and enhance the safety and mobility of users.
Additionally, the integration of a robust fiber optic system enables future connected roadways and
connected vehicle environments. Currently, a connected roadway allows roadway technology devices to
communicate information instantaneously with each other as well as the TIT. Connected vehicles in
current conditions allow vehicles to communicate with one another to share information such as sudden
stops or slippery roadways. In a fully connected roadway environment, vehicles are able to
communicate or share information with each other as well the roadway infrastructure devices. These
connected -vehicle applications allow for real-time data exchange that communicate vehicle actions and
enable CDOTto monitor and improve overall system performance. These applications also allow drivers
to be aware of data from other vehicles so that potential countermeasures —such as alternate route
selection or cautionary speeds —should be enacted by the driver. Vehicles in constant communication
can be aware of one another, even if their sightlines are obstructed, and improve the likelihood that
motorists will avoid incidents when they encounter hazards such as sudden braking, lane changes, and
blind corners and intersections.
Applicability
This option is applicable in all areas, especially from the Loveland Urban to Greeley Expressway
segments. This includes additions of ITS devices and fiber optics that will enable future use of connected
roadways and vehicles. For areas with existing enhanced communications infrastructure/fiber optic
lines, it would be beneficial to improve or expand communication infrastructure, especially during
implementation of civil infrastructure projects —this will account for future growth and the necessary
communications network while reducing cost.
improved Traveler Information Signs
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety issues
and recurring congestion. This option consists of electronic display signs used to notify motorists of
upcoming roadway, incident, weather, and traffic -related conditions. Traveler information signs should
be placed in locations with high visibility that will not distract drivers and will provide useful information
about the road conditions ahead.
The signs can display informational text based on real -tune conditions. The signs are side -mounted or
mounted overhead of the roadway on a cantilever, sign bridge, or other structure. Traveler information
signs can work well in combination or independently from other real-time warning and alert systems.
The flexibility of traveler information signs can provide general information.
Applicability
Locations for implementation would be prioritized in the Loveland 6 -Lane through Greeley Expressway
segments that are high -volume and high-speed, where travel information would provide greater
benefits. Improved traveler information signs would typically be located in advance of important
junctions for purposes such as incident management and wayfinding. Important junctions would include
SH 287, 1-25, US 34 Business, and US 85.
Enhanced Lane Markings
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety
concerns or geometric problems that disrupt operational performance. The option may consist of
pavement markings, reflectors, or lights to enhance driver recognition of roadway geometry and lanes,
and other new technology to support driverless vehicle recognition of geometry and lanes.
Applicability
Enhanced lane markings are applicable in all areas, especially the Johnstown -Greeley and Greeley
Expressway segments, where speeds are higher, and visibility can be low.
Roadway Weather Information Systems
This option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may address safety
concerns and operational performance. The option consists of technologies and strategies for improved
monitoring and prediction, information dissemination, and decision support during adverse weather
conditions.
Applicability
Roadway weather information systems are applicable in all areas. The Foothills segment, based on
observed and documented weather -related roadway conditions, would be most applicable to this
technology option because of its proximity to mountainous terrain and the presence of the Big
Thompson River floodplain.
Transit Signal Priority and Queue Jump
The transit signal priority (TSP) and queue jump option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives
Evaluation to improve transit mobility and transit user experience. Buses equipped with technology
communicate with close -range traffic signals to modify the signal timing and reduce delay for the transit
vehicle. The modification usually changes the length of the green or red phase based on the signal
distance. To take it a step further, TSP can be supplemented with queue jumping, which incorporates an
additional lane at intersections for transit vehicles to proceed forward before other queued vehicles
traveling the same direction -this further reduces signal delay for transit vehicles.
The most direct benefits of TSP are the reduction in transit vehicle delay at intersections and the
increased reliability of transit service. This can make transit a more attractive mode choice. Because the
signals react to the buses, TSP may affect queuing on cross streets as well as affect the network of
signals if the signals are connected and communicate with one another. Signal controller cabinets and
bus technology may need to be updated. This technology is most effective at intersections that have far -
side or no bus stops because it is much easier to anticipate transit running time than dwell time.
Applicability
TSP would be applied to the Loveland Urban and Loveland 6 -Lane segments where COLT service
currently operates. If transit operations are expanded or developed in other segments (such as the
proposed regional service between Loveland and Greeley; and proposed intersecting services on
WCR 17, SH 257, US 34 Business, and I-25), then TSP will be applicable to signalized intersections of
those segments.
Autonomous Vehicle Lanes
This future technology option was considered in the Level 1 Alternatives Evaluation because it may
address recurring congestion, safety concerns, and operational performance. The option consists of a
dedicated lane for autonomous vehicles, vehicles that can sense the environment around them and
navigate without human input. A dedicated lane for such vehicles could potentially be narrower than a
general-purpose lane and provide greater capacity with reduced vehicle headways. Although there are
still unknowns associated with autonomous vehicles, this option assumes vehicle technology will
continue to evolve that would allow vehicles to travel in a specified lane to maximize the technological
benefits of autonomous vehicles. To allow flexibility in the timing and implementation, the future
autonomous vehicle lane could initially be used as a general-purpose or managed lane, then repurposed
as the percentage of autonomous vehicles in the overall vehicle mix reaches an appropriate level.
Applicability
Implementation may be applicable in the Loveland 6 -Lane, Johnstown -Greeley, and Greeley Expressway
segments. This includes additions of ITS devices and fiber optics that will enable future use of connected
roadways and vehicle. When automated vehicles are fully deployed on the roadway and account for a
significant amount of the vehicles in operation, this option should be taken into. consideration.
Evaluation of Technology/Summary Recommend .tlons
The technology options recommended in this memorandum supplement alternatives to meet the
Purpose and Need of the PEL study: increase safety; accommodate increased travel and tourism
demands to maintain the economic vitality of the region; and increase reliability of east -west travel,
while balancing local access, mobility and freight. Options were evaluated based on existing conditions
and corridor characteristics.
Applicable technology options that would help meet the Purpose and Need are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Technology Options that Support the Purpose and Need
Option
How Option Addresses
Purpose and Need Benefits
Advanced Signal
Warning Flashers
Increases safety
Flashers alert motorists before they arrive at a roadway
condition to reduce potential intersection conflicts and rear -
end crashes.
Variable Speed Limits
Increases safety and increase
reliability of east -west travel
Variable speed limits improve safety and mobility by increasing
uniform and cautionary behavior of motorists and delaying
onset of congestion.
Queue Warnings
Increases safety
Warnings use real-time information alerts motorists of
downstream stopped traffic by use of warning signs and
flashing lights, thereby reducing rear -end crashes.
Enhanced
Communications
Infrastructure/ Fiber
Optic Lines
Increases safety
Fiber optic lines can transmit data at lightspeed to
advanced/adaptive ITS devices, vehicles, traffic control centers,
and mobile devices. This allows for nearly instantaneous
communication to activate measures needed in the event of
accident, unsafe weather conditions, congestion, and other
variable roadway conditions.
Improved Traveler
Information Signs
Increases safety
This option notifies motorists of upcoming roadway, incident,
weather, and traffic -related conditions.
Enhanced Lane
Markings
Increases safety
This option enhances driver recognition of roadway geometry
and lanes to facilitate more safe operations and roadway
behavior.
Road/Weather
Information Systems
Increases safety
Early warning of current or upcoming weather conditions
facilitates more safe operations and roadway behavior.
Autonomous Vehicle
Lanes
Increases safety and increase
reliability of east -west travel
This option leverages the use of autonomous vehicles, which
remove human error when operating a vehicle. implementing
lanes dedicated to these vehicles as they become a part of the
fleet mix will enhance the safety capabilities and benefits of
these vehicles. Additionally, human error that causes
congestion such as excessive breaking or inconsistent speeds
will be eliminated by these vehicles, improving travel times and
reliability.
Adaptive Traffic
Signals
Increase reiiability of east -west
travel
This option connects traffic signals to provide the most
efficient signal timing among multiple traffic signals,thus
reducing the likelihood of drivers stopping at multiple traffic
signals for traffic on cross streets and ultimately causing
unnecessary queuing and congestion.
Express Lanes
Increase reliability of east -west
travel and accommodate
increased travel and tourism
demands
This option increases roadway capacity and helps manage
congestion on highways by adding lanes that provide choice to
drivers. Drivers that would benefit more from using an express
lane are allowed the opportunity to use the lane, which in turn
lowers travel demand on adjacent general-purpose lanes.
Table 3. Technology Options that Support the Purpose and Need
Option
How Option Addresses
Purpose and Need
Benefits
Dynamic Lanes
Increase reliability of east -west
travel and accommodate
increased travel and tourism
demands
This option allows for ATDM, enabling TMCs to close, restrict,
or open lanes to designated or all vehicles to accommodate
congestion based on time of day and/or unfavorable roadway
conditions.
Ramp Metering
Increase reliability of east -west
travel
This option allows for ATDM, enabling TMCs to control the
number of vehicles entering at any given time. This results in
consistent traffic speeds and traffic flow to improve corridor
reliability.
Enhanced
Communications
Infrastructure/Fiber
Optic Lines
Increase reliability of east -west
travel and accommodate
increased travel and tourism
demands
This option allows for nearly instantaneous communication to
activate measures needed in the event of accident, unsafe
weather conditions, congestion, and other variable roadway
conditions.
This result improves the operation of the roadway and
enhances user mobility.
Improved Traveler
Information Signs
Accommodate increased travel
and tourism demands and
increase safety
This option provides notifications to motorists of upcoming
useful roadway conditions such as incidents, weather, and
traffic. This improves the operation of the roadway and
enhances user mobility and safety.
TSP and Queue Jump
Increase reliability of east -west This option reduces transit vehicle delay at intersections to
travel increase travel reliability for transit service.
Technology options applicable to the Study Area in this screening will be combined with packaged
alternatives in Level 3 as supplemental elements. Table 4 show recommended segment locations for
applicable technology options
Table 4. Recommended Segment Locations for Applicable Technology Options
Results
Option
Loveland Loveland
Foothills Urban 6 -lane
Johnstown Greeley
-Greeley Expressway East End
Advanced Signal Warning Flashers
x x
x x
Adaptive Traffic Signals
x x
x x
x x
Variable Speed Limits
x
x x
Express Lanes X
x x
Dynamic Lanes X
x x
Queue Warnings X
x x
Ramp Metering
x x
Enhanced Communications
Infrastructure/Fiber Optic Lines
x
x x
x x
Improved Traveler Information Signs
x x
x x
Enhanced Lane Markings
x x
x x
x x
Road/Weather Information Systems
x x
x x
x x
Transit Signal Priority and Queue
Jumping
x x
x x
x x
Autonomous Vehicle Lanes X
x x
Time Horizons
Time horizons for applicable technology are shown in Table S. These horizons follow core concept time
horizon implementation strategies using near -term, interim, and ultimate horizons to guide
implementation phasing. These horizons for different types of projects are defined as follows:
• Near -term projects are projects that could be implemented quickly without lengthy planning or
design. In terms of technology option, those deemed near -term are options that are usually low cost
and improve the roadway without significant changes in operations.
Interim projects are identified as those beyond the near -term improvements, which would serve as
initial phases of the ultimate corridor recommendations. While on their own they do not solve all
the problems in the corridor, they do provide localized safety and mobility improvements. In terms
of technology options, those deemed interim are likely in existence and commonly practiced on
today's roadways but may require lengthy planning or design because they are not currently
deployed on US 34.
• Ultimate projects are projects that more fully address all problems within the corridor. In terms of
technology options, those deemed ultimate are options that will take lengthy planning or design and
policy implementation components.
Table 5. Time Horizons for Applicable Technology
Option Time Horizon
Advanced Signal Warning Flashers
Adaptive Traffic Signals
Variable Speed Limits
Queue Warnings
Ramp Metering
Enhanced Communications Infrastructure/Fiber Optic Lines
Express Lanes
Improved Traveler Information Signs
Enhanced Lane Markings
Road/Weather Information Systems
Transit Signal Priority and Queue Jump
Autonomous Vehicle Lanes
Dynamic Lanes
Near -Term
Near -Term
Interim/Ultimate
Interim
Ultimate
Near -Term
Ultimate
Near -Term
Near -Term
Near -Term
Interim
Ultimate
Ultimate
Target CRCS Level
Table 2 shows each segment's CRCS level. Implementing the recommended technology options
discussed previously will enhance the operational environment of US 34 relative to a deployment of
connected vehicles/autonomous vehicles. The target classification level for US 34 is a connected road
classification of 4, at which point the roadway will be able to:
• Adequately support autonomous vehicles
• Adapt to variable roadway conditions and congestion
• Better connect vehicles and people to the road
US 34 as CRS 4 roadway would support the Purpose and Need by:
• Reducing risk and increasing reliability of east/west regional travel
• Increasing safety
Alleviating congestion to accommodate increase travel and tourism demands
APPENDIX A
Colorado Connected Roadway Classification
System
The Colorado Connected Roadway Classification System (CRCS), created by Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT), is a scale programmed for classifying the operational environment of a road
relative to a deployment of connected vehicles/autonomous vehicles (AV/CV) based on the level of
technology and infrastructure associated with them; this roadway classification is a draft classification
system awaiting a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) evaluation.
Colorado's CRCS levels are defined as follows:
efinition of Levels
• Level 1: Unpaved and/or non -striped roads designed to a minimum standard level of safety and
mobility. Least prepared.
• Level 2: Paved roads designed to meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards and Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices signage requirements.
No presence of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) infrastructure to collect and distribute
vehicle data. Access to cellular data service may or may not be available.
• Level 3: Presence of ITS equipment operated by a Traffic Management Center (TMC) and/or one-
way data sharing between vehicles, users, CDOT staff, and/or lane infrastructure.
• Level 4: Presence of adaptive ITS infrastructure in specific lanes or the entire roadway with TMC
connection and override; and/or two-way data sharing between vehicles, users, CDOT staff, and/or
lane infrastructure; and/or lanes designated only for Level 3 and Level 4 connected and autonomous
vehicles.
• Level Presence of lanes or entire roadway designed only for Level 4 connected and autonomous
vehicles; potential for additional features such as inductive vehicle charging or enhanced data
sharing; no roadway signage required because of the presence of integrated, two-way data sharing
between vehicles and infrastructure.
• Level 6: All roadway elements designed exclusively for fully automated vehicles; no signage, signals,
or striping required.
US 34 PEL
Alternatives Report Attachment 03
Concept Level
Intersection and Interchanges Cost Summary
Conceptual Project Costs
Order -of -Magnitude conceptual level costs using 2017 construction costs were completed for the
distinct concepts in each of the segments. The approach was to estimate quantities and costs at each
intersection or interchange location individually, then determine quantities and costs for the widening
of US 34 between major intersections or interchanges.
The costs are based on very limited design information and rely on percentage add-ons for many of the
items associated with construction projects. The costs are based the conceptual level engineering with
very approximate quantities determined for:
• Pavement area (asphalt assumed)
• Bridge structure area
• Retaining walls
• Earthwork (flat -level -earth assumption)
• Traffic signals
The percentage add-ons are detailed further in the Attachments and are based on previous experience
with the CDOT projects. These add-ons take the limited items listed above and essentially triple the cost
to account for the following;
• Drainage, Signing, Striping, Construction Phasing and Traffic Control
• Other Unaccounted items/conti ngiencies
• Utility relocations
• Construction Engineering and the CDOT indirect costs
• Design Engineering and Permitting
In addition, right-of-way costs were not estimated for these concepts.
The goal of this cost estimating effort is to provide an order -of -magnitude cost that can be considered
for budgeting purposes by the CDOT and local jurisdictions. It is also noted that with rapidly increasing
construction costs (5% per year), a budget put together in 2019 for a project that might be constructed
in 2021-2022 may likely require 20%-25% more money than identified in this PEL. Table 1 is a summary
of the conceptual costs determined for concepts in all of the segments,
Table 1
Conceptual Project Costs
Segment
Location
Conceptual
(does
of -Magnitude
not
Include
costs)
2017
Order
Cost
ROW
-
Segment 1- Foothills
LCR
27
turn lane
improvements
$1
M
Glade
Road
signalization
0.4
M
Rossum to
Morning
Drive — Add
median
or add
two-
$3
M
way
left
turn
lanes
Segment 3 -
Loveland
Cleveland
f Lincoln,
add
double
left turn lanes
$5
M
6 -Lane
within/approaching
intersection
(1 full
property
acquistion
needed)
Cleveland
I Lincoln,
two 3 -lane
roundabouts
(5
full
$10
M
property acquistions needed)
Cleveland/Lincoln,
Indirect
left
turns (no property
$1
M
acquistions)
Segment 4 -
Widen
to 6 lanes,
Larimer
Pkwy
to US 34
Business,
$54
M
Johnstown_Greeley-
signals
and
accesses
per the
2003 ACP.
Railroad
Greeley
Expressway
crossings stay
at -grade
Interchange
at
Larimer
Pkwy
$26
M
Interchange
at CR
3 combined
with
grade-
$74
M
separation of US 34
over the
UPRR
Interchange
at CR
13 combined
with
grade-
$80
M
separation
of US 34
over the
GWRR
Interchange
at CR
17
$29
M
Full
-build
of interchanges
and
6 -lanes
in Segment
4 -
$230
Johnstown
-Greeley
- Greeley
Expressway,
La ri mer
Pkwy
to US
34
Business
Rt.
(using ACP)
Segment 5
Widen
to 6 lanes,
US 34
Business to 17th Ave.,
$62
M
signals
and
accesses
per
the
2003 ACP.
interchange
at
Promontory
$35
M
Interchange
at 83rd
$32
M
71' — 65th Options
•
Interchange
at 71$t, overpass
at 65th
$54
M
• Combined
71st — 65th Split
Interchange
$63
•
Interchange
at 65th (ACP)
$36
Interchange
at
47th
$35
M
interchange
at 35th
$38
M
Improvements
at 23rd
Interchange
$1
M
17th Ave. Options
• US 34
overpass
of
17th (no ramps)
$25
• Channelizedir
- signalized
$5
Full
-build
of interchanges
and
6 -lanes
in Segment 5,
$220 M
US 34
Business to 17th Ave. (using ACP)
Segment 6
Convert
full
movement intersection
to Y4
$0.3
M
per location
intersection
(applies
to multiple
locations)
US 34 PEL
Alternatives Report Attachment 04
Concept Level
Intersection and Interchanges Cost Details
ISIOUVARAS
'..,L'
-
HOLDER
NESS
_i
I
'IL
;_-,
CDMSULTINE ENGINEERS
LARIMERPKWY
Item
No
Description
Unit
Street
Ramp
Unit
Cost
Total
Bridge deck
total cost
16,293
-
$ 150.00
$ 2,443,924
Walls
SF
-
-
$ 50.00
$ -
Pavement
SY
62,816
-
$ 75.00
$ 4,711,200
Earthwork
CY
155,346
-
$ 10.00
$ 1,553,460
Signals
Each
3
$ 250,000.00
$ 750,000
TOTAL
$ 9,458, 584
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/
CE,
Items
Control
Traffic
Bid
items
CM
Items
(Contingencies)
subtotal
Control
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
Design of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A 25%
A+B 10%
A -C 3%
A -D 15%
A -E 5%
A -F 8%0
6
H 22%
H 5%
H 8%
H 5%
N
$2,364,646
$1,182,323
$390,167
$2,009,358
$770,254
$1,294,027
$17,469,358
$3,860,728
$873,468
$1,397,549
$873,468
$24,474,571
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
&
permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Larimer, me r, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:04 AM U S34 I nterch anges_Costs
ISIRUVARAS
'..,L'
HOLDER
NESS
-1-ii
I
;_-,
CDMSULTINE ENGINEERS
UPRR overpass and CIS 3
Item
No
Description
Unit
Street
Ramp
Unit
Cost
Total
Bridge deck
total cost
62,545
-
$ 150.00
$ 9,381,692
Walls
SF
40,283
-
$ 50.00
$ 2,014,150
Pavement
SY
62,539
10,620
$ 75.00
$ 5,486,882
Earthwork
CY
713,154
272,688
$ 10.00
$ 9,858,421
Signals
Each
2
$ 250,000.00
$ 500,000
TOTAL
$ 27, 241,144
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/
CE,
Items
Control
Traffic
Bid
items
CM
Items
(Contingencies)
subtotal
Control
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
Design of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A 25%
A+B 10%
A -C 3%
A -D 15%
A -E 5%
A -F 8%
6
H 22%
H 5%
H 8%
H 5%
N
$6,810,286
$3,405,143
$1,123,697
$5,787,041
$2,218,366
$3,726,854
$50,312, 530
$11,119,069
$2,515,627
$4,025,002
$2,515,627
$70,487,855
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
&
permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
U P+CR 3, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:06 AM US34_Interchanges_Costs
E-6
u
p
_
_ft,`7
si—
C3NSUNIICII E'JEilkilL
CR
13 and GWRR overpass
II,
i
,`
I _ ,
h , ,
l,
U nit
Street
Ramp
,L
U
nit
Cost
Total
1
Bridge
deck
total
cost
85,340
-
$ 150.00
$ 12,801,015
Walls
SF
50,308
-
$ 50.00
$ 2,515,400
Pavement
SY
72,520
21,471
$ 75.00
$ 7,049,323
Earthwork
CY
639,031
106,050
$ 10.00
$ 7,450,812
Signals
Each
-
$ 250,000.00
$ -
TOTAL
$ 29,816,549
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/
CE,
Items
Traffic
Bid
Control
items
CM
Items
(Contingencies)
di
subtotal
Control
rests
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A
A+B
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
-C
-D
-E
-F
G
N
25%
10%
3%
15%
5%
8%
22%
5%
8%
5%
$7,454,137
$3,727,069
$1,229,933
$6,334,153
$2,428,092
$4,079,195
$55,069,128
$12,170,277
$2,753,456
$4,405,530
$2,753,456
$77,151,848
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
&
permitting
Project
& In
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
GW+CR 13, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:07 AM US34_Interchanges_Costs
TSIOU'VABAS
_
f,gis_
L:i
,'
HOLDERNESS
'LS
CDNSULTINE ENGINEERS
C
R
Item
No
Description
Unit
Street
Ramp
Unit
Cost
Total
Bridge deck
total cost
16,293
-
$ 150.00
$ 2,443,924
Walls
SF
-
-
$ 50.00
$ -
Pavement
SY
48,958
21,405
$ 75.00
$ 5,277,232
Earthwork
CY
180,423
21,892
$ 10.00
$ 2,02 3,150
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$ 1,000,000
TOTAL
$ 10,744,306
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
Construction
for
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/
CE,
Items
Control
Traffic
Bid
items
Items
CM
(Contingencies)
subtotal
Control
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
Design of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A 25%
A+B 10%
A -C 3%
A -D 15%
A -E 5%
A -F 8%
6
H 22%
H 5%
H 8%
H 5%
N
$2,686,076
$1,343,038
$443,203
$2,282,494
$874,956
$1,469,926
$19,843,999
$4,385,524
$992,200
$1,587,520
$992,200
$27,801,442
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
& permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
CR 17, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:08 AM U S34_I nterch anges_Costs
_.
C — a:: ' F E ; f _, - ' S
,L'Ia�J.11Fia �.d�IhtLl _
PROMONTORY
PKWY
orII,���
_F
D'
nit
����
�,
�������
�������
_�
Bridge deck
total cost
28)651
-
$ 150.00
$ 4,297,642
Walls
SF
-
-
$ 50.00
$ -
Pavement
SY
50,351
25,437
$ 75.00
$ 5,684,093
Earthwork
CV
153,910
30,904
$ 10.00
$ 1,848,143
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$ 1)000)000
TOTAL
$ '12,829,877
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
Items
/Traffic
Bid
CE1
Control
items
CM
Items
(Contingencies)
subtotal
Control
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A
A+B
A -C
A -D
A -E
A -F
G
H
H
H
H
N
25%
10%
3%
15%
5%
8%
22%
5%
8%
5%
$3,207,469
$1,603,735
$529,232
$2,725,547
$1,044,793
$1,755,252
$23,695,906
$5,236,795
$1,184,795
$1,895,672
$1,184,795
$33,197,964
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
& permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PROMONTORY, Page 1. of 1
7/12/2018 10:09 AM US34 lnterchanges_Costs
TS
UUV4RAS
SIMM
Mad
HOLDERNESS
INS
CD1ISULT.IN6 ENGINEERS
83RD
AVAVE
Item
No
Description
Unit
Street
Ramp
Unit
Cost,
Total
Bridge deck
total
cost
25,404
-
$ 150.00
$
3,810,644
Walk
SF
-
-
$ 50.00
$
-
Pavement
SY
49,450
19,688
$ 75.00
$
5,185,380
Earthwork
CY
150,672
15,830
$ 10.00
$
1,665,024
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
I
11,
661,
048
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/Traffic
CE,
Items
Control
Bid
items
Items
CM
(Contingencies)
subtotal
Control
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
-f -B
-C
-D
-E
-F
6
N
25%
10%
3%
15%
5%
8%
22%
5%
8%
5%
$2,915,262
$1,457,631
$481,018
$2,477,244
$949,610
$1,595,345
$21,537,159
$4,759,712
$1,076,858
$1,722,973
$1,076,858
$30,173,559
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
& permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
83rd, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:12 AM US34 I nterch anges_,Costs
TSIOIJVARAS SIMM
HOLDERNESS
NS
!
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
65THand71st
Item
No
Description
Unit
Street
Ramp
Unit
Cost
Total
Bridge deck
total cost
44,698
-
$ 150.00
$ 6,704,683
Walls
SF
85,956
-
$ 50.00
$ 4,297,800
Pavement
SY
72,991
17,243
$ 75.00
$ 6,767,503
Earthwork
CY
401,883
30,904
$ 10.00
$ 4,327,873
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$ 1,000,000
TOTAL
23,097,859
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/
CE,
Items
Bid
Control
Traffic
items
Items
CM
(Contingencies)
Control
subtotal
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A 25%
MB 10%
A -C 3%
A -D 15%
A -E 5%
A -F 8%
G
H 22%
H 5%
H 8%
H 5%
N
$5,774,465
$2,887,232
$952,787
$4,906,851
$1,880,960
$3,160,012
$42,660,166
$9,427,897
$2,133,008
$3,412,813
$2,133,008
$59,766,892
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
& permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
71ST+65TH, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:13 AM US34_Interchanges_Costs
+.a
n
d
i I ` -i
V I
ET
N-=—_
r
1
L
CONSULTING EM5LMEE%E
65-
HAVE
item
No
Description
Unit
Street •
Ramp
Unit Cost
Total
I
Bridge
deck
total
cost
28,415
-
$ 150.00
$ 4,262,249
Walls
SF
-
-
$ 50.00
$ -
Pavement
SY
56,707
24,076
$ 75.00
$ 6,058,671
Earthwork
CY
153,910
30,904
$ 10.00
$ 1,848,143
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$ 1,0001000
TOTAL
I 13,169,063
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
for
Account
of Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
/
CE,
Items
Bid
items
Control
Traffic
CM
Items
(Contingencies)
Control
subtotal
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A
A+B
A -C
A -D
A -E
A -F
H
H
H
H
25%
10%
3%
15%
5%
8%
G
22%
5%
5%
N
$3,292,266
$1,646,133
$543,224
$2,797,603
$1,072,414
$1,801,656
$24,322,359
$5,375,241
$1,216,118
$1,945,789
$1,216,118
$34,075,625
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
&
permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
65TH, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:14 AM US34_Interchanges_Costs
TSI0UVARAS
SIMM
Eli
H0LDOINES
N.S
I
CI'NSUL.TING ENGINEERS
4
7TH
AVE
Item
No
Description
Unit
s Street
Ramp
Unit
Cost
Tota_
I
Bridge deck
total
cost
16,293
-
$ 150.00
$ 2,443,924
Walls
SF
26,997
-
$ 50.00
$ 1,349,850
Pavement
SY
55,392
22,393
$ 75.00
$ 5,833,911
Earthwork
CY
195,251
36,596
$ 10.00
$ 2,318,470
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$ 1,000,000
TOTAL
12,
946.155
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing/
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
CE,
Items
Traffic
Bid
Control
items
CM
Items
(Contingencies)
subtotal
Control
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A 25%
A+B 10%
A -C 3%
A -D 15%
A -E 5%
A -F 8%
6
H 22%
H 5%
H 8%
H 5%
N
$3,236,539
$1,618269
$534,029
$2,750,249
$1,054,262
$1,771,160
$23,910,663
$5,284,257
$1,195,533
$1,912,853
$1,195,533
$33,498,839
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
& permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
47TH, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:15 AM U S34_I nterch anges_Costs
TS
UUV4RAS
SIMM
Mad
HOLDERNESS
INS
CD1ISULT.IN6 ENGINEERS
35T
H
AVE
Item
No
Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Total
Bridge deck
total
cost
25,404
-
$ 150.00
$
3,810,644
Walls
SF
26,880
-
$ 50.00
$
1,344,000
Pavement
SY
45,049
17,545
$ 75.00
$
4,694,575
Earthwork
CY
283,928
15,830
$ 10.00
$
2,997,584
Signals
Each
4
$ 250,000.00
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
13,846,803
Allowance
Drainage
Signing/Striping/Traffic
Construction
Force
Mobilization
Total
Engineering,
Account
of
for
Construction
Phasing
Design,
Unlisted
Bid
Items
/ Traffic
Bid
CE,
Control
items
Items
CM
(Contingencies)
Control
subtotal
Design
of
of
of
of
of
of
A
of
of
of
of
H
thru
thru
A
A+B
A -C
A -D
A -E
A -F
6
H
H
H
H
N
25%
10%
3%
15%
5%
8%
22%
5%
8%
5%
$3,461,701
$1,730,850
$571,181
$2,941,580
$1,127,606
$1,894,378
$25,574,099
$5,651/876
$1/278/705
$2,045,928
$1,278,705
$35,829,313
Construction
Planning/Environmental/Preliminary
Final
Utility
Total
Design
Allowance
Conceptual
Engineering
& permitting
Project
& Indirects
Cost
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
35TH, Page 1 of 1
7/12/2018 10:16 AM U534 Jnterchanges_,Costs
Johnstown -Greeley 6 -Lane Widening and combined widening + Interchanges
Just widen to 6 lane
$1,500 $54,000,000
approx $1,500 per ft. to widen to 6 lane
Larimer Pkwy
5100
$7,700,000
UPRR
$750,000
CR 3
4100
$6, 200,000
CR 13+GWRR
5300
$8,000,000
CR 15
5200
$ 7,800,000
CR 17
10400
$15,600,000
34 business
5200
$7,800,000
Just Interchange
$202,500,000 $24,500,000
with CR 3
$70,500,000
$77„500„000
$0
$28,000,000
$2,000,000
Interchange + 6 Lane
feet between interchanges
$202,500,000 $24,500,000
$27,000,000
$229,500,000
0
with CR 3
0
$70, 500,000
3300
$ 5,000,000
$77,500,000
2700
$4,100,000
$0
3500
$ 5,400,000
$28,000,000
8300
$12,500,000
$2,000,000
Greeley Expressway 6 -Lane Widening and combined widening + Interchanges
start at 257 Promontory
Just widen to 6 lane
$1,500 $72,000,000
approx $1,500 per ft. to widen to 6 lane
95th 83rd
10400 5500
$15,600,000 $8,300,000
6000
$9,000,000
71st 65th
4500
$6,800,000
5300
$8,000,000
47th 35th
6900
$10,400,000
5100
$7,700,000
23rd 17th Ave.
2100
$3,200,000
2200
$3,300,000
Just Interchange $171,500,000
$33,000,000
$0 $30,000,000
$0 tied together $34,000,000 $33,500,000 $36,000,000
$32
$3,000,000 $2,000,000
feet between interchanges---->
Interchange + 6 Lane interchanges $171,500,000
widen between $43,900,000
Total $215,400,000
2600
$3,900,000
$33,000,000
3700
$5,600,000
$0
4400
$6,600,000
$30,000,000
7762
$11,600,000
1200 5000
$0 tied together $34,000,000
$1,800,000 $7,500,000
$33,500,000
3200 2400
$36,000,000 $3,000,000
$4,800,000 $3,600,000
1600
$2,400,000
$2,000,000
♦yy.
J
4
•
.M"
t
M
COLORADO
Department of
Transportation
■
I
PAGE OF
r
NCLU0E
DOCUMENT
PAPER FILE
� ... ANDER RETAINED
E ECTRO MCALLY IN T LEI
Appendix
Coordination an
blic I nvc:;:1v!im:ment
ne-on-One Stakeholder
Interview Themes
•
US 34 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
One -on -One Stakeholder Interview Themes
Key themes that emerged from these interviews include the following:
Vision
• It is important to develop a common and politically cohesive vision for the corridor, to compete for
resources.
• For the project to be successful, the group needs a vision up front.
• How do we meet individual jurisdiction's needs with a cohesive vision?
Corridor vision needs to be based on accurate, validated assumptions and models. This includes, but
is not limited to, regional travel demand models, land use allocation models, and economic and
demographic forecasts.
Mobility
• Decrease congestion.
• Can't have too many interchanges and signals.
• Important to analyze technology— would US 34 be a good test corridor for Road
• Freight movement is important.
• Improve reliability.
Safety
•
•
•
Improve safety at intersections.
Improve safety for on- and off -ramps.
Improve safety for multimodal users.
Prioritize safety in design criteria.
Reduce traffic incidents, accidents, fatalities, and injuries.
Governance
• Balance regional mobility with local control.
• Public involvement and public meetings are very important.
Partnership and interjurisdictional support is essential.
Concern around agencies trying to dictate beyond their jurisdictional boundaries, need to respect
individual jurisdiction plans.
US 34 Access Control Plan
• Validate and update the Access Control Plan as needed, do not recreate as it is working.
• The US 34 Access Control Plan is the binding and legal document, controlling access in the corridor.
The PEL report is a vision and guidance document.
BIO41O1S1G10DEN 1
ONE -OBI -ONE STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW THEMES
Land Use
• Important to integrate the land models of local jurisdictions to fully understand how the system will
operate.
PEL outcomes and recommendations should be data driven and prioritized based on growth of the
corridor.
• How do we coordinate land use plans and transportation plans and communicate them to Coalition
members?
Communication Protocols
• The Coalition needs materials from the Project Management Team (PMT) at least 1 week before
meetings.
• The PMT should provide a summary of materials and key expectations of action items through the
process.
• Need to create an electronic file -sharing system (i.e. Dropbox) where technical staff and
elected/policymakers can access documents. Need easily accessible, understandable information.
• It is important that there is intrajurisdictional communication so that US 34 Coalition
representatives bring the perspective of other elected officials/staff/constituents in their jurisdiction
to the US 34 PEL process.
Multimodal, Transit, and Rail
• Some jurisdictions would like to see multimodal planning and projects as part of the PEL Study.
• Some jurisdictions see multimodal/transit planning as a waste of time and money.
• How do we address the Great Western Railway spur line?
Decision -making Authority
•
Ensuring forward progress even with change.
Need to define clear guidance around decision -making authority and how to reach agreements to
move forwa rd without backtracking or delay.
Phasing Projects (short-, Mid-, and Long -Term Projects)
• Create bite -size projects that address present and future needs.
• Create smaller projects that can be eligible for funding, should it become available.
Timeline —1 Year versus 18 to 24 Months
• Some jurisdictions worry that if the project takes too long, people will not remain engaged and
changes in leadership will lead to backtracking and delay.
• Other jurisdictions worry that if the project goes to fast, there will not be enough time to deliberate
and the process will miss key details and make mistakes.
2
810410181610DEN
ONE-ON-ONE STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW THEMES
Funding
• Need accurate cost estimations for projects early in the effort to be able to understand the funding
needs.
• Important to create 'fundable' projects.
• Need to clarify who pays for what project elements (municipality, county, state?).
• What are the fiscal constraints?
• Each jurisdiction needs to contribute financially — identify strategic projects and match with local
funds.
• Some jurisdictions have fewer resources — how can they participate effectively?
BI04101S1G10DEN 3
Public Meeting #1 Summary
Summary and Analysis Report
Public Meetings
US 34 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
City of Loveland
May 2, 2017
City of Greeley/Evans
May 3, 2017
1. Purpose and Need: The purpose and need as presented at the two public meetings was as
follows: the purpose of highway improvements is to preserve US 34 as a vital regional
transportation corridor to move people, goods, and information reliably and plan for the
future by accommodating changing travel demands and opportunities. The needs include
enhanced safety, accommodation for travel demands of forecasted population and
economic growth, and increased reliability of east/west regional travel, while balancing local
access and mobility.
The purpose of the public meetings was to inform and gather input from the public on the
upcoming US 34 P E L study.
2. PEL Study Status: The US 34 FEL Study will incorporate the US 34 corridor from Glade Road,
west of Loveland, to Weld County Road 49, in Kersey, in Larimer and Weld Counties. The PEL
Study is currently undergoing corridor assessment and is anticipated to be complete by May of
2018.
3. Public Meeting Notification: Members of the public were informed of the public meeting
through the project website, social media, and published media. Notifications were also sent
to local stakeholders for distribution to the public.
4. Public Meeting: The Loveland Public Meeting was held on May 2, 2017 at 5:30 pm to 7:00
pm at the City of Loveland Public Works Administration Building, 2nd Floor, 2525 West 1st Street,
Loveland, CO 80537. The Greeley/Evans Public Meeting was held on May 3, 2017 at 5:30 pm to
7:00 pm at the City of Evans Riverside Library and Cultural Center, 3700 Golden Street, Evans,
CO 80620 and included representatives from the US 34/US 85 interchange project. Both public
meetings had CDOT representatives present for the 1-25/US 34 interchange project.
5. Attendance: A registration table was set up at the entrance of the venue, with sign in sheets
for attendees. The registered attendance for the Loveland public meeting was 24 total with 13
members of the public and several stakeholders representing the City of Loveland and Weld
County. The registered attendance for the Greeley/Evans public meeting was 22 total, with 14
members of the public, one elected official, and stakeholders representing Weld County and
the City of Greeley and Evans.
6. Exhibits: Informational boards, including maps and displays were presented at the public
meeting, along with a short presentation. CDOT employees and members of the project team
were available to discuss the project with the public.
7. Written Comments Received: Comments received from both public meetings have been
combined into the data below. At each meeting a roll plot was presented of the corridor and
attendees were invited to write their comments. A total of 92 comments were received on the
roil plots. The comment subjects mostly included corridor congestion, bike and pedestrian
comments, and technology, such as traffic signals and safety. There were a few comments that
varied and included transit, access, drainage, general comments and noise. The comments
received on the roll plots are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1:
ROLL PLOT COMMENTS BY SUBJECT
Technology
19%
Safety
29%
Transit Access
2% 4%
Noise
1%
Bike and
Pedestrian
9%
Drainage
1%
Mobility and
Congestion
33%
General
2%
Approximately nine comment forms were received at the public meetings. The comment
forms included a questionnaire and asked the public to specify how they currently use the
US 34 corridor. See Table 2.
Table 2:
Comment Forms - How is US 34 Used?
Industry or Freight
Business Commuting
Recreational Travel
Local Travel
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The comment form questionnaire also asked the attendees what their top three concerns were
in the corridor, The available responses included congestion, unreliable or unpredictable travel
times, personal safety►, truck traffic or mix of vehicle types, lack of bicycle, pedestrian or transit
options, frontage roads, congestion on local roads or alternate US 34 routes, access and other.
See Table 3 below for the responses.
Table 3:
Comment Forms - Top Three Concerns in Corridor
Frontage Roads
Lack of Bike/Ped/Transit Options
Truck Traffic
Access
Personal Safety
Congestion on Local Roads or Alternate Routes
Congestion
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
■ Comment Form - Top Three Concerns in Corridor
Public Meeting #2 — Summary
Summary and Analysis Report
Public Meetings 2
US 34 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
City of Greeley
November 8, 2017
City of Loveland
November 15, 2017
1. Purpose and Need: The purpose and need as presented at the two public meetings was as
follows: The purpose of highway improvements is to preserve US 34 as a vital east -west
transportation corridor. Improvements will link and move people, goods, and information
reliably and adapt to future demands and funding opportunities. The needs include increased
safety, accommodate for increased travel and tourism demands to maintain the economic
vitality of the region and increase reliability of east -west regional travel, while balancing local
access, mobility and freight needs.
The purpose of the public meeting was to inform and gather input from the public on the
upcoming US 34 PEL study.
2.PEL Study Status: The US 34 PEL Study will incorporate the US 34 corridor from Glade Road,
west of Loveland to Weld County Road 49, west of Kersey in Larimer and Weld Counties. The
PEL Study is currently undergoing corridor assessment and is anticipated to be complete by
May of 2018.
3.Public Meeting Notification: Members of the public were informed of the public meeting
through the project website, social media and published media. Postcard notifications were
sent to local businesses and the public adjacent the roadway. (See Appendix A for Notices)
4.Public Meeting: The Greeley/Evans Public Meeting was held on November 8, 2017 at 5:00 pm
to 7:00 pm, with a presentation at 5:30, at the Colorado Department of Transportation, Region
4, Big Thompson Conference Room, 10601 W. 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80634. The Loveland
Public Meeting was held on November 15, 2017 at 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm, with presentations at
4:30 and 6:00 pm, at the Best Western, 5542 E. US Highway 34, Loveland, CO 80537.
5.Attendance: A registration table was set up at the entrance of the venue, with sign in sheets
for attendees. The registered attendance for the Greeley public meeting was 36 total with 19
members of the public, two elected officials and several stakeholders representing the City of
Greeley and Weld County. The registered attendance for the Loveland public meeting was 60
total, with 52 members of the public, and stakeholders representing Weld County and the City
of Loveland. (See Appendix D for Sign -in -Sheets)
6.Exhibits: Informational boards, including maps and displays were presented at the public
meeting, along with a short presentation (See Appendix B and C) CDOT employees and
members of the project team were available to discuss the project with the public.
7.Written Comments Received: Comments received from both public meetings have been
combined into the data below. At each meeting roll plots were presented of the corridor
alternatives and attendees were invited to write their comments. A total of 58 comments were
received on the roll plots. The comment subjects mostly included mobility► and congestion,
infrastructure and design, and safety. There were a few comments that varied and included
access, drainage, land use and maintenance as well as bicycle and pedestrian comments. (See
Appendix E for Comment Matrix) The comments received on the roll plots are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1:
ROLL PLOT COMMENTS BY SUBJECT
Mobility► and
Congestion
31%
Maintenance
2%
Safety
21%
Access
8%
Land Use
2%
Bike and
Pedestrian
2%
Drainage
9
Infrastructure and
Design
22%
General
3%
Approximately five comment forms were received at the public meetings. (See Appendix F for
Comment Forms) The comment forms included a questionnaire and asked the public to specify
which segments of the corridor they most often travel. See Table 2.
Comment Forms - Which Segments of the corridor do you most often
travel?
East End (1st Ave. to WCR 49)
Greeley Espressway (E. of Hwy 257 to W. of 11th Ave.)
Johnstown -Greeley (Centerra Pkwy to E. of Hwy 257)
Loveland 6 -Lane (N. Garfield Ave to Rocky Mountain Ave.)
Loveland Urban (Morning Drive to N. Garfield Ave.)
Foothills (LCR 27 to Morning Dr)
a
U
1 2
Comments were also collected orally and by email. The comments included mobility and
congestion, general questions, noise and bicycle and pedestrian. See Table 3 below for the
summary of additional comments.
Table
Bicyle and Pedestrian
General
Access
Noise
Mobility and Congestion
Additional Comments - Project Corridor
a 1
2 3
■ Comment Form - Top Three Concerns in Corridor
4 5
Public Meeting #3 — Summary
Summary and Analysis Report
Public Meetings 3
US 34 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
City of Evans
ICI a y 23, 2018
City of Loveland
May 30, 2018
1. Purpose and Need: The purpose and need as presented at the two public meetings wasas
follows: The purpose of highway improvements is to preserve US 34 as a vital east -west
transportation corridor. Improvements will link and move people, goods, and information
reliably and adapt to future demands and funding opportunities.
Highway improvements are needed to increase safety, the need for corridor improvements to
support the increases in development and travel demand has resulted in safety concerns at
intersections and other locations along the US 34 corridor. Accommodate increased travel and
tourism demands to maintain the economic vitality of the region. Northern Colorado
communities are among the fastest growing in the nation. Growth has spurred economic
benefits and provides funding to improve infrastructure and amenities that make these
communities desirable. Increase reliability of east -west regional travel, while balancing local
access, mobility and freight needs. Traffic congestion can dampen the benefits of job growth
and recreation opportunities that the region provides to new and long-time residents.
Successful alternatives will be compatible with the natural environment, support community
land use and aesthetics goals, be fiscally responsible and implementable, reduce risk and
increase reliability and accommodate emerging technology.
The purpose of the public meeting was to inform and gather input from the public on the
upcoming US 34 PEL study.
2. PEI_ Study Status: The US 34 PEL Study will incorporate the us 34 corridor from Glade Road,
west of Loveland to Weld County Road 49, west of Kersey in Larimer and Weld Counties. The
PEL Study is currently undergoing corridor assessment and is anticipated to be complete by Fall
of 2018.
3. Public Meeting Notification: Members of the public were informed of the public meeting
through the project website, social media and published media. Postcard notifications were
sent to local businesses and the public adjacent the roadway as well as posted in community
areas such as churches and coffee shops. (See Appendix A for Notices)
4. Public Meeting: The Evans Public Meeting was held on May 23, 2018 at 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm,
with a presentation at 5:30, at the City of Evans Riverside Library and Cultural Center Banquet
Hall located at 3700 Golden Street, Evans Colorado. The Loveland Public Meeting was held on
May 30, 2018 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm with a presentation at 5:30 pm at the Embassy Suites
Loveland located at 4705 Clydesdale Parkway, Loveland Colorado.
5. Attendance: A registration table was set up at the entrance of the venue, with sign in sheets
for attendees. The registered attendance for the Greeley public meeting was 25 total with 11
members of the public, one elected officials and several stakeholders representing the City of
Greeley and Weld County. The registered attendance for the Loveland public meeting was 50
total, with 31 members of the public, and two elected officials and several stakeholders
representing Weld County and the City of Loveland. (See Appendix D for Sign -in -Sheets)
6.Exhibits: Informational boards, including maps and displays were presented at the public
meeting, along with a short presentation (See Appendix B and C) CDOT employees and
members of the project team were available to discuss the project with the public.
7.Written Comments Received: Comments received from both public meetings have been
combined into the data below. At each meeting roll plots were presented of the corridor
alternatives and attendees were invited to write their comments. A total of 46 comments were
received on the roll plots. The comment subjects mostly included the design alternatives,
access, mobility, safety, bridges and interchanges as well as bike and pedestrian facilities.
There were a few comments that varied and included transit, schedule, noise, land use,
drainage and congestion. (See Appendix E for Comment Matrices) The comments received on
the roll plots are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1:
ROLL PLOT COMMENTS BY SUBJECT
Schedule_ Transit Access
2% 11%
Safety
13%
Noise
2%
Mobility
11%
Land -Use
5%
Drainage/Hydrology
{
2%
5%
Bike/Pedestrian
11%
Bridge/Interchange
11%
Congestion
5%
Design
Alternatives
22%
Approximately 16 comment forms were received at the public meetings. (See Appendix F for
Comment Forms) The comment forms included a questionnaire and asked the public to specify
which segments of the corridor they most often travel. See Table 2.
Table 2
Which segment of the corridor do you most often travel?
East End
Greeley Expressway
Johnstown -Greeley
Loveland 6 -Lane
Loveland Urban
Foothills
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments were also submitted through the project email at U 34PEL@cdot.us. A total of 7
email comments were received through the comment period. Those comments can be found in
Appendix F: Emailed Comments.
Public Comments Received during
the PEL Study
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 1
Email and Written Comments by Segment and Location
Segment
Location Specific
Subject
Comment
Format
Source
Foothills
Butte Road
Infrastructure and Design
Need Transition here
Meeting 2
Written
Foothills
Glade Road
Study Area
I have been unable to attend the meetings you have held in Loveland, but would like very much to provide input regarding
the western end of your Hwy 34 study area.
Does this phase of your study extend to Glade Road? When might I see conceptuals on your website? To whom should
address comments?
I
Meeting 2
Email
Foothills
Glade Road
Public Involvement
I am one of the owners of Sweet Heart Winery. I'm writing to inquire about potential plans to widen HWY 34 in the area
where our Winery is so that perhaps we might consider a turn lane into our property at some point in the future. Cur
location is 5540 W HWY 34. Is there anything you can share at this time, or recommend how we would be more involved in
future planning?
Meeting 2
Email
Foothills
Glade Road
Congestion
Please extend 4 lanes to Glade Road.
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Glade Road
Noise
Motorcycles racing up and down the highway 24/7 and I can't see their plates. We need safety/monitoring in the foothills
segment
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
LCR 23H
Bridge/Interchange
Suggest signal a t 23H
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
LCR 27
Mobility & Congestion
Need a light here. Traffic going east is heavy.
Meeting 2
Written
Foothills
Morning Drive
Mobility and Congestion
Move the lane drop to a different location, because this location also has a left turn queue and a driveway
Meeting 1
Written
Foothills
Morning Drive
Safety
Address drainage issues. US 34 has water sitting on the WB lanes at the new storage facility west of Morning Dr.
Meeting 1
Written
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
Only exit is out of morning Drive. 22nd is connected but is for emergency use only. The solution would be to increase
capacity to 4 through Glade Road from cascade
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Morning Drive
Safety/Access
_
Please include left turning access out of Morning Dr. Fatal accident waiting to happen.
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in regards to the meeting held about changes planned for west 34.
My family has lived on Morning Drive for 8 years now. We take a left turn onto 34 from Morning Drive several times a day.
We were very concerned when we heard that the option to turn left from Morning Drive onto 34 was possibly going to be
removed. That would severely limit our mobility and we are very much against it!! Getting into town for work, school,
shopping and activities would become much harder. Requiring us to drive west down 34 until we could make a u -turn to
drive east down 34. That could potentially be very dangerous, as well as, increasing travel time and traffic.
Do not remove the left turn option from Morning Drive onto 34. Doing so would negatively impact us in are mobility and
safety!
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
I am concerned that access to US 34 from my neighborhood may be restricted to westbound 34 only during upcoming
construction. I have turned west from my neighborhood possibly 10 times in the 45 years I've lived here. It is very difficult
to get to Loveland by turning west on 34, and I am hoping some consideration will be given to the majority of the
homeowners who share my usage of US 34, primarily eastbound to our jobs and activities. You have been made aware of
the restrictions on 22nd. I am not one of those who would like to see those restrictions continue, but would prefer to enter
US 34 in the same way as we have always done. Thank you for your attention.
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
I must make a left turn off Morning Dr in order to go to work in Greeley; going any other way would be very time consuming
to an already long drive.
Please leave our left turns in place onto HWY 34.
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
I hope you reconsider right turns only into Hwy 34 off Morning Drive. Morning is the main entrance in and out of Nana qua
Hills and people must be able to turn left onto Hwy 34.
The emergency exit on 22nd is not a through street. We don't believe it should ever become a through street because it
would greatly impact the traffic in our subdivision.
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
I have just purchased a home on Namaqua Hill, and at the time Hwy 34 was closed. I didn't realize the extent of the problem
that exists at this intersection.
As you consider the plan for Hwy 34, please be aware that Morning Drive is the only access to all the homes on Namaqua
Hill.
Meeting 3
Email
Page 1 of 6
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 1
Email and Written Comments by Segment and Location
Segment
Location Spectflc
Subject
Comment
Format
Source
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
Good afternoon,
Who do I speak to comment on the proposed US 34 PEL Presentation of May 2018? Especially concerning not allowing the
Namaqua Hills neighborhood left hand east bound turning access onto U.S. 34
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
As I understand it, right turn only is being suggested from Morning Dr. on to us 34. Are you kidding???? How do you
propose residents of Namaqua Hill get to Loveland??? Morning Dr. is the only entrance/ exit from Narna qua Hill....just as the
residents want it. We have fought many battles to keep 22 St. closed . Studies have shown that any additional traffic on
Morning Dr.(that would result from opening 22 nd) would be inadvisable due to multiple engineering difficulties. I suggest
CD QT consult with City of Loveland engineers regarding this matter. That being the case...one must conclude a Right turn
only arrangement is untenable
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
To Whom It May Concern,
My farnily and I have lived on Morning Drive in Loveland, CO for 27 years. We very much appreciate the left turn lane
heading east out of the N•arnaqua Hills subdivision. We have heard that the improvements for Highway 34 that are in
discussion at this time, may eliminate the left turn lane out of our neighborhood. With the thousands of left hand turns we
have made for almost three decades onto 34, we have never been in or heard of an accident there. It doesn't make sense to
us as to why this would happen. Please allow us to continue to safely navigate the left turn from our neighborhood. For us to
turn west, then find somewhere else to turn around to head back east on 34 seems congested and confusing.
Thank you for your consideration for our neighborhoods continued ease for merging onto Hiway 34 heading east.
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
Tried to forward comment sheet but unable.
My concern is about morning dr exit on to 34 highway .
Like to be able to continue to turn left toward loveland
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Namaqua Road
Mobility and Congestion
Hello, Thanks for the invitation to the public meetings. Since we will not be able to attend, we would like to express our
concerns in this email. We have operated the Dairy Delite at 3080 West Eisenhower Blvd , Loveland, Colorado since 1978.
Lots of changes over the years. Traffic volumes have increased and we see excessive speeds by some motorists. A byproduct
of an ever increasing population. Our most pressing issue remains at the intersection of Namaqua Road ( Co road 19E ) and
US 34. We feel the time has come for the consideration of a traffic study and possible lite.
Meeting 3
Email
Foothills
Not Applicable
Design Alternatives
Raised median is a bad idea
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Not Applicable
Safety
With tourist traffic I think roundabouts would caused many more accidents.
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Not Applicable
Design Alternatives
Option 3 is the best option.
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Not Applicable
Design Alternatives
No, that roundabout would be terrible.
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Rossum Drive
Design Alternatives
No roundabout at Rossurn Drive
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills
Rossurn Drive
Drainage/Hydrology
Low spot in road and needs to be fixed. It becomes a drainage issue.
Meeting 3
Written
Foothills to Loveland 6 -Lane
Carter Lake Road
Mobility and Congestion
Loveland needs 34 bypass between CR 402 to Carter Lake Rd.
Meeting 1
Written
Foothills to Loveland 6 -Lane
Not Applicable
Mobility & Congestion
Create a bypass around loveland. Hint -402
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Colorado Avenue
Access
Provide better access to parking at Lake Loveland
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland Urban
Colorado Avenue
Safety
Reduce speed limit to 30 mph
Meeting 1
Written
Urban
Grant Avenue
Bike & Pedestrian
is a need to connect Dwayne Webster park to the lake and path along lake. There needs pedestrian connection across
TLoveland
34.
Meeting 2
Meeting
Written
Loveland Urban
Taft Avenue
Mobility and Congestion
Long turn lane from Taft Ave to EB US 34
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Signal timing needs to be fixed ; causes congestion and people run
light because they have been waiting.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Safety
Speeders and aggressive drivers on 1st
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Bike/Pedestrian
Heavy North/South Pedestrian Movements
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Possible Auxiliary Lanes
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
infrastructure and Design
East bound US 34 Free right turn options into corner store gas station.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Signal timing for East and West drivers need longer left turns and police enforment.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Schedule
This intersection needs near term improvements
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland Urban
Wilson Avenue
Design Alternatives
The Double Left Turn Lane Design option is the best choice at Wilson Avenue.
Meeting 3
Written
Loveland Urban to Johnstown -Greeley
Taft Avenue to CR 17
Technology
Improve signal timing. Traffic signal timing is terrible. I must stop at every light between CR 17 and Taft at night
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland Urban to Loveland 6 -Lane
Not Applicable
Technology
Loveland -US 34 traffic signal timing is terrible
Meeting 1
Written
Page 2 of 6
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 1
Email and Written Comments by Segment and Location
Segment
Location Specific
Subject
Comment
Format
Source
Loveland 6 -Lane
Boyd Lake Avenue
Technology
Boyd Lake Ave needs a second receiving lane EBto NB
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Boyd Lake Avenue
Technology
Signal timing of Boyd Lake Ave needs more time for US 34
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Boyd Lake Avenue
Drainage & Hydrology
Drainage issues and flooding into pumpkin patch on Jacob Hill property.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Garfield Avenue
Safety
RR crossing has human risk factor.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Hahns Peak Drive
Technology
Improve signal timing. This light takes a very Longtime to switch from US 34 to leave Hahns Peak Dr.
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
LCR 3
Infrastructure and Design
Talk to Larimer county about future paving of LCR 3 South of US 34
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Madison Avenue
Technology
Improve signal for CFI
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Madison Avenue
Technology
Get rid of CFI at Madison Ave
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Madison Avenue
Technology
Consider modifying signal timing for CFI
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Madison Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
No roundabouts in downtown Loveland. They are not used properly. Lots of distrust of unique ideas based on the Madison
CFI intersection.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Madison Avenue
Safety
Ultra Modern intersection at Madsion Ave!! No one knows where to drive when during snow and heavy rain. Very
dangerous -- Hi Speeds
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Madison Avenue
Safety
Dangerous intersection during inclimate weather.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Madison Avenue
Drainage & Hydrology
Roadway Drainage backs into private property.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Madison Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Bad intersection design.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Monroe Avenue
Safety
Speeds are too high
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
Monroe Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Been driving CFI since it opened. Daily, never a problem. Lane line work is ok.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
Multiple Locations
General
Would be a Priority area. Lane Wdening?
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
SH 402/S LCR Ye
Mobility & Congestion
Provide turn lane for traffic heading North.
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
US 287
Freight
US 287 Carrying Additional Truck Traffic.
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
US 287
Mobility and Congestion
Turn lanes at Lincoln Cleveland should be: left only, left and continue through, continue through, right only
Meeting 1
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
US 287
Design Alternatives
Option 3 is too confusing especially for tourist.
Meeting 3
Written
Loveland 6 -Lane
US 287
Design Alternatives
Double left turn option here is the best option.
Meeting 3
Written
Loveland 6 -lane
US 287
Mobility & Congestion
Big bottleneck extending the turn lane.
Meeting 2
Written
Loveland 6 -Kane
US 287
Mobility & Congestion
Left -turns are a problem and stack past intersections W 287
Meeting 2
Written
1-25 (by others)
1-25
Access
Increase size of PnR or even repaint lines
Meeting 1
Written
1-25 (by others)
1-25
Transit
Restripe the Bustang lot.
Meeting 1
Written
1-25 (by others) to Greeley Expressway
1-25 to US 34 Business
Mobility and Congestion
Need frontage road from 1-25 to Bypass
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
Centerra Parkway
Transit
Provide PNR for Cen terra.
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
Centerra Parkway
Technology
Left turn from Crossroads Blvd to Centerra Pkwy (WB to SB) needs more green time
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
Centerra Parkway, WCR 17
Technology
Put in queue warning signal at WCR 17 and Centerra
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
Larimer Parkway
Technology
Imminent signal needed at Larimer Pkwy.
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
Larimer Pkwy
Mobility & Congestion
Flashing yellow for westbound left turn (arrow). There are a red and green arrows but red stops everyone and stops traffic
even when there are lots of gaps. Flashing yellow would help traffic congestions.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
US 34 Business
Safety
Add sign to merge.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
US 34 Business
Safety
Merge Issues
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Noise
Sound walls to reduce truck and motorcycle noise
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Noise
Sound walls to reduce truck and motorcycle noise
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Noise
Sound walls to reduce truck and motorcycle noise
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Safety
Improve vertical design for sight distance. Hill creates sight distance problems at the signal at WCR 13, similar to WCR 17
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
Traffic backs up across RR
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
This has caused congestion with new light
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
Light causes congestion
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
Traffic Slows down
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
Timing issues between RR signal and WCR 13 light
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Infrastructure and Design
Timing issues with WCR 13 and US 34 light. Back up on South bound WRC 13 -- A half mile at times.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
US 34 Eastbound left on CR 14. Does the left have to be protected always? Change timing?
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
General
Oil and gas traffic has much increased do to GWRR. Are combustables being transported
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
New pork -chop median at CR 13 has made it difficult for trucks
at bad places, or make sharp turns onto US 34, and have to block
and cars to exit the Kelim frontage road. They make U turn
multiple lanes to make the turns.
Meeting 2
Written
Page 3 of 6
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 1
Email and Written Comments by Segment and Location
/m
Mi'I
Sub
Comment
Horrnat
:mime
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility & Congestion
There is not enough green time to clear out the queue from side street at the southbound CR 13 approaching the new
signal.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility
WCR 13 is not ag friendly. Designs need to be ag friendly in the interim.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Design Alternatives
Option 1 is reasonable. Option 2 is silly.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Mobility
WCR 13 to WC R17 signals need to be better coordinated and RR tracks are a problem!
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Safety
Red light camera needs to be implemented at CR 13
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 13
Design Alternatives
In WCR 13 options the roundabouts need to be bigger to accommodate the semi's
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Bridge/Interchange
Place overpass at CR 15 or a frontage Road
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Mobility and Congestion
Need right turn acceleration from WCR 15 NB to US 34 EB, because traffic is backed up from WCR 17.
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Access
Look at secondary access at SW corner over to WCR 13
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Access
Neighborhood only has one access --WCR 15
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Land -Use
Retain Lofts. 125-150 homes within 1 mile. Emergency Response -- Economics
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Access
Without a good access road from WCR 15 to WCR 13 some of US 34 will need a left turning option. Install light or frontage
road both East and west. Don't send to CR 17. How does EMS responded effectively.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Design Alternatives
Both options for WCR 15 would be a disaster!
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Safety
"No Engine Brakes" rule needs to be implemented at CR 13 and CR 15
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Mobility
CR 15 -dead area in middle of intersection stripes
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Access
Make CR 15 a signal, not a 3/4.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
CR 15 should be a signal, not a 3/4.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Access
Concern for limiting emergency response time from fire station 1 to Indianhead Estates if CR 15 is cut off!
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Safety
Reduce Speed Limit
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Mobility and Congestion
In the short term, need protected left turns for NB/SB traffic on WCR 17
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Safety
Safety improvements at WCR 17
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Technology
Signal/timing needs alteration
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Technology
Improve signal timing. WCR 17 signal timing is off
Meeting 1
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Mobility & Congestion
Traffic Slows down
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Infrastructure and Design
Add Northbound left turn lane (need offset).
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Infrastructure and Design
Westbound US 34 to north Weld County Road 17 needs entended right turn lane.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Maintenance
Weld County Road 17 north US 34 east right turn lane has huge potholes.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Land -Use
Who owns the south side of WCR 17
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Mobility
Implement roundabout apron at CR54 and CR 17 for tractors.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Schedule
WCR 17 is a top priority
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Bike/Ped
What types of pedestrian crossings are being considered at WCR 17
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Safety
Don't send from WCR 15 to high accident rate WCR 17
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Safety
Use a light or look at other effective options. Don't' send high accident rate to CR 17. Considered CR 15 overpass or frontage
road.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 17
Access
Provide N/S left turn lanes. Enhance E/W turn lanes.
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 25, 20th Street
Land -Use
Problems with growth at 20th St and WCR 25
Meeting 3
Written
Johnstown -Greeley
WRC 17, WCR 15, WCR 17
Mobility & Congestion
The signals on either side of CR 15 (CR 13 and CR 17) have helped make gaps in traffic to assist the left turns. There is still
concern about having to get up to the 65 mph speed limit.
Meeting 2
Written
Johnstown -Greeley to East End
WRC 17, WCR 54
Mobility
Implement roundabout apron at CR54 and CR 17 for tractors.
Meeting 3
Written
Greeley Expressway
23rd Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Gutter pan across the ramp.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
23rd Avenue
Bridge/Interchange
Underpass at 23 could be improved.
Meeting 3
Written
Greeley Expressway
28th Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
This intersection needs near term improvements
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
29th Street
Bike/Ped
Provide a pedestrian crossover of US 34
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
35th Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Shift start of 45 mph zone farther west
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
35th Avenue
Access
Access from private properties is difficult.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
35th Avenue
Bike/Ped
Bike and Ped crossings are okay at 11th Avenue
Meeting 3
Written
Greeley Expressway
35th Avenue, 47th Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Overpasses Needed at 35th and 47th
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
37th Avenue, 47th Avenue _
Technology
Eliminate lights at US 34/47th Ave and US 34/35th Ave intersections
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
47th Avenue
Bike/Ped
Improve pedestrian timing and right turn signals for blind pedestrians.
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
47th Avenue
Drainage & Hydrology
Pinacle/ Pldg. 9 Wetlands. Between 29th and 34 near. SWMP
Meeting 2
Written
Page 4 of 6
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 1
Email and Written Comments by Segment and Location
Segment
Location Spectflc
Subject
Comment
Format
Source
Greeley Expressway
47th Avenue
Drainage R. Hydrology
5WMP Drainage issue.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
47th Avenue
Safety
High Crash Location. Drivers don't' respect "no turn on red" signs.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
47th Avenue
Bike/Ped
Bike and Ped crossings are okay at 11th Avenue
Meeting 3
Written
Greeley Expressway
47th Avenue
Bridge/Interchange
Design so that US 34 is an over pass over 47th Avenue.
Meeting 3
Written
Greeley Expressway
65th Avenue
Bike/Ped
Bike and Ped crossings are okay at 11th Avenue
Meeting 3
Written
Greeley Expressway
65th Avenue 83rd Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Traffic Congestion at 65th and 83rd
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
71st Avenue
Technology
More overpasses alternating with signals.
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
71st Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Would like Left turn from east or signal considered at 71st.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
71st Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
71st configuration is increasing traffic along off highway routes (28th St). "Road to no where."
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
83rd Avenue
Technology
83rd light is working
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
83rd Avenue
Safety
Signal visibility is poor.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
95th Avenue
Safety
Runoff the road at curve between 95th Ave and 83rd Ave
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
95th Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Need traffic light.
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
95th Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Can 20th street be more north?
Meeting 2
Written
Greeley Expressway
Not Applicable
General
Garden City not apart of U5 34 Coalition?
Meeting 1
Written
Greeley Expressway
US 34 Business
Access
I have a conflict and cannot attend the COOT meetings this week. I'm a long term Colorado and Front Range resident, and a
taxpayer. I want to inquire about access to businesses along the 34 to Estes Corridor during the next project. Though you
have tremendous repairs to do, I'm concerned that we are jeopardizing small business access if we limit traffic. Please help
me understand if this access will be possible during the next phase of this project.
Meeting 1
Email
Greeley Expressway
US 34 Business
Noise
Is it in the plan to re -surface 34 bypass through west and central Greeley in something appropriate to quiet the noise from
constant increased traffic that pervades so many neighborhoods from 33rd St. east through the city of Greeley? Especially in
the now very congested area around 59th Ave./65th Ave., there are thousands of homes that are subjected to the constant
drone of tires on pavement. Surely something can be done to mitigate this noise.
Meeting 2
Email
US 85 (by others)
11th Avenue
Mobility & Congestion
Increase acceleration lane length at 11th Ave Southbound to Westbound US34
Meeting 1
Written
U5 85 (by others)
8th Avenue
Mobility and Congestion
Bridge over 8th Ave
Meeting 1
Written
US 85 (by others)
Sth Avenue
Safety
Improve vertical design for sight distance. Heading eastbound on US 34 bypass 8th Ave signal is hard to see over bridge.
Meeting 1
Written
U.S 85 (by others)
8th Avenue
Safety
Interchange lighting flashing sign for SB to EB loop for tight curves
Meeting 1
Written
U5 85 (by others)
8th Avenue, 11 Avenue
Bike/Ped
(Comment written twice) Pedestrian improvements to accommodate high pedestrian traffic at 8th Ave, 11th Ave and US 34
Meeting 1
Written
US 85 (by others)
8th Avenue, 11 Avenue
Bike/Ped
(Comment written twice) Pedestrian improvements to accommodate high pedestrian traffic at 8th Ave, 11th Ave and US 34
Meeting 1
Written
US 85 (by others)
US 85
Transit
Transit stop at 18th and US 85
Meeting 1
Written
U5 85 (by others)
US 85
Bike/Ped
Accommodate bike/peds at US 34/U5 85 interchange
Meeting 1
Written
US 85 (by others)
US 85
Mobility & Congestion
Simplify US 85 merge with 8th Ave to increase capacity
Meeting 1
Written
US 85 (by others)
US 85
Mobility & Congestion
Provide two lanes on EB US 34 and 2 lanes WB Kersey then US 34 bypass to Sth Ave.
Meeting 1
Written
U5 85 (by others)
US 85
Mobility & Congestion
Provide more room for large trucks to accelerate to reduce traffic backups from O 5t, heading 5B on U.S 85
Meeting 1
Written
U5 85 (by others)
US 85
Mobility R. Congestion
Turning from train tracks on O St. west to US 85 north, NB trucks need extra acceleration lane to overcome hill to maintain
65 mph
Meeting 1
Written
East End
1st Avenue
Landuse
New 7 acre business (Southeast
corner of intersection) . Light, med, and heavy vehicles.
Meeting 2
Written
East End
1st Avenue
Drainage & Hydrology
COOT ditch near Greeley RV Park needs to b cleaned out.
Meeting 2
Written
East End
1st Avenue
Infrastructure and Design
Keep US 34 and E27th/28th frontage road intersection at grade.
Meeting 2
Written
East End
1st Street
Safety
U.S 34 exit at Kersey needs street lights and better signage.
Meeting 1
Written
East End
Cherry Avenue
Safety
Interchange needs lighting/Street lights at curve on 34.
Meeting 1
Written
East End
WCR 45
Mobility and Congestion
Provide left turn lane on incline
Meeting 1
Written
East End
WCR 45
Safety
Address drainage issues. U.S 34 Business bridge flooded
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Bridge/Interchange
Interchanges are okay. No roundabouts.
Meeting 3
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Transit
Something with transit that contacts to Bustang, Colt, and Flex.
Meeting 3
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Transit
Need Rapid Transit or Hyperloop
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Bike/Ped
Provide pedestrian access at major intersections (including ADA)
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Bike/Ped
(Comment written by multiple Commenters) Provide more under or over crosses for bikes/pedestrians throughout the
whole corridor
Meeting 1
Written
Page 5 of 6
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 1
Email and Written Comments by Segment and Location
Segment
Location Specific
Subject
Comment
Format
Source
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Bike/Ped
(Comment written by multiple Commenters) Provide more under or over crosses for bikes/pedestrians throughout the
whole corridor
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
.
Not Applicable
Bike/Ped
(Comment written by multiple Commenters) Provide better bike/ped connectivity along the entire corridor '
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Bike/Ped
(Comment written by multiple Commenters) Provide better bike/ped connectivity along the entire corridor
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Noise
I'm upset about the train horn noise, and I live miles away from the tracks. The tracks were there first, but the newer and
louder train horns are unacceptable.
Meeting 2
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Mobility & Congestion
Provide better merging lanes onto U5 34
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
Not Applicable
Transit
Check out Seattle's multi-modal/transit to see if we can incorporate it.
Meeting 3
Written
Project Limits
0 Street, Crossroads Boulevard
Mobility and Congestion
Relieve pressure on US 34 by connecting 0 5t to Crossroads
Meeting 1
Written
Project Limits
SH 402
Mobility and Congestion
Establish CR 402 and Crossroads as alternative routes
Meeting 1
Written
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Health
What about Health?
Meeting 1
Written
Outside of Study Area
Outside of Project Limits
'We
Not Applicable
are traveling from Estes park to Vernal Utah on Oct 17,2017. Mapquest is showing road to be closed at that time for
construction, is this correct information. Please advise as to alternate route U534 is not available.
Meeting 1
Email
Outside of Study Area
Outside of Project Limits
Not Applicable
Am planning a trip to Estee Park on June 3, 2017. Will Hwy 34 be open or do I need to take Hwy 36?
Meeting 1
Email
Page 6 of 6
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBUC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 2
Summary of Comment Forms by Meeting sorted by Segment and Location.
Meeting 1
Sons
Segment of Concern
Location Specific (If
appicable)
HowSubject How do you most then we
the U534 Cont?
Are there specific location where you experience problems
with travel n the US 34 Corridor?
What are year top three
concerns with
What to do you view as the
access on US 34? (Check aithat
man benefits of managing
apply)
Overall, do you understand an support the existing
Access Control plan that was adopted ii 2003?
Other Comments orCWestions
travel th the corridor?
Meeting 1
Foothills to I-25
(by others)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Local travel
West of 25
Congestion
Reduced crash risk
Not Applicable
Too many access points. Lack of understanding/ Following Rules. I am okay with round -about, however
they need to be larger and open (no bushes hiding the side walks).
Recreational travel
Improved traffic flow
Meeting 1
Loveland Urban Johnstown
Greeley
WCR 15
Not Applicable
Business Commuting
County Rd 15 and Hwy 34 all the way to Loveland
Congestion
Not Applicable
I generally support the plan but have concerns about a
particular at County Road 15 and Highway 34 location
As a home owner with adjoining property we are subject to the noise and pollution. We see accidents
and traffic backups on a regular basis. Our safety head west on hwy 34 has become a serious issue.
Crossing the median to head west we have seen drivers actually pass in the left hand acceleration lane.
When we sit there to merge with traffic we put ourselves at risk of being killed.
Local travel
Personal Safety
Access
Meeting 1
Loveland Urban to 1-25
(by others)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Local travel
Between 287 and I-25
Other
Reduced crash risk
Not Applicable
The left turn lanes on this corridor are very long and have restricted access. This is fine except the
signage is not adequate to delineate which street one is approaching. Putting signs in the median at
the entrance to the turn lanes would really help. I simply cannot see the signs in the cross street a
quarter of a mile away.
Inadequate Signage
Improved traffic flow
Improved corridor appearance
Meeting 1
Loveland Urban to Johnstown
Greeley
Taft Avenue to Centerra
Parkway
Not Applicable
Business Commuting
Near Centerra shopping center (Old Chicago etc.) and Taft and
Hwy 34
Congestion
Improved traffic flow
Not Applicable
Too much Access!
Local travel
Congestions on local roads or alternate US
34 routes
Maximized use of local street system to support access and
circulation
Recreational travel
Access
Meeting 1
Loveland 6 -Lane to Johnstown
Greeley
r
Boyd Lake Rood, 12�, WCR
15, WRC 17
Freight
Business Commuting
Hwy 34 end 1-2�; Hwy 34 and Boyd Lake Rd; Hwy 34 and WCR
13/15 (due to heavy truck traffic trying to enter Hwy 34).
Congestion
Other
Not Applicable
What about health? Need to think more broadly about what the impact could be, especially as the
population is expected to double.
Recreational travel
Lack of bicycle -pedestrian -transit options
Need t accommodate all user types (include bike and ped)
or at least plan for bike and ped infrastructure when the
planning and building are considered. If we don't leave
space for it then it will never happen.
Local travel
Meeting 1
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR 15
Mobility and Congestion
Local travel
I get on Hwy 34 at County Road 15. Turning right, the
acceleration lane is extremely short, so I have to wait fora good
break in traffic. Turning left, I also have to wait fora break,
sometimes for a while.
Personal Safety
Reduced crash risk
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Truck traffic or mix of vehicle types
Improved traffic flow
Access
Meeting 1
Greeley Expressway
Not Applicable
Mobility and Congestion
Local travel
Rush hour Greeley
Congestion
Not Applicable
I understand and support the plan
I would like to see more rapid transit along Hwy 34 and Hwy85 (west 34 to Loveland and Ft. Collins,
and south hwy 85 to Denver). It would be nice if this could be finished at the same time as the highway
improvements.
Greeley Continues to grow and we need another alternative to car travel.
Recreational travel
Truck traffic or mix of vehicle types
Congestions on local roads or alternate US
34 routes
Meeting 1
r
US 85 (by others)
USSafety 85
Business Commuting
Hwy 34/Hwy 85 bypass needs 2 lanes eastbound, 2 lanes
westbound for Hwy 34 plus merging lanes from southbound Hwy
85, Northbound Hwy 85/Hwy 34 exit to 8th ave/Hwy 34 business
is dangerous with 8th ave on -ramp.
Congestion
Not Applicable
Unaware of existing plan
[Long TermjMerging from southbound hwy 85 to westbound on hwy 34 is sometimes scary with semi
trucks merging from hwy 34 east of interchange to west. Some traffic cuts across the two lanes to exit
north to business hwy 85 to 8th ave. Needs 2 lanes east and 1 exit south to hwy 85 and 1 for exit north
=4 lanes total. Only 1 lane no is not enough space at 45 m ph. I think extending a bridge over 8th Ave
then drop down hill to 11th could improve flow westbound and increase ped safety North/south on
8th Ave.
[Short term Fix street light at 8th ave exit on bridge heading east on hwy 34. Pole P80/47. I've called
CDOT, City of Greely, and xcel to get this light fixed
Local travel
Personal Safety
Recreational travel
Lack of bicycle -pedestrian -transit options
Meeting 1
Project Limits
J
Not Applicable
pp
Not Applicable
pp
Local travel
Being retired I try to use US34 at times that are not as busy.
y
Congestion
Reduced crash risk
Not Applicable
pp
Not Applicable
pp
Frontage Roads
Improved traffic flow
Congestions on local roads or alternate US
34 routes
Predictable and easy to locate access to businesses
Meetl ng 2
Sources
Segment of Concern
Location
appiwble)
Specific (If 7�
Comment Subject
Which Segments of the
Corridor do you often
travel?
What iput do you have on the alternative concepts and elements considered for de section you traveR
No additional questions in meeting 2 comment form
Meeting 2
Loveland Urban to Johnstown
Greeley
Madison Avenue to
Centerra
Safety
Loveland 6 -Lane to
Johnstown -Greeley
Safety concerns: I see too many accidents on US 34 between Madison to/from the Centerra Complex. New lights I don't think will do anything. More enforcement of speed limit by
ticketing or having a n electronic sign of the car's speed so the drivers can be reminded of their speed would be helpful.
I see pedestrians crossing US 34 almost being hit. Maybe a underneath walking path?
I live 2 blocks from US 34 and the noise is horrible!!!
Meeting 2
Johnstown -Greeley
Thompson Parkway
Access
Johnstown -Greeley
Meeting 2
Johnstown -Greeley
WCR15
Mobility and Congestion
Johnstown -Greeley
The people of Indian head estates need a road from Hopi Trail west to CR 13 so that we can use the light at CR 13 and US 34. That way you do that right turn only thing and close the
median at CR 15 and US 34. The intersection at US 34 and CR 15 is just too dangerous to cross. There is a vacant lot on the south end of the Hopi trail and you could run a road just
north of the Martin Marrieta plant to CR 13 and then Indian head Estates people could have safe access to US 34.
No additional questions in meeting 2 comment form,
Meeting 2
Johnstown Greeley
WCR 17
Mobility and Congestion
Loveland Urban to
Johnstown -Greeley
We desperately need a grade separated interchange at WCR 17. The evening rush hour stacks to near the RR crossings EB. In the meantime, left turn needed NB to WB (WCR 17 to US
34). New lights at WCR 13 and 9E slow traffic down too much.
Meeting 2
Greeley Expressway
list Avenue
Mobility and Congestion
No selection
Since 71st ave has been closed going west there is increased traffic on W 28th St. this road needs to be resurfaced to handle increased hospital traffic. The solution is a traffic light at
71st ave. 71st ave is the road to nowhere - going south you can turn only west.
page 1of2
AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL UNKAGES (PEI) STUDY FOR US 34
Public Comment Table 2
Summary of Comment Forms by Meeting sorted by Segment and Location.
limilailmillEMPIIIPIE
IMF
Segment of Concern
LacationSpejfic
appicable)
(If
Comment Subject
Which Segments of the
Corridor do you often
travel?
What are your specific
section of US 34 that
comments regardirlgthe proposed
you travel most often?
improvements for the
Construction funding for the
Therefore, Improvements sill
implemented as finicky becomes
corridor improvements
be constructed as
available. Which
has not
separate projects
improvements
yet been
and
should
identified.
be the
what should CDOT consider
recommendation are finalized?
Do you want to improve access
as the study Do you have any areas of concern regarding access alongt
management throughout the US 34
Corridor?
US 34 Corridor?
highest priorities for inplemertation?
Meeting 3
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
Loveland Urban to
Loveland £ Lane
Please do not make Morning Drive a right -turn only. The is the only way we can get
into town, since 22 is closed to us. We must make a left turn at 34.
No comment provided
Na comment provided
Yes
We must be able to make a left turn from Morning Drive onto 3/1
or open 22 to us.
Meeting 3
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
Foothills
I am concerned about the part of the design which has onlya right turn from
Morning Dr to US 34. As this intersection is our only way in or out of the Namaqua
H ill neighborhood, it would cause a great inconvenience not to be able to turn left
(east) since that is my most often used route. Forcing us to turn right, then either
having to make a u -turn at some point, or in some other way turn around to go east,
would not only be inconvenient, but could also be hazardous,
Therefore, improvements will be constructed as separate projects and implemented
as funding becomes available. Which improvements should be the highest priorities
for implementation?
a )Any way to make US 34 4 lanes west of Morning Dr? b) Bike lanes or bike paths. c)
Improve intersections at Hwy 287, Namaqua Road, Morning Dr.
Allow left turns from Morning Dr onto US 34.
Stoplight at US 34 and Namaqua Rd
Yes
Especially in the summer, there is very heavy traffic along US 34
through Loveland, as it is a main tourist route to Rocky Mountain
National Park. This increased traffic does make it more difficult
to exit the Namaqua Hill neighborhood. A traffic light at the
Morning Dr/US 34 intersection would make it easier and safer to
use this intersection, but can understand why that is not a
priority.
Meeting 3
Foothills
Morning Drive
Access
Foothills to Loveland 6 Lane
We live off of Morning Drive and currently turn both directions onto Hwy 34 (Both E
& W). If you would limit our turn to only west that would be a problem because we
would have to do a U-turn on Hwy 34. We have no other way out at the subdivision
unless one is opened.
On of the most dangerous is turning from Namaqua Road onto Hwy 3/1 which is not
listed.
If you are going to limit residents who use Morning
Drive to only turn west then 22nd needs to be opened.
Yes
Yes. Some of the worst is turning from Namaqua Rd onto Hwy34
and turning from Hwy 34 onto Masanville Road.
Meeting 3
Johnstown Greeley
WCR 15
Access
Johnstown Greeley
We live in a community called Indianhead estates, south of the 34 at CR 15. If you
close off access for us at that intersection we have no other outlet to the 34! The
way in and out of our community is CR 15. And emergency response will double
only y g y p
if they have to go far south of us to comeback into our comm unity
Do not close off our community! You will either need to build us an access road along
the south perimeter of the 34 or you will need to create a new western access road
into our community.
Consider very long ease ways onto the 34 to keep traffic
flowing and to increase safety.
y
Yes
Please see previous answer. Yes Ind!anhead Estates is very
concernedyou will be closing off our only access at CR15
page 2 of 2
Hello