The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20171929.tiffRESOLUTION RE: SUPPORT OF U.S. HIGHWAY 85 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES (PEL) STUDY AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with the U.S. Highway 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study on behalf of the Colorado Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to support said study, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the U.S. Highway 85 PEL Study of the Colorado Department of Transportation be and hereby is, supported. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said study. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 28th day of June, A.D., 2017. ATTEST: j...d ;/tet) GO Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: APP County Attorney Date of signature: 7 / tot ( l l cc.' PwC£R(JF,) oil (-1118" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUJ\JTY, COLODO 1 Julie A. Cozad, Chair j&e, Steve Moreno, Pro -Tern Sean P. Conway reeman Q Oti rbara Kirkmeyer 2017-1929 EO0074 Chloe Rempel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks Jim, Esther Gesick Monday, January 15, 2018 5:00 PM Jim Flesher; Chloe Rempel Cheryl Hoffman RE: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages We'll include this as documentation to that fact and close out our records. I appreciate the feedback! Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758IGreeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Jim Flesher Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:07 PM To: Chloe Rempel <crempel@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: FW: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Chloe and Esther: The consultant does not expect additional signatures on this document, other than FHWA. Please see his email below. Thanks, jim From: Alex.Pulley (mailto:Alex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:58 PM To: Jim Flesher <jflesher@weldgov.com>; Kelly.Leadbetter <Kelly.Leadbetter@fhueng.com> Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Hi Jim, Sorry we haven't gotten back until now. I think it got lost in the holiday shuffle!! To answer your question, we didn't receive the signature pages from those entities. Unfortunately, we needed to close the book on the PEL, so we decided to move along without them. We reached out multiple times to these groups and never go the final signatures (with exception of DRCOG and FHWA, see below). The PEL is not required to have all of the signatures to make it final; it is a show of goodwill rather than a requirement. 1 We did hear back from DRCOG and they have a policy to not be signatories on these types of documents, so they couldn't provide one. As for FHWA, the formal PEL acceptance letter should be coming soon, but likely won't be in the actual document for now. This might change as I discuss this further with CDOT headquarters. I hope that helps and don't hesitate to let us know if you have any other questions, Alex Alex Pulley, Certified Ecologist Principal Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 303-721-1440 alex.pulley a@,fhueng.com From: Jim Flesher [mailto:iflesher@weldgov.com] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 12:25 PM To: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM>; Kelly.Leadbetter <Kelly.Leadbetter@fhueng.com> Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Hi, guys: I haven't heard back so I take it those agencies haven't gotten you signature pages yet. Jim From: Jim Flesher Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 8:51 AM To: 'Alex.Pulley' <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM>; 'Kelly.Leadbetter' <Kelly.Leadbetter@fhueng.com> Subject: FW: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Good morning, Alex and Kelly: Are you still working on getting signatures on the 85 PEL for the ones missing on the website, or have they just not been uploaded yet? Please see the email below. If you have these signature pages, would you mind sending them to me so we have a complete copy of the PEL? I also noticed there will be two pages numbered 8-1 if the Commerce City one is inserted with that page number. Thanks, Jim Flesher, AICP Transportation Planner Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 Office: (970) 304-6496 Ext. 3762 Web: www.weldgov.corn From: Chloe Rempel Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 1:44 PM To: Jim Flesher <iflesher@weldgov.com> Cc: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Cheryl Hoffman <choffman@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Jim, 2 There are a few signature pages missing from the pdf you provided. I still need: 8-1 Commerce City 8-8 Garden City 8-12 Pierce 8-14 Adams County 8-16 Denver Regional Council of Governments 8-19 Union Pacific Railroad 8-23 Federal Highway Administration Thank you! Chloe A. Rempel Deputy Clerk to the Board Weld County 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 tel: 970-400-4225 From: Esther Gesick Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 11:00 AM To: Jim Flesher <iflesher@weldgov.com> Cc: Chloe Rempel <crempel@weldgov.com> Subject: FW: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Thanks Jim! I'm forwarding this to Chloe and Cheryl so they can finalize our records. Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 From: Jim Flesher Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:33 AM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: US 85 PEL Final Document with Signature Pages Esther, I have downloaded this pdf with the signature pages from CDOT's website. Do you need it? The main document without appendices is 60 MB. Attached are just the signature pages. This if contract #1217 in OnBase. Doc #s 20171929, 20171961 through 20171963 in Eagleweb. Jim 3 66,a6(1- D MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Board of County Commissioners JUN 2 3 2017 DATE: June 23, 2017 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Elizabeth Relford, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: Support of the US 85 PEL Study In early 2014, CDOT contracted with Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig (FHU) to develop a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study for a 62 -mile section of US 85 between 1-76 and WCR 100 with the objective to develop a strategic vision for US 85 that addresses safety, mobility, and access concerns. Over the next three years, CDOT worked with local municipalities to establish the vision and identify solutions for the corridor. The Project Team met with individual stakeholders in spring 2014 and conducted a Visioning Workshop in Summer 2014. During the project, the Project Team met with the Technical Advisory Committee 11 times, the Executive Committee 7 times, and the Public twice. In Fall of 2016, CDOT issued a draft PEL report for the stakeholders to comment. The comments were incorporated and a final version was issued in May 2017. CDOT created a signature page for Weld County in Chapter 8 of the plan. Your signature acknowledges the county's participation in development of the US 85 PEL. Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chair's signature on the attached document. 2017-1929 Esther Gesick From: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:40 PM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer; Bonnie Dunston; Brad Moos; Brian Dobling; Erik Hansen; Gary White; Gloria Hice-Idler; Jeff Nelson; Jessicca McKeown; Joe Clingan; John Morris; Johnny Olson; Josh Laipply; Judy Ruff; Julie Cozad; Kevin Ross; Maria D'Andrea; Markos Atamo; Marleen Oakes; Mike Freeman; Milt Tokunaga; Nate Boschmann; Randy.sleight; Rex Bell; Russell Lincoln; Scott Moser; Sean Conway; Sean Ford; Stephanie Gibson; Steve Moreno; Steve Nelson; Sue Spurgeon -Paris; Terri Blackmore; Tom Holton; Tom Norton; Troy Halouska; Aaron Greco; Alex.Pulley; Alyssa Knutson; Becky Karasko; Bob Meisner; Brea Pafford; Bret Bloom; charvey@lasalletown.com; Carol Parr; Carrie McCool; Cathy Payne; Cheryl Powell; gardencity1938@aol.com; Chris.Fasching; Claud Hanes; Danny Herrmann; David Brand; Dawn Anderson; Elizabeth Relford; Eric Bracke; gcarsten@eatonco.org; Hanson, James; Jacob Riger; Jamie Archambeau; Jeanne Shreve; Jeff Schreier; Jim Flesher; Karen Schneiders; Kimberly Dall; Marissa Robinson; Michael Root; Mike Crow; Milt Tokunaga; Pat Larson; Sharon Sullivan; Sherman Spear; Steve Cook; Todd Hodges; Tricia Sergeson; trenken@plattevillegov.org; Trudy Peterson; Wes Hood Cc: Hice-Idler - CDOT, Gloria; Chris.Fasching; Hanson, James; Neal.Goffinet; Kelly.Leadbetter; Kionka - CDOT, Kurt; Kevin.Maddoux; Hajiaghaee - CDOT, Maria Subject: US 85 PEL -- Final Version Attachments: US 85 PEL_Executive Summary.pdf; Summary of Changes.pdf; US85North PEL_Comment Matrix_. pdf Importance: High Hello all, The US 85 Project Team would like to thank everyone for their participation in the US 85 PEL process. You have worked hard to create a vision for this very important corridor that will continue to be implemented for many years. We are proud to provide the final PEL document! It is a very large file and can be downloaded at the link at the end of this email. The Appendices can also be downloaded at the same link. The Executive Summary is attached to this email, along with a summary of the changes from the previous version to the final version. Also attached is a comment and response matrix for all of the comments that received on the Draft PEL. Please note that instead of one single signature page for the PEL, there are individual pages for each community to sign and send back individually or sign as a group at the next US 85 Coalition Meeting. We ask that we receive all of the signature pages back by June 12tH We will also be uploading the PEL to the CDOT project website. Finally, the team has prepared individual packages of information for each municipality that is a PowerPoint Presentation with figures of the improvements in their jurisdiction. Also included are the individual Summary Sheets for each municipality. This will be delivered under a separate email. Again, we want to thank everyone for their participation and we very much look forward to working with everyone in the future to implement these improvements! Thanks, Alex PEL Report and Appendices 1 https://fhueng- my.sharepoint.com/personal/alex pulley fhueng corn/ layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?folderid=19b6469db68924ace8O e725e72e1f59ef&authkey=AWC15a4yOcMx5Rz2EclszdA Alex Pulley, Certified Ecologist Principal Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 303-721-1440 alex.pulleyc@Jhueng.com 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 3 has conducted a Planning and Environmental 4 Linkages (PEL) study for the segment of United 5 States Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 6 (1-76) and Weld County Road (WCR) 100. The 7 objective of the US 85 PEL study is to develop a 8 strategic vision for US 85 that addresses safety, 9 mobility, and access concerns. 10 The goals of the project are to: 11 ► Identify the transportation needs along 12 US 85 from 1-76 to WCR 100 13 ► Create a vision for development 14 improvements that address the needs 15 ► Determine the short-term and long-term 16 transportation priorities for US 85 17 ► Position the corridor for successful and 18 streamlined implementation of 19 improvements 20 Short-term and long-term improvements have been 21 identified and prioritized through a collaborative 22 process with stakeholders and the public along the 23 corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) 24 (1999) serves as a foundation for the PEL study. 25 ES.1 Study Location and 26 Description 27 The US 85 PEL study area includes approximately 62 28 miles of US 85 between 1-76 in Commerce City and WCR 100 in the Town of Nunn, Colorado. US 85 is a 29 north -south expressway under the jurisdiction of CDOT. This stretch of US 85 passes through: COLORADO Department of Transportation PEL is a study process used to identify transportation issues, priorities, and environmental concerns. A PEL study can lead to a seamless decision -making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost-effective solutions, promotes environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. The purpose of a PEL study is to perform preliminary analysis and to make decisions not completed as a part of traditional regional level planning that will make NEPA-level evaluation and decision -making more transparent to resource agencies and the public. PEL represents an approach to transportation decision -making that considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the planning stage and carries them through project development, design, and construction. This leads to a seamless decision -making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost-effective solutions and environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. More information about the PEL process can be found on the CDOT website at https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/ planning -env -link -program 30 ► 13 municipalities (Commerce City, Brighton, Fort Lupton, Platteville, Gilcrest, LaSalle, Evans, 31 Greeley, Garden City, Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn); 32 ► 2 counties (Adams County and Weld County); and 33 ► 3 regional planning organizations: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), North 34 Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and Upper Front Range (UFR) 35 Transportation Planning Region (TPR). 36 Figure ES.1 shows the study area and the municipal, county, and regional boundaries. 37 38 39 40 41 Page ES -1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 2 This page intentionally left blank. COLORADO Department of Transportation Page ES -2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure ES.1 Study Corridor and Vicinity Map COLORADO Department of Transportation Wc8100 I.,gib .il% Loki VI An O • i►` Sc 14 257 X NFRMPO Banda", DRCOG MPO Bounden k- _ 66 IT WCR 6 r WCR 90 104th AY FORT LUPTON LBJ WCR 74 WCR 44 MitOn WCR 32 k""r►a R TTEVILLE R WCR 22 uFR TPR 9oundary iCG MPo%,uMaev WCR 8 �ASEL1d�BQ BRIGHT9$ BROMLEY LN COMMERCE : 96th AVE 120th AV,„__ J I - Denver County I _ r i I i DENVER A4141thit7R}' Legend C d C _J 0 US85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes DRCOG MPO Boundary NFRMPO Boundary UFR TPR Boundary DRCOG Model Boundary NFRMPO Model Boundary City Boundaries County Boundary Study Area NORTH 0 2 4 Miles Page ES 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 ES.2 Purpose 2 The purpose of transportation improvements along the US 85 corridor is to improve safety, reduce 3 existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, 4 and improve mobility and connectivity for all transportation modes (cars, trucks, transit, bicycle, and 5 pedestrian) that match the context of the adjacent communities. 6 ES.3 Need 7 These transportation improvements are needed to address the following problems: 8 ► Safety — Several intersection and mainline locations along the US 85 corridor have a higher 9 than expected number of crashes. 10 ► Mobility — Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections that fail to accommodate users' needs, 11 highway design, and unreliable travel times substantially impact the ability of people to move 12 across and along the corridor. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future as the 13 region grows due to local and regional population and employment growth. 14 ► Railroad Proximity — The close proximity of the UPRR and US 85 can negatively affect the 15 operations of US 85. Passing or standing trains restrict travel to and from the east of US 85 and 16 can cause substantial queuing at some cross streets, sometimes extending into the through 17 lanes of US 85. The facilities are so close at some cross streets that a single large truck cannot 18 queue between US 85 and the UPRR without either overhanging the tracks or encroaching on 19 US 85, resulting in a safety problem. 20 ► Access — The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses have 21 contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. The access 22 problem is exacerbated by the proximity of the highway to the railroad tracks throughout most 23 of the corridor, which further contributes to operational and safety deficiencies, especially for 24 large commercial vehicles. 25 ► Alternative Modes — The traveling public has limited or no access to public transportation for 26 essential human services, commuting, recreational, and other travel needs along the corridor. 27 Current infrastructure does not safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians traveling 28 parallel or across US 85. Corridor demand for transit, biking, and walking trips is expected to 29 increase in the future. 30 Page ES -5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 ES.4 Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 2 Process 3 A multi -level, iterative process was used to develop, refine, and evaluate alternatives for the US 85 4 corridor. The development, refinement, and evaluation process focused on identifying alternatives that 5 both meet the Purpose and Need for the corridor and match the context of the corridor. 6 Broad, overarching alternative development occurred at the initial level of the process. These 7 alternatives set the stage for subsequent levels where alternative refinement and evaluation occurred 8 with increasing amount of detail. At each level, the alternatives were refined to match the overall goal 9 of each level and then removed alternatives appropriately. This approach provided an efficient way to 10 evaluate contextually appropriate alternatives throughout the corridor. Because the context of the 11 corridor varies extensively (urban in the south to very rural in the north), not all alternative types were 12 suitable throughout the corridor. The corridor was split into sections based on geography and 13 operational classifications. The Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process was 14 developed as a systematic way to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives at each location. 15 The iterative Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process defined an overarching 16 direction for corridor sections as a whole and then added detail and focus for specific locations. For 17 example, the overarching alternative types were removed (functional classification, general purpose 18 lanes, managed lanes, alignment, etc.) based on comparison against the Purpose and Need. Those that 19 did not address the Purpose and Need were eliminated, while those that did were carried forward. The 20 next level determined the context and capacity of each corridor section. The final two levels focused 21 on refining and evaluating specific alternatives at intersection locations throughout the corridor. 22 Figure ES.2 presents the Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process: 23 ► Level 1 Development and Evaluation — Developed overarching alternatives and eliminated 24 alternatives with fatal flaws or that did not meet the Purpose and Need categories (Safety, 25 Mobility, Railroad Proximity, Access, and Alternative Modes). 26 ► Level 2 Refinement and Evaluation — Included two sublevels that identified all potential 27 operational classifications and capacity for each corridor section and then removed 28 alternatives to identify the appropriate operational classification and capacity for each corridor 29 section. Alternatives were evaluated to show how they met the needs (Safety, Mobility, and, 30 Access) and to identify impacts to the natural environment and the surrounding community. 31 ► Level 3 Refinement — Identified all potential intersection improvement types (closure, 32 intersection improvement, or interchange) for each location and then removed those to match 33 the context of each section of US 85. Level 3 heavily used Level 2 results to define each 34 section's context. 35 ► Level 4 Development and Evaluation — Developed specific improvement configurations and 36 layouts to determine their ability to meet Purpose and Need (Safety, Mobility, Railroad 37 Proximity, Access, and Alternative Modes). Level 4 also considered impacts to the natural 38 environment and to the adjacent community. Alternatives were identified as Recommended, 39 Feasible -Not Recommended, or Eliminated. Page ES -6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study M R M Mt AM Mgig M MM ■ A 9 A VI M M■ R DI M$ 7M M At tl■ 9171 ® M 0 A M Z M M alt 4 M ■ M■■ p M A R M INItl *IA • M id 1■ It * M K MMM B■ N C M COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure ES.2 2 Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 2 Process 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA Purpose & Need Safety Access Mobility Alternative Modes Railroad Proximity Eitviteri mental Economic Alternatives in each screening level to be • Eliminated • Feasible • Recommended SCREENING LEVELS ALTERNATIVES Corridor Capacity & General Al:n :ant Screening. ._ Level 2B • Intersection Screening Level intersection and Interchange. Configuration Screening Level 4 0 Conceptual Layout & Recommended Plan PRIORITIES i • Full Range of Ideas ___ • Operational Classification • Managed Lanes • General Purpose Lanes • Alignment • Intersection Modifications & Improvements • Interchange Configurations • Intersection Configurations 4 Level 4 Development and Evaluation results for each intersection location represent the results of the 5 US 85 PEL recommendations. The Recommended Alternatives (some locations have more than one 6 recommended alternative) are to be advanced to the next stage of project development (see 7 Section 6.0). Appendix C contains a one -page summary document for each Recommended Alternative 8 with information pertinent to the next stages of project development. 9 Locations were prioritized throughout the corridor based on the current and future need categories 10 (Mobility, Sa-ety, and Railroad Proximity). Section 6.7 describes the prioritization process and results. 11 S 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study IR .: tl n o. B U a! L1 Mk ) N 54 .3 gun :A ii va D i n R IN R n N n k M n f! I+ c9 n .y Pei S■■■ ■ r r■ r■ r fp rl r r r COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Eder Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluatia„ 2 3 The Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process resulted in a recommendation or 4 multiple recommendations for each of the 93 intersections in the 62 -mile corridor. In every instance, 5 the No Action Alternative was carried forward for consideration in subsequent NEPA evaluations. Every 6 option for each intersection was given one of the following designations: 7 ► Recommended — This alternative would sufficiently meet the corridor's Purpose and Need and 8 provide the needed improvement to the local transportation system to meet future demands. 9 This alternative is recommended for further consideration and evaluation in subsequent NEPA 10 steps. 11 ► Feasible, Not Recommended — This alternative would meet the Purpose and Need to a certain 12 degree, but other factors, such as community impacts or environmental impacts, were too 13 much to recommend this alternative for further consideration. However, during subsequent 14 NEPA evaluations, situations could change, and as a result, this alternative could become more 15 advantageous and, thus, be revisited. 16 ► Eliminated — This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need or provide adequate 17 improvements to Access, Mobility, Safety, or Railroad Proximity to justify the improvement. 18 In some cases, more than one alternative may be recommended for a given intersection because 19 differentiation between alternatives may not be great enough to make one recommendation over 20 another. In these cases, it is proposed that multiple alternatives be advanced and evaluated in NEPA to 21 determine which alternative would be the most reasonable for the location and context at that time. 22 11 _ able ES.1 provides the results of the Alternative Development, Refinement and Evaluation Process. 23 Appendix C provides detailed information for each alternative that met or did not meet each criterion 24 discussed in the section. Sectin 3.0 presents a depiction of the Recommended Alternatives 25 throughout the corridor. Appendix E presents the location recommendations and alternative concepts 26 for each of the Recommended Alternatives. These summary sheets are intended to serve as guide and 27 summary for local agencies to advance the identified improvements. 28 Section 4.0 presents information on the natural and cultural resources present in the US 85 PEL 29 Corridor. Section 4.0 discusses the impacts from the implementation of the Recommended Alternatives 30 and presents next steps and mitigation recommendations. 31 The PEL study included a detailed local agency stakeholder, resource agency, and public outreach 32 process. These groups were presented with information regarding the PEL study at key milestones. 33 Information and feedback from these groups helped shape the study and the alternative development 34 and evaluation process. Seidl 5.0 presents the details of this coordination process. 35 Section 6.0 outlines the next steps in the project development process needed to advance the 36 Recommended Alternatives for each location throughout the corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan 37 (ACP) that governs the amount and types of accesses on US 85 from 1-76 to Weld County Road 80 will be 38 required to be updated to incorporate the Recommended Alternatives from this PEL. The US 85 ACP 39 will continue to serve as the legally -binding, governing document for the US 85 Corridor. Tablrr ES.1 40 identifies the recommended improvements that will require an amendment to the US 85 ACP. 41 Amendments to the US 85 ACP will take place only when funding is available for the identified 42 improvement. 43 It should be noted that there are many cases where a road closure is recommended, but the actual 44 closure should not occur until an adjacent improvement is implemented. This commonly occurs when a 45 new interchange is identified and a nearby road is recommended for access closure because of the 46 proximity to the interchange. In these cases, the road access closure would not occur until the Page ES -8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study N UN a' * N 0121001310 F1 A i7 t l 110 0 c1 tl PO W fi tC MO ON N p N# ,t *$ 0 0 0 N Mt 10 N UN N• N SI 0 0 0 NO Af M g A■ al N S 4 a i0 W 0 g COLORADO Department of T ransp rtation 1 interchange is implemented. Other occurrences include those closures that are incorporated between 2 the parallel roadways between WCR 18 and WCR 28. These access closures would not occur until the 3 parallel road systems are implemented. This document identifies the parallel road system as a common 4 vision for the system, but the precise location can change, as development occurs. Additionally, each 5 location throughout the corridor was prioritized based on the need categories in the Purpose and Need, 6 as presenter in Section 6.0. 7 Table ES®1 Level 4 Evaluation Recommendations t��• % /r/.. Sr ton in mum Location lrn rovernent Type ✓�+'!. In ,// w;,at�'��t9� ` '. _F �y "Y^ „// �,p,�4,- 1 Recommendation Cos / YY ri 1' � ✓htr Aendment ACP Required? r� �< "'JSriv,Y, Commerce City 104th Avenue Split 1-76) Diamond (with Recommended $80,500,000 No SPUI with Flyover Recommended $38,200,000 No DDI Recommended $48,700,0.00 No Partial Cloverleaf Recommended $61,800,000 No Longs Drive Peak Closed Recommended $200,000 No 112th Avenue SPUI Recommended $45,900,000 No Skewed SPUI Recommended $47,700,000 No 120th Avenue Tight Diamond Recommended $44,000,000 No DDI Recommended $49,700,000 No Brighton 124th Avenue Closure Recommended will to 120th the not interchange Avenue happen until is (Closure provided) at access $200,000 No E-470 No Action N/A N/A N/A 132nd Avenue Closed interchange Recommended would conjunction 136th Avenue) happen with at in (Closure new $200,000 No 136th Avenue SPU! Recommended $39,100,000 No 144th Avenue Closed interchange Recommended would conjunction Lane) happen with at in (Closure Bromley $300,000 Yes Bromley Lane SPUI Recommended $27,400,000 No Bridge SH Street 7 / Bus Slip Station Ramps to Recommended $600,000 No US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 18 9 N M MI MN Re At u * 4F a M7 O fS Pt Yd iA 0 4 * # 9 t9 s n m g I s SI xt w St c1 .1t to 9 h! 14 '11 J p * 91 P3 Mc* 14 At Si t9 !! '.3 nl M 90 B 'fi is tl C OLO Department of Transportation ,J it Commune /'.,, Location S - rovement Type Recommendation N, Cost „x - ,..,, Amendment Required? Brighton Denver Street Closed Recommended would conjunction interchange happen with at in WCR (Closure the 2) $100,000 No 168th WCR Avenue/ 2 SPPI Recommended $31,000,000 No WCR 2.5 Closed Recommended would conjunction interchange happen with at in WCR (Closure the 2) $100,000 No Weld County WCR 4 Closed Recommended would conjunction interchange WCR 6) happen with at in WCR (Closure the 2 and $100,000 No Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Recommended i $24,700,000 No WCR 6.25 Closed Recommended would conjunction interchange happen with at in WCR (Closure the 6) $100,000 No WCR 8 Hook Ramps Recommended $24,700,000 No WCR 10 No Action, Access No Recommended N/A No SH 52 Pedestrian Improvement Recommended $200,000 No 14th WCR Street 14.5/ Junior Interchange Recommended $31,400,000 (includes 16) WCR No WCR 16 RI/R0 Recommended (Completed with WCR WCR depending at WCR improvements 14.5. 16 14.5/14th could in Outcome on coordination action be different Street.) at at taken $31,400,000 (includes 14,5/14th Street) WCR Yes WCR 18 SPUI Recommended happen parallel between WCR 28) in conjunction road WCR system 18 (Would and with $27,500,000 Yes US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study •• N a I!} 444 K ti ffi a N 1 ae a al a not I!4 S K M 4 440.4 K 11 61 a K a a 11 M ae a FQ a a a K! PI O fll p W M x 11 N AS e1 a Fe SOW 6 a e3 41:10 W. Pow R S a COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost Amendment Required? ACP Fort Lupton WCR 18.5 Closed Recommended would conjunction interchange Would conjunction road WCR system 18 happen happen and with at with between in WCR WCR in (Closure the parallel 28) 18. $200,000 Yes WCR 20 RI/R0 Recommended happen parallel between WCR 28) in conjunction road WCR system 18 (Would and with $800,000 Yes Weld County WCR 22 Diamond Recommended $32,000,000 Yes WCR 22.5 Closed Recommended would conjunction interchange Would conjunction road WCR system 18 happen happen and with at with between in WCR in WCR (Closure parallel 28) 22. $100,000 Yes WCR 24.5 RI/R0 Closure (West); (East) Recommended happen parallel between WCR 28) in conjunction road WCR system 18 (Would and with $400,000 Yes WCR 26 RI/R0 Recommended happen parallel between WCR 28) in conjunction road WCR system 18 (Would and with $800,000 Yes WCR 28 SPUI Recommended happen parallel between WCR 28) in conjunction road WCR system 18 (Would and with $37,900,000 Yes Platteville WCR 30 Closed Recommended new WCR parallel 32) (Requires connection to $3,000,000 No SH 66 Channelized-T SB Separation with Grade Recommended separation; groundwater alignment consider to and the (SB east) shifting grade $16,500,000 Yes s Page ES -11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ataMntNfIIS Na 1wSaaan amnl:MNSmmarsMMMMSNSMNaatnniS a asSAlaa•NSSNSI n TA ss W14V0aoAWONa n COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Platteville Marion Avenue Partial Closure Recommended (% movement) $200,000 Yes WCR 32, Grand Avenue Signalization Recommended (Frontage road relocation to eliminate phasing. Improvements work in conjunction with parallel road to WCR 30 in Platteville.) $400,000 No WCR 34 Diamond Recommended $38,700,000 Yes WCR 36 Closed Recommended (With connections to next intersections north and south. Closure will happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 34 and SH 60) $100,000 Yes SH 60 Diamond Recommended (interim storage lengths) $38,500,000 Yes WCR 38 Closed Recommended (When signal improved connection to WCR 40 and WCR 60. Closure happens in conjunction with improvements at SH 60) $100,000 Yes WCR 29/38.5 Closed Recommended (When $200,000 signal improved connection to WCR 40 and WCR 60) Yes Gilcrest WCR 40 Traffic Signal Recommended (Realign west frontage road at the intersection) $1,2001000 Yes Elm Street 1/4 Access Recommended (East side closure only when signal at WCR 40) $300,000 Yes Main Street Channelized-T Recommended (Must cul- de-sac western frontage roads) $800,000 Yes WCR 31/Ash Street No Action Recommended (Maintain current %) N/A No WCR 42 Add EB Right Turn Lane Recommended (Create EB turn lanes; consider signal phasing during pre-emption) $600,000 No Page ES -12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 7 R N_ tk o 7N $ it A M 11 iL N I m 4 A R N a sa ?S Si t2..lp bI tl 4: ■ R N N B tl >r it d i 71 61 Rl i R tl. P. W S■ rt 9F b kl W b i i .p COLORADO DepartmentiT of g 4 T1a s �µL.to�'i n tf.�✓w> n •`�'•�Y Community Location r„ Sly J 3 {o / ets�-. a3" n'riti'�F'e.}'C..la, Improvement �N D� :r'r� Type / 'S 't 1: 'nix n. 'aa i =.2 f'�.N L'�e '- _ r,y_'+ 'mot �.t``Cr ^?�}`s"'r!' Recommendation Unr1I1'1IP%AcP Co y �� i�'�' ! a °' � d n 6, � � dx. , �' j�]�¢,° F Amendment Required? Required? .. Weld County WCR 33 Closed Recommended (Improvements conjunction improvements, interim improvements) with work WCR including in 44 Interim Improvements $4,200,000 (includes at WCR 44) No WCR 44 Interchange Recommended (Improvements conjunction improvements. interim signal) improvements with Includes work WCR in 33 of a $30,600,000 (Interim Improvements = $4,200,000) Yes WCR 35 46/WCR Channelized-T with Closure on the East Side Recommended $1,400,000 No WCR 37 48/ WCR Channelized-T East with Side Closure Recommended $600,000 Yes La Salle 1St Avenue Traffic Signal Recommended extensions, railroad operations) to address (Turn lane $300,000 No 2nd Avenue RI/R0 Recommended $300,000 Yes 3rd Avenue No Action Recommended N/A No 4th Avenue RI/R0 Recommended $300,000 Yes 5th Avenue No Action Recommended N/A No 1st Street %Access lane) Recommended channelization (Median for left turn $200,000 Yes SH 394 Couplet Intersection Recommended $5,400,000 No Evans 42nd Street Auxiliary Additions Lane infrastructure improvements; include Recommended close frontage to v/c realignment roads) goal (Can without must of get big $900,000 No 37th Street Auxiliary Lane Additions infrastructure improvements; include Recommended close frontage to v/c realignment roads) goal (Can without must get of big $1,000,000 No US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study gag ISS M YA Q C1 71 H el 3 EI N 9 1 091 IS 10 311 71 13 3 q !S et 317 A ✓1 ffi M x .0 SI E AI 1 Z $ NSW I S S 61 S S 1i R S If B % I3 a SI 7! IM 8 9 P1 Ip I L Vl C ! O R D Department of Transportation Community Location _ improvement Type . Recommendation ♦ /, . �Y�4°.S"ai�'A.-[rrtlna!W'n57��i Cost ' ,:.. Amendment ACP Required? Evans 31st Street Auxiliary Additions Lane Recommended close infrastructure improvements; include frontage to v/c realignment roads) goal (Can without must of get big $1,800,000 No US Interchange 34 TBD Feasible N/A N/A Greeley 22nd Street Texas Turnaround the roads) Recommended parallel allow railroad. U more exists fits east business better space off road side Context existing connection of because and access the (Requires of access frontage Texas of on to $19,600,000 Yes 18th Street Texas Turnaround exists roads) Recommended Texas of more U off space fits existing better (Context and because access frontage of $16,900,000 Yes 16th Street Texas Turnaround Texas of exists roads) Recommended more off U space fits existing better (Context and frontage because access of $14,600,000 Yes 13th Street Texas Turnaround Texas of exists roads) Recommended more U off space fits existing better and (Context frontage because access of $16,500,000 Yes 8th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended context uses diamond) and of surrounding parcels (Fits than land split $23,500,000 Yes US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study a so a iota A? a 3rIIIIIII4099991909 90 na S a 4 V h5 NN 9911909019590 A 9 fl 5 999990 w w q@IE U 99901991499 MI COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost Amendment ACP Required? Greeley 5th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended context uses diamond) and of surrounding parcels (Fits than land split $17,700,000 Yes O Street Closure and Combine Signal at with WCR 66 Recommended (Constructed with WCR direction context use) a traffic 66. of travel Has surrounding in signal some conjunction but at fits out land of $10,900,000 (includes 66) WCR Yes WCR 66 Traffic Signal Recommended (Constructed with Lane studied) closures additions in at conjunction O to Street. be $10,900,000 (includes 66) WCR No Lucerne SH 392 Auxiliary Improvements Lane Recommended $1,400,000 No WCR 70 No Action Recommended N/A No Eaton WCR 72 Closure Side Only (on East Recommended WCR new and at enhance WCR full improvements 72 in access 70. CR conjunction East 39) (Closure maintained side in with Eaton only; at $100,000 Yes Colorado Pkwy %Movement Recommended $800,000 No Orchard Street RI/RO Recommended N/A No Collins Street No Action Recommended N/A No 1st Street No Action Recommended N/A No 2nd Street No Action Recommended N/A Yes 3rd St No Action Recommended N/A Yes 4th Street No Action Recommended N/A No 5th Street Traffic Signal Recommended (HAWK) $600,000 No 7th Street No Action Recommended N/A Yes WCR 76 Signal Recommended $400,000 No 1 CR = County Road DDI = Diverging Diamond Interchange EB = eastbound 1-76 = Interstate 76 RI/RO = right-in/right-out RR = railroad US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study a a$ u a H K iR R sS Hal A la s it a n s gI 1n .'dw K li s 9 s 33 a 0 f7 ID to !b N Si nl lr 3 IAN n H Ft Fa I N S 61 a s 11 a K e 11 R H* a* m b 8 f N W DI .NESS* COLORAD Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost Amendment Required? ACP Eaton WCR 37 Close and to CR on East Side Parallel South 76 Recommended happen signal at in conjunction WCR (Would 76) with $100,000 No WCR 78 No Action Recommended N/A No WCR 80 No Action Recommended N/A Yes Ault SH 14 No Action Recommended N/A N/A 2nd Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A 3rd Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 84 No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 86 No Action Recommended N/A N/A Pierce WCR 88 No Action Recommended N/A N/A Main Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 90 Traffic Signal Recommended interim) (HAWK $500,000 N/A WCR 92 No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 94 No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 96 No Action Recommended N/A N/A Nunn WCR 98 No Action Recommended N/A N/A 4th Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 100 Signal with Closure Recommended east side only) (Closure $400,000 N/A 2 SB = southbound SH = State Highway SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange TBD = to be determined v/c = volume to capacity ratio WCR = Weld County Road 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PREVIOUS VERSION 2 CDOT delivered the Draft of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) study on September 3 13, 2016. Since that time, there have been several changes that affected the Final PEL document. 4 Below is a summary of the major changes in the attached Final PEL document. 5 Substantial Changes 6 • WCR 18 through WCR 28 —Parallel Roads have been added to each Summary Sheet for the 7 improvements between WCR 18 and WCR 28 8 • Parallel Roads —A separate Summary Sheet was created specifically addressing the parallel road 9 system between WCR 18 and WCR 28 10 • SH 60 —The interchange configuration at SH 60 (Two Rivers Parkway) was adjusted to include a 11 leg to the east that provides better access, especially to WCR 36 12 • WCR 33 /WCR 44 —An interchange shifted north was added as the long-term recommendation. 13 The interim intersection improvements remain. 14 • WCR 80 —Is remaining open 15 • WCR 98 —Is remaining open 16 • WCR 100 —Closure on the east side only 17 • Conditional Closure and Supported Project Language 18 Statements regarding the closure of roads being conditional upon surrounding projects 19 necessary to be implemented at the same time have been included in appropriate Summary 20 Sheets and project tables. 21 22 An example is: "Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 18. Should 23 be constructed in conjunction with parallel roads system between WCR 18 and WCR 28." 24 • Local Agency Approval Language 25 Statements regarding the coordination and consensus between relevant parties prior to access 26 closure or improvement. 27 28 An example is for Longs Peak Drive —"Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus 29 between relevant parties (Commerce City, Adams County, and CDOT)." 30 • Agency Support Page 31 Changes to Agency Support Page that identifies the Access Control Plan as the governing 32 document and identifies that the PEL is a Vision for the corridor and not a legally -binding 33 document 34 • US 85 Access Control Plan Amendment Process 35 The US 85 Access Control Plan amendments will occur on an individual basis, when funding for 36 the improvement is identified. Tables in the Executive Summary and Chapter 6 have been 37 added that identify which improvements require an US 85 Access Control Plan amendment. 38 There were also several editorial changes that are not highlighted here. A comment / response matrix 39 is provided that identifies the comments provided and the project team's responses. Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study hC DOT COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL TAC COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX -- FALL 2016 YOUR NAME (last name, first name) YOUR ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT (Tech Memo Name) PAGE LINE COMMENT S, R, E (Substantive, Requested, Editorial) A, R, C (Accepted, Rejected with explanation, Needs Clarification) RESPONSE (by consultant) Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL 1-9 32 Paragraph on Greeley needs to differentiate between 85 business route and 85 bypass. The PEL maps don't include the business route but this part of the PEL is referring to it, not the bypass, except perhaps for the last sentence. E A The paragraph was edited to identify that the section is referring to the US 85 Bypass. Additionally, the references to the UNC Neighborhood was removed. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 1-10 41-44 very confusing paragraph. CR 80 Is actually south of Ault S A Clarification regarding the rationale as to why the Town of Pierce was not included in the ACP has been added. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 1-12 Could you equate the total crashes to rates to see if there is a crash problem by segment? Total crashes don't tell much of a story regarding safety. S As part of and Executive Summary, The PEL report did not get into the details of crash patterns. Appendix D contains a Safety Assessment that delves much deeper into the safety aspects along the corridor. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 1-18 poor photo (maybe it's my printer) but the photo needs to be lightened up. E A The photograph was brightened. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 1-20 28-32 why does the configuration limit alternative modes. I could argue the statement S A The first sentence has been changed to read: "The current lack of alternative travel modes accommodation along the majority of US 85 limits the ability for alternative travel modes (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) to serve current and future travel needs." Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL 3-10 This drawing doesn't show the access from WCR 25.5 to the off -ramp as "closed", whereas on Pg. 3-15 it does. S A A closure symbol has been added, as requested. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 3-21 27-28 The statement is incorrect. The "parallel" bike routes as outlined in the study are so far "out of way travel" that it will discourage cyclists and has nothing to do with pedestrians. In Greeley, stating 35th Ave is the bike route for US85 is wee bit farfetched. S A/R The recommendation for a parallel bicycle route along 35th Avenue has been removed. The parallel bicycle route on 1st Avenue is only 450 feet east of US 85 Bypass and provides cyclists a route that has less traffic and thus, is still included. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 3-21 34 what enhancements were discussed? R A An additional statement that the improvements would be in the form of sufficient sidewalks through the Texas -Turnarounds that connects to the parallel bicycle route on 1st Avenue. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 3-21 can you add some narrative as to "why" the Texas Turnaround was chosen? Also, discuss the impacts of the design? Some of it is covered on page 4-6 but it should be expanded S A Additional discussion regarding the benefits of Texas -Turnarounds are beneficial in this context has been added. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 3-26 You show some queue jumps, We could also consider transit preemption at these locations If you wish. R A Transit preemption has been added to the locations with queue jumps. ®® COLORADO Page 1 of 6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Acoo. • Qr COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL TAC COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX -- FALL 2016 YOUR NAME (last name, first name) YOUR ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT (Tech Memo Name) PAGE LINE COMMENT S, R, E (Substantive, Requested, Editorial) A, R, C (Accepted, Rejected with explanation, Needs Clarification) RESPONSE (by consultant) Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 3-30 can you add a timeline statement on when the interchange design will progress'? R A Some clarification on the timing has been included, but it is dependent upon the outcome of the US 34/US 85 Interchange Feasibility Study. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 1-9 and 1- 10 no mention of the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan or the new installation of adaptive signal control to facilitate traffic flow S A References to the Comprehensive Plan and the signal interconnect project have been added. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL 6-5 and 6- 6 in terms of safety prioritization, was analysis conducted on the probability of crash reduction with proposed improvements? If so, where is this information'? R An analysis to assess reduction in crashes directly due to the improvements was not conducted as part of the PEL. This more detailed type of analysis is better applied in subsequent steps when a sense of benefit level is needed, possibly as part of NEPA or funding requests. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL ES 11 Are traffic signals and HAWKS even remotely warranted (currently or in the future) in Pierce and Nunn? We're underpasses considered'? S C While the current traffic conditions may not warrant traffic signals, the PEL is a long-term vision and identified in this plan to document the vision that signals at those locations would fit within the corridor vision. Meeting warrants will be a future consideration. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL As mentioned at the Oct. 4 meeting, we are concerned with how will communities (or CDOT) know how much ROW to require to be dedicated with development? We will need all the electronic files of the intersection drawings. R A The Project Team is working on the most efficient method and format to deliver this information. We are looking into GoogleEarth Files (.kmz) or GIS for distribution. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL I thought Chapter 4 was well done. Are they items, such as impact to the Poudre Flood Plain or riparian habitat a deal killer? S C At the current time, there are no environmental resources that would prevent the implementation of an improvement. There are, however, additional steps and clearances that are required prior to implementation, which will be analyzed in the subsequent NEPA documentation. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL What's the timeline for the amendment to the ACP? I know you talked about it at the last TAC meeting but I didn't write it down R C Amendments to the Access Control Plan will take place as funding for each individual improvement is identified. Therefore, the timing of the amendments is undetermined at this time. Bracke, Eric City of Greeley PEL The only mention of ITS strategies that I saw in the document was the one paragraph long Section 6.4 - RoadX. Is there more'? R A Added text regarding intelligent mobility (IM) to Chapter 6. Page 2 of 6 ii tli liT t rlet US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ADO, COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL TAC COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX -- FALL 2016 YOUR NAME (last name, first name) YOUR ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT (Tech Memo Name) PAGE LINE COMMENT S, R, E (Substantive, Requested, Editorial) A, R, C (Accepted, Rejected with explanation, Needs Clarification) RESPONSE (by consultant) Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL Map in PEL says "No Changes" for WCR 70, but there is an X on the map E A Symbol has been changed WCR 72 Weld County Commissioners Weld County PEL & ACP Barb would like a preface statement added to the PEL and ACP to note that all closures only happen if the UP agrees to help pay for improvements and parallel access points. S A A statement stating "Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties" and then lists the appropriate parties. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, App. E SH 392 On SH 392 page, delete WCR 68 E A WCR 68 symbol has been removed. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, App. E SH 394 394 is a county road, not a highway E R It is Highway 394 west of US 85 and a county road to the east. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, App. E SH 60 WCR 38 is labeled incorrectly. Should be 36.5, however, its not a county road E A The label has been removed. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, App. E WCR 33 Summary page says "right -out" for west side of 33, but that isn't shown on map E R The map is correct. The text has been updated. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, App. E WCR 33&44 Should have closure symbol on west side at 33. E A A symbol has been added. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, App. E WCR 66 Should show closure symbols on west side of 85 south of 66/AA Street E A A closure symbol has been added, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx E US 85 & WCR 22 This drawing appears to show WCR 25.5 connecting to the off -ramp, whereas Pg. 3-15 shows it being extended to a new WCR 22 extension west of the interchange. S A The sheet has been edited, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx E US 85 & WCR 66 This drawing (repeated for WCR 66) doesn't show accesses from 85 to 11th Ave being closed as the drawing on Pg. 3-25 does. S A The sheet has been edited, as requested. Riger, Jacob DRCOG PEL, Apx. A 1-1 Our latest fiscally constrained RTP is the 2040 Fiscally Constrained RTP (2040 RTP), adopted in February. Fiscally constrained roadway projects relating to the US -85 corridor are: o 104th Ave. (Grandview Ponds to SH-2): Widen 2 to 4 lanes (listed as 3 projects in the RTP — Grandview Ponds to McKay, McKay to US -85, and US -85 to SH-2) o E. Bromley Ln. (US -85 to Sable Blvd.): Widen 4 to 6 lanes o SH-7 (Riverdale Rd. to US -85): Widen 2 to 4 lanes E A The text was clarified to state that the 2035 DRCOG model was used. The following text was added: " DRCOG has released the 2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) since the US 85 PEL was substantially completed. It was determined that the modeling and analyses performed in the US 85 PEL would not be updated to the 2040 RTP. However, the following does recognize the improvements from the 2040 RTP." ®V COLORADO Page 3 of 6 pi I r1 4U IL l l [.i'A It- US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ADO! COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL TAC COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX -- FALL 2016 YOUR NAME (last name, first name) YOUR ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT (Tech Memo Name) PAGE LINE COMMENT S, R, E (Substantive, Requested, Editorial) A, R, C (Accepted, Rejected with explanation, Needs Clarification) RESPONSE (by consultant) Riger, Jacob DRCOG PEL, Apx. A 2-1 Table 2.1 It appears the version of the FOCUS model used was our "2012 Cycle 2" model. If so, please clarify the footnote (like for Table 2.3); and - was the DRCOG model also modified per municipal input, or just NFRMPO's for Table 2.1? o A global point: As soon as our model is modified in any way (such as modified socioeconomic data or additional network edits), it's no longer "DRCOG's model." We completely understand why our regional model might be modified for a corridor study, but ask that it be referred to as a modified model when referenced throughout the document. S A The clarification was included, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 2-7 18 Greeley misspelled. Find & replace "Greely". E A The change was made, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 3-5 27 This sentence is inaccurate: "Located roughly 1.5 miles west of US 85, WCR 23 is a north -south county road that is continuous from WCR 6 to beyond SH 66, except fora small section from WCR 21.5 and WCR 21." The road turns west at 24.5, north again on 21.5, west on 28, and north on 21. I would just delete the phrase "except for a small section from WCR 21.5 and WCR 21". E A The change was made, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 5-2 Table Move "Denver St Playground" under Evans, not Greeley. E A The change was made, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 5-4 62 Replace "Colorado" with "Colony". E A The change was made, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 5-6 Table Weld County Garage sign has been moved. Greeley is misspelled once. Goetzel Residence is in Evans, not Eaton. E A/R The misspelling and Goetzel Residence changes have been made. The historic sites were not field verified for the current level of effort and since it has been recorded with the SHPO, it should remain in the document, however, a note was added stating that the resource may have been moved. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 5-9 63 Still says "Error! Reference source not found." E A The text has been edited to address the issue. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 5-15 Table Replace "Located east of Greeley" with "Located in northeast Greeley". E A The change was made, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A 5-19 39 Remove paragraph break. E A The change was made, as requested. Flesher, Jim Weld County PEL, Apx. A Remove "Baseline Rd" from maps. Could replace it with "E. 160th Ave." or "Bridge Street". E R The roadway has been known by multiple names throughout it's length. Changing the road label to include all of the known names would create a cluttered figure. The project team chose one name at the beginning of the project and decided to remain as consistent with that, as possible. ®® COLORADO Page 4 of 6 CDOT US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study • COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL TAC COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX -- FALL 2016 YOUR NAME (last name, first name) YOUR ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT (Tech Memo Name) PAGE LINE COMMENT S, R, E (Substantive, Requested, Editorial) A, R, C (Accepted, Rejected with explanation, Needs Clarification) RESPONSE (by consultant) Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets All Summary Sheets Should we add "Requires railroad participation" to all sheets? E A A statement stating "Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties" and then lists the appropriate parties. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and Colorado Parkway Signal symbol needed at WCR 74. Symbol at 5th Street intersection needs to be changed. Changes needed on 5th Street (Eaton), WCR 76, and WCR 37. E A Symbols have been added /adjusted to clarify. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and Marion Avenue There was general concern about having a 3/4 turn at Marion Avenue when the ACP called for a RIRO S R The southbound left turn movement benefits the improvements at SH 66 by not requiring southbound traffic to the signal at Main Street and SH 66. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and 0 Street and WCR 66 Access closure needs to be shown on figures for both of these summary sheets E A Access closure symbols have been added to both sheets Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 20 Would the road on the east side of US 85 be paved between the highway and parallel road? R C Paving of this roadway is not included in the improvements. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 32 It was suggested that the frontage road be closed to improve signal efficiency. S C The plan is to cul-de-sac the frontage roads at WCR 32. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 34 The closure symbols on the map appear to be misplaced or mislabeled E A The railroad crossing symbols have been adjusted accordingly. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 36 There is concern about the level of access for WCR 36 to the west. It was suggested that we should look at an overpass at WCR 36 rather than closures. S A The design of SH 60 interchange has been changed to allow for direct access to WCR 36, thus negating the need for an overpass at WCR 36. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 38 Notation needed regarding railroad crossing closure conditions. E A A statement stating "Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties" and then lists the appropriate parties, including the UPRR. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 38.5 Notation needed regarding railroad crossing closure conditions. E A A statement stating "Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties" and then lists the appropriate parties, including the UPRR. ®® COLORADO Page 5 of 6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study •COOT :1 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL TAC COMMENT AND RESPONSE MATRIX -- FALL 2016 YOUR NAME (last name, first name) YOUR ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT (Tech Memo Name) PAGE LINE COMMENT S, R, E (Substantive, Requested, Editorial) A, R, C (Accepted, Rejected with explanation, Needs Clarification) RESPONSE (by consultant) Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 42 Remove signal and make intersection RIRO or 3/4 S R The signal at WCR 42 will remain, because the signal at WCR 44 is only applicable in the interim condition. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 44 It was a long topic of discussion regarding what to do at 42 and 44. Weld County would like to see the planned improvement as a grade separated interchange at WCR 44. Should it be shown as an "ultimate" design improvement'? S A An ultimate interchange configuration at WCR 44 has been provided, with the interim improvements still included in the PEL. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 46 May need to change depending on what is decided upon at WCR 42 and WCR 46 S R The distance between the areas is sufficient to allow access and minimize out of direction travel. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 48 Access closure needs to be shown at WCR 48. E A A symbol has been added to show access closure. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 76/WCR 37 Activities are conditional E A A statement stating "Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties" and then lists the appropriate parties, including the UPRR. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 80 WCR 80 should not have a closure on either side. Figure would change on SH 14/1 st Street (Ault) as well. S A WCR 80 is recommended to be left open. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets US 85 and WCR 98 Closure should be removed at WCR 98 and moved to the east side of US 85 and WCR 100. WCR 100 sheet would change as well. S A The change was made, as requested. Weld County Commissioners Weld County Summary Sheets General comment to add statements regarding the conditional nature of closures. E A A statement stating closures are dependent upon other surrounding improvements has been added accordingly. TAC Meeting Roll Plots Section 1 Confirm RIRO at CR 16 in Fort Lupton R A WCR 16 is recommended to be a right-in/right-out intersections Shreve, Jeanne Adams County TAC Meeting Roll Plots Section 1 At CR 2.5, extend picture over east to show parallel Main St. for alternative access. Show how closure of CR 2.5 east of US 85 access is addressed. E A Additional aerial imagery has been added to the mapping TAC Meeting Roll Plots Section 1 Add /168th to "Extend frontage road to WCR 2" E A The change was made, as requested. Shreve, Jeanne Adams County TAC Meeting Roll Plots Section 1 Noted that bus slip ramps will be needed on both sides at all interchanges S A Example interchange layouts that show accommodation of multi -modal facilities has been added to Page 3-4 and 3-5. Brighton and Adams County TAC Meeting Roll Plots Section 1 Because US 85 is a future regional bus route, it is recommended that the following be clearly stated in the PEL. "All future interchanges identified in the PEL shall evaluate bus slip ramps and other transit - related infrastructure on all interchanges to minimize off-line waiting (?) and enhance operational efficiency." S A The requested text was added to Page 3-1 AV COLORADO Page 6 of 6 ell 1, US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 8.0 SIGNATURE PAGES COLORADO D pAftmentof T ra:upo:'ation 2 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 3 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 4 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 5 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 6 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 7 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 8 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 9 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 10 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 11 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 12 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 13 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 14 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 15 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 16 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 17 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 18 to facilitate improvements to this area. 19 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 20 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 21 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 22 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 23 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 24 interested parties. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 City of Commerce City 35 Pa 8-1 Date US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1.76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► White this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 City of Brighton 7 //cf Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study CC)I.©RADO IDepartment of i Trans>t,�e�ri,�tion 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 City of Fort Lupton Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ICOL©RADO Department of I Tra.nsI ortMion 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Town of Platteville ;- —/7 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study C ()LORALO i;e:palIment of 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 . as a� I Town of La Salle Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 City Evans 34 Paige Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO .Department of T rax^.sport:atiori 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Garden City 34 ag 84 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 City o /Greeley Page 8-9 6:-) 2 / Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ICOL0RADO Department of "'transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Eaton 34 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Ault 34 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1.76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Pierce 34 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► White this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 The Town of Nunn Board of Trustees would like to express strong opposition to the 25 Closure of east bound County Road 100. This railroad crossing provides a safe lane for 26 traffic waiting for train crossing, while County Road 98 does not provide any safe lane 27 for railroad crossing off of Highway 85. Traffic attempting to cross at County Road 98 28 would have to wait on Highway 85 both North and South Bound thus stopping all traffic 29 flow on Highway 85. This could result with extreme safety risks for both the traveling 30 public and the Town of Nunn. See Resolution 2017-06. 31 32 33 34 Town of Nunn zi6P-37/ Date Page 8-13 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (I-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Adams County 34 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of I Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Weld County Board of Counommissioners 34 Julie A. Cozad, Chair JUN 2 8 2017 Date Page 8-15 026/7 19,21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO ]erartment of 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 851 between Interstate 76 (I.76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process, Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Denver Regional Council of Governments Date 34 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 .Jc-� �L L �'k l - 33 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Date 34 Page 8-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 er Front Range Tra sportation P anning Region 9/7/17 Date Page 8-18 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO I)rr partmen t of ?ranspartaton 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Union Pacific Railroad 34 Date US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of I Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 8/ay/b7 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 1 Date Kurt It;•n Net Page 8-20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Colorad DepartmOt of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 34 f ▪ • — Date Page 8-21 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP wilt 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 CDOT Environmental ograms Br /(0/..i,_,Dt-7 Date Page 8-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO partn eni nt rIsportatikn 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1.76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Date 34 Hello