The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20174316.tiffUS 85 PEL SAFETY ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 10601 West 10th Street Greeley, CO 80634 970/350-2148 or 970/350-2163 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303/721-1440 Project Manager: Dave Hattan Project Engineer: FHU Reference No. 112196-01 March 2016 2017-4316 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 US 85C 2 US 85L 3 CRASH HISTORY AND PROBLEM ANALYSIS 4 SEGMENT 1: US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 238.32 8 Segment 1A (MP 226.80 - MP 227.47) 9 Segment 1B (MP 227.48 - MP 230.86) 10 Segment 1O (MP 230.87 - MP 235.19) 11 Segment 1D (MP 235.20 - MP 236.62) 14 Segment 1 E (MP 236.63 — MP 238.32) 15 SEGMENT 2: US 85C MP 238.33 - MP 243.00 17 Segment 2A (MP 238.33 — MP 241.58) 19 Segment 2B (MP 241.59 — MP 243.00) 21 SEGMENT 3: US 85C MP 243.01 - MP 262.00 23 Segment 3A (MP 243.01 - MP 245.19) 26 Segment 3B (MP 245.20 - MP 248.20) 28 Segment 3C (MP 248.21 — MP 250.64) 31 Segment 3D (MP 250.65 - MP 253.00) 33 Segment 3E (MP 253.01 - MP 255.91) 35 Segment 3F (MP 255.92 — MP 257.00) 37 Segment 3G (MP 257.01 - MP 262.00) 38 SEGMENT 4: US 85C MP 262.01 - MP 265.76 40 Segment 4A (MP 262.01 - 263.80) 41 Segment 4B (MP 263.81 — 265.76) 43 SEGMENT 5: US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 273.00 44 Segment 5A (MP 265.85 — 269.50) 45 Segment 5B (MP 269.51 — 273.00) 47 SEGMENT 6: US 85L MP 273.01 - MP 280.27 49 Segment 6A (MP 273.01 - MP 275.00) 52 Segment 6B (MP 275.01 - MP 276.10) 53 Segment 6C (MP 276.11 — MP 279.26) 54 Segment 6D (MP 279.27 — MP 280.27) 55 SEGMENT 7: US 85L MP 280.28 - MP 290.00 56 Segment 7A (MP 280.28 - MP 283.90) 59 Segment 7B (MP 283.91 — MP 290.00) 61 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page i March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 INTERSECTION CRASH ANALYSIS 62 US 85C / SH 44 (104th Avenue) (MP 227.39 & MP 1.80) 66 US 85C / Long Peak Drive (MP 227.91) 70 US 85C / 112th Avenue (MP 228.57) 72 US 85C / 120th Avenue (MP 229.76) 75 US 85C / 124th Avenue (SH 22A) (MP 230.29 & MP 1.84) 78 US 85C / 132' Avenue (MP 231.38) 81 US 85C / 136th Avenue (MP 231.93) 83 US 85C / 144th Avenue (MP 233.04) 86 US 85C / Bromley Lane (MP 234.09) 88 US 85C / SH 7D (MP 235.10 & MP 76.99) 92 US 85C / Denver Street (MP 235.60) 94 US 85C / CR 2 (168th Avenue/Baseline Road) (MP 236.03) 96 US 85C / CR 2.5 (MP 236.55) 99 US 85C / CR 6 (MP 238.09) 101 US 85C / CR 8 (MP 239.08) 104 US 85C / SH 52A (MP 241.59 & MP 19.96) 106 US 85C / CR 14.5 (14th Street) (MP 242.66) 110 US 85C / CR 16 (MP 243.21) 114 US 85C / CR 18 (MP 244.21) 116 US 85C / CR 22 (MP 246.21) 118 US 85C / CR 22.5 (MP 246.71) 120 US 85C / CR 28 (MP 249.22) 122 US 85C / SH 66 (MP 250.65) 124 US 85C / CR 32 (MP 251.22) 126 US 85C / CR 36 (MP 253.27) 128 US 85C / SH 60 (CR 27) (MP 253.81) 130 US 85C / CR 42 (MP 257.26) 132 US 85C / CR 44 (MP 258.60) 134 US 85C / CR 46 / CR 35 (MP 259.93) 136 US 85C / SH 375 (1St Avenue) (MP 262.63) 138. US 85C / 5th Avenue (MP 262.99) 141 US 85C / SH 394 / CR 52 (MP 263.44) 143 US 85C / 42nd Street (MP 264.11) 145 US 85C / CR 54 (37th Street) (MP 264.71) 148 US 85C / 31s' Street (MP 265.19) 151 US 85L / 22nd Street (MP 266.65) 154 US 85L / US 34D (18th Street) (MP 267.18) 157 US 85L / 16th Street (MP 267.44) 160 US 85L / 13th Street (MP 267.77) 163 US 85L / SH 263A (8th Street) (MP 268.22) 166 US 85L / 5th Street (MP 268.49) 169 US 85L / O Street (MP 270.43) 172 US 85L / 11th Street (MP 271.19) 174 US 85L / SH 392A (CR 68) (MP 272.48) 176 US 85L / CR 74 (Collins Street) (MP 275.59) 179 US 85L / CR 76 (MP 276.62) 181 US 85L / SH 14C (1St Street) (MP 279.76) 183 US 85L / CR 100 (MP 289.00) 185 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page ii March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 187 General Recommendations 187 Specific Recommendations 188 List of Appendices List of Tables Table 1 Number of Crashes US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 & US 85L MP 265.85 — MP 290.00 4 Table 2 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 1 (2008 through 2012) US 85C (MP 226.80 — MP 238.32) 8 Table 3 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 2 US 85C (MP 238.33 — MP 243.00) 17 Table 4 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 3 US 85C (MP 243.01 — MP 262.00) 24 Table 5 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 4 US 85C (MP 262.01 — MP 265.76) 40 Table 6 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 5 US 85L (MP 265.85 — M P 273.00) 44 Table 7 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 6 US 85L (MP 273.01 - MP 280.27) 49 Table 8 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 7 US 85L (MP 280.28 — MP 290.00) 56 Table 9 Intersection Related Crashes by Location 63 List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Crash Types (2008 through 2012) Study Area The safety assessment for US 85 analyzed the corridor by segments and by individual intersections. The analysis process generated much the same safety information which summarized as the following: Segments (Seven Total) The study corridor was divided in seven segments. Each segment was further divided in between two and seven sub -segments. The first page for each segment provides the following information: • A Vicinity Map showing the divisions into sub -segments • A table showing the number and types of crashes in each sub -segment • Safety Performance Function graphs showing total crashes and severe crashes (fatal and injury) for rural sub -segments only Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page iii March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The summary of the analyses for each sub -segment of the corridor generally includes the following information: • A pie chart showing the types of non -intersection crashes • A pie chart for fixed object type crashes when they were determined to be higher than expected. Intersections There are a total of 112 intersections through the study corridor along US 85. There are 24 intersections that are signalized, and all were analyzed for safety concerns. Of the 88 unsignalized intersections. 66 were found to have less than five crashes over the five-year study period and were not analyzed since four or fewer crashes would not show any correctable patterns. Thus, a total of 46 intersections were analyzed. The summary of safety conditions for each intersection that was studied generally includes the following information: • An aerial photograph of the intersection and its environs • Safety Performance Function graphs showing total crashes and severe crashes (fatal and injury) for urban, signalized intersections only • A pie chart showing the types of all intersection and intersection -related crashes Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page iv March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 List of Acronyms AADT annual average daily traffic ADT average daily traffic CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CPMPY crashes per mile per year CR County Road DSMD dynamic speed message display EX Expressway I- Interstate LOSS Levels of Service of Safety MP Milepost mph miles per hour PDO property damage only PEL Planning Environmental Linkage SPF Safety Performance Function UPRR Union Pacific Railroad US United States Highway Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page v March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 r.JIIIIIi 311 ac�lIunc s!II risursp�rt�U�n inalnelaing cold �slin�i A Statement of Philosophy The efficient and responsible investment of resources in addressing safety problems is a difficult task. Since crashes occur on all highways in use, it is inappropriate to say of any highway that it is safe. However, it is correct to say that highways can be built to be safer or less safe. Road safety is a matter of degree. When making decisions affecting road safety.. it is critical to understand that expenditure of limited available funds on improvements in places where it prevents few injuries and saves few lives can mean that injuries will occur and lives will be lost by not spending them in places where more crashes could have been prevented'. It is the Colorado Department of Transportation's (CDOT's) objective to maximize crash reduction within the limitations of available budgets by making road safety improvements at locations where it does the most good or prevents the most crashes. INTRODUCTION The primary intent of this project is to provide information, as related to safety, for the Planning Environmental Linkage (PEL) study of United States Highway (US) 85. The study area begins at the divide of US 85 and Interstate (I) 76 and extends to north of the Town of Nunn (approximately 20 miles south of the Wyoming border). In addition, the study includes the interchange of US 85 with US 34A in south Greeley. Two segments of US 85 are included: • US 85C Milepost (MP) 226.80 - MP 265.76 • US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 As an element of the PEL study, an opportunity exists for the detection of safety problems and the recommendation of selected improvements at locations where it is justified by crash experience. The scope of this report is as follows: • Assess the magnitude and nature of the safety problem within the project limits. • Relate crash causality to roadway geometrics, roadside features, traffic control devices, traffic operations, and driver behavior and vehicle type. • Suggest cost-effective counter measures to address identified problems. • Provide guidance on how to maximize crash reduction within the scope of a PEL Study project. This report is based on the analysis of five years of crash history. Regions 1 and 4 are advised to verify, through field survey, the information included in this report regarding physical features and roadside characteristics in the study area. ' Hauer, E. (1999) Safety Review of Highway 407: Confronting Two Myths. TRB Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Page 1 Engineering Branch March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 SITE LOCATION This study addresses a section of US 85 in Adams and Weld Counties. On the south, US 85C is classified as an Urban Expressway from MP 226.80 to MP 238.24 (Commerce City and Brighton area), from MP 241.58 to MP 242.85 (Fort Lupton) and also from MP 261.42 to MP 265.76 (LaSalle, Evans and Greeley area). US 85C is classified as a Rural Expressway in the remainder of the corridor (a short section between Brighton and Fort Lupton and then a longer section from Fort Lupton to LaSalle). US 85L is classified as an Urban Expressway from MP 265.85 (south Greeley) to MP 273.00 (Lucerne). Between MP 23.01 and 290.00 (just north of Nunn). US 85L is classified as Rural Minor Arterial. SITE CONDITIONS US 85C The following observations relating to the southern section of the study corridor were made from viewing OTIS and Google StreetView video logs and during a field visit: • There are two northbound and two southbound through lanes through this section. • The through lanes along US 85C are approximately 12 -feet wide in both directions • There is a depressed median of varying width along US 85C through much of the corridor with a raised -curb median in spot locations. These spot locations are primarily major signalized intersections including SH 44 (104th Avenue), 120th Avenue, Bromley Lane, 42nd Street, 37th Street, and 31St Street. There is a raised, hard surface median through Gilcrest (County Road [CR] 40 to Ash Street) and through LaSalle (from north of CR 48 to north of 1St Street). • With the exception of a concrete median barrier through the SH 52 interchange in Fort Lupton, there is a continuous cable barrier (except for median breaks) in the depressed median between CR 2 and CR 30. Intersections with CR 6, CR 8, CR 14.5, and CR 22.5 have cable barrier in a flush, paved median. • Because of differing auxiliary lane configurations, both inside and outside shoulder widths vary considerably along this section. Auxiliary lanes exist at signalized, stop - controlled, and uncontrolled intersections for turning, acceleration, and deceleration movements. Left -turn lanes are approximately 12 -feet wide. • Rumble strips have been placed along outside shoulders through appropriate sections. • The posted speed limit on US 85C along much of this section is 65 miles per hour (mph) except for reductions to 55 mph at signalized intersections. Speed limit is 50 mph between Denver Street and CR 2 in north Brighton, through Platteville, through Gilcrest, and between LaSalle and Evans. It is posted at 40 mph through LaSalle and at 45 mph in Evans. • The asphalt surface appears to be in relatively good condition through most of the study corridor. • The pavement striping is generally in good condition. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 2 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L The following observations relating to the northern section of the study corridor were made viewing OTIS and Google StreetView video logs and during a field visit: • There are two northbound and two southbound through lanes through the southern portion —from MP 265.85 in south Greeley to MP 280.27 in north Ault. US 85L is a two- lane undivided facility from north Ault (MP 280.27) to the northern boundary of the study (MP 290.00). • The through lanes along US 85L are approximately 12 -feet wide in both directions. • There is a depressed median of varying width along US 85L from Greeley through Ault. In Greeley (from MP 266.34 to MP 268.05, there is a flush, paved median with curb and gutter on the outside of both shoulders. • Through Eaton, there are several different treatments for the four -lane roadway: o From Collins Street (MP 275.5) to Collins Street (MP 275.59), there is a raised median and curb and gutter along the shoulder. o From Collins Street to 5th Street (MP 276.07), parallel parking is allowed along the shoulder. o From 591 Street to CR 37 (MP 276.86), there is a raised median but no curb and gutter along the shoulders. • Through Ault, there is a raised median and curb and gutter along the shoulders between B Street (MP 279.58) and 2nd Street (MP 279.84). There is a flush median with curb and gutter from 2nd Street to Jackie Ann Street (MP 280.27). There is no curb and gutter north of Jackie Ann Street and US 85L begins a transition to a two-lane undivided roadway. • Because of differing auxiliary lane configurations, both inside and outside shoulder widths vary considerably along both two-lane and four -lane sections. Much of the corridor has narrow (approximately two feet wide) outside shoulders. Auxiliary lanes exist at signalized and stop -controlled intersections for turning, acceleration, and deceleration movements. Left -turn lanes are approximately 12 -feet wide. • The posted speed limit on US 85L along much of this section is 65 mph except for reductions to 55 mph at signalized intersections. Speed limit is 50 mph in the northbound direction and 45 mph in the southbound direction in Greeley south of the Cache La Poudre River (MP 268.05). Between 5th Street and O Street, the speed limit is 55 mph. Through Eaton and Ault, it is 35 mph. The speed limit is 40 mph through both Pierce and Nunn. • The asphalt surface appears to be in relatively good condition through most of the study corridor south of CR 78. At approximately MP 277.5, the southbound roadway shows obvious signs of distress while the northbound roadway is in fair condition with regular transverse cracking until MP 278.8 where there is more evidence of distress. This more or less continues through the rest of the four -lane roadway (MP 280.27). The two-lane undivided roadway (MP 280.27 to MP 290.00) is in fair condition. • There are inside and outside shoulder rumble strips on southbound US 85L between MP 276.86 and MP 279.58. • The pavement striping is generally in good condition. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 3 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 CRASH HISTORY AND PROBLEM ANALYSIS Crash history for the five-year period, January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012, was examined between MP 226.80 and MP 265.76 on US 85C and between MP 265.85 and MP 290.00 on US 85L to locate crash clusters and identify crash causes. Table 1 summarizes the number of crashes for entire study area (US 85C & US 85L) over the five-year study period. As can be seen in this table, the total number of crashes from year to year varies during the five-year study period. There were 1,661 property damage only (PDO) crashes, 672 injury crashes and 23 fatal crashes within the study area. Table 1 Number of Crashes US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 & US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Period Number of Crashes Prop. Damage Only Injury Fatality Total 01/01/2008 - 12/31/2008 287 114 9 410 01/01/2009 - 12/31/2009 316 158 5 479 01/01/2010 - 12/31/2010 327 121 6 454 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2011 309 141 1 451 01/01/201201I01/2012-12131/2012 422 138 2 562 Total (01/01/2009 - 12/31/2013) 1,661 672 23 2,356 Overall 5 -Year Average per Year 332.2 134.4 4.6 471.2 Overall Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 2,356 reported crashes on the US 85 within the project limits. Figure 1 presents a graphical representation of crash types for the study area of US 85. Rear end type crashes (36%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (19%), broadside type crashes (10%), overturning t e crashes 10% , and sideswi e same direction type crashes (10%). The crash summary Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 4 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 1 Crash Types (2008 through 2012) US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 5 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Safety Performance Functions Methodology The assessment of the magnitude of safety problems on highway segments has been refined through the use of Safety Performance Functions (SPF) developed and calibrated to reflect conditions along Colorado State Highways. The SPF reflects the complex relationship between traffic exposure measured in annual average daily traffic (AADT) and crash count for a unit of road section measured in crashes per mile per year (CPMPY) or for an intersection, measured in crashes per year. The SPF models provide an estimate of the normal or expected crash frequency and severity for a range of AADT among similar facilities. Two kinds of SPFs were calibrated. The first addresses the total number of crashes, and the second looks only at more serious crashes involving an injury or fatality. Together they allow an assessment of the magnitude of the safety problem from the frequency and severity standpoint. All of the dataset preparation was performed using the CDOT crash databases. Crash history for each facility was prepared using the most recent five years of available crash data. Development of the SPF lends itself well to the conceptual formulation of the Levels of Service of Safety (LOSS). The concept of level of service uses qualitative measures that characterize safety of a roadway segment in reference to its expected performance and severity. If the level of safety predicted by the SPF represents a normal or expected number of crashes at a specific level of average daily traffic (ADT), then the degree of deviation from the normal can be stratified to represent specific levels of safety. LOSS -I — Indicates low potential for crash reduction LOSS -II — Indicates low to moderate potential for crash reduction LOSS -III — Indicates moderate to high potential for crash reduction LOSS -IV — Indicates high potential for crash reduction Gradual change in the degree of deviation of the LOSS boundary line from the fitted model mean reflects the observed increase of variability in crashes as ADT increases. LOSS reflects how a segment of roadway or intersection is performing in relation to its expected crash frequency at a specific level of ADT. It only provides a crash frequency comparison with the expected norm. It does not, however, provide any information related to the nature of the safety problem itself. If a safety problem is present, LOSS will only describe its magnitude from a frequency standpoint. The nature of the problem is determined through diagnostic analysis using direct diagnostics and pattern recognition techniques. The above described SPF methodology was used in the analysis of the rural roadway segments and unban intersections within the study area. The results of these analyses are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Segment Crash Analysis The study area is divided into seven segments. Each segment has different roadway classifications and characteristics including urban and rural areas. The segmentation for US 85C and US 85L are presented graphically on Figure 2. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 6 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 2 Study Area Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 7 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 1: US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 238.32 Segment 1 begins at the southern limit of the study corridor (MP 226.80) near 1-76 and extends to the north Brighton Urban Area boundary (MP 238.32), which is approximately 1,200 feet north of Weld CR 6. During the five-year study period there were 439 non -intersection crashes reported within Segment 1. This segment is classified as an urban, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility, and it has an access category of Expressway (EX). Figure 3 shows Segment 1 in relation to the study area. Segment 1 is 11.52 miles long and was broken into five sub - segments for the detailed analyses. Table 2 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 3 Segment 1 Vicinity Map US 85C (MP 226.80 - MP 238.32) Segment 1D Segment 1C Segment 1B Segment 1A BASELINL RD MERCE CITY Weld County_ Adams County BROMLEY LN Table 2 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 1 (2008 through 2012) US 85C (MP 226.80 - MP 238.32) a Sub -Segment Descriptions Mile Points Number of Crashes PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 1A — Commerce City Limit (CL) MP 226.80 — MP 227.47 43 10 0 53 1B — Commerce City CL Nome Street Interchange MP 227.48 — MP 230.86 96 35 0 131 1C — City of Brighton CL & SH 7/Bridge Street Interchange MP 230.87 — MP 235.19 125 41 3 169 10 — City of Brighton Urban Area Start MP 235.20 — MP 236.62 34 12 0 46 1E — City of Brighton Urban Area End MP 236.63 — MP 238.32 23 16 1 40 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 8 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 1A (MP 226.80 - MP 227.47) Segment 1A begins at the southern limit of the study corridor (MP 226.80) near 1-76 and extends north to approximately 400 feet north of the SH 44 (104'h Avenue) intersection. There were a total of 53 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of 85C: 43 PDO crashes and 10 injury crashes. Figure 4 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Rear end type crashes (56.6%) were the predominant crash type followed by sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (20.8%). Figure 4 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 1A: MP 226.80 — MP 227.47) Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were 19 crashes northbound, nine crashes southbound, and two crashes eastbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that 29 of the 30 were dry road conditions. This crash pattern seen above is related to the high volumes, congestion, and higher speed at the signalized intersection (SH 44) north of the US 85C/I-76A interchange. It is recommended to consider repositioning the northbound flashing warning sign of the upcoming signalized intersection further south on US 85C. Repositioning location could be considered before going under the 1-76A bridge that obstructs the view of the upcoming intersection. Additionally, consideration for a southbound flashing warning sign of the upcoming signalized intersection north of the intersection is recommended. The frequency of sideswipe (same direction) type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes indicated there were three crashes northbound and eight crashes southbound. Ten of the 11 crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. The sideswipe (same direction) type crashes occurred throughout Segment 1A. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Although there is no significant pattern of off -road left or head-on crashes, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered due to the high volumes and narrow median. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Page 9 Engineering Branch March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 1B (MP 227.48 - MP 230.86) Segment 1B begins to approximately 420 feet north of the SH 44 (104th Avenue) intersection and extends north to midway between the 124th and 132nd Avenue intersections. There were a total of 131 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of 85C: 96 PDO crashes and 35 injury crashes. Figure 5 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Rear end type crashes (57.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (20.6%). Figure 5 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 1B: MP 227.48 — MP 230.86) Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were 33 crashes northbound, 41 crashes southbound, and one crash westbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that 70 of the 75 were dry road conditions. This crash pattern is related to the high volumes, congestion, and higher speeds near the signalized intersections within the study area. Signalized intersections with US 85C within this segment are: 112th Avenue, 120th Avenue, and 124th Avenue with 120th Avenue having slightly fewer crashes than the other two intersections. Recommendations for these intersections can be found in the intersection portion of the report. The frequency of sideswipe (same direction) type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes indicated there were 14 crashes northbound and 13 crashes southbound. Twenty-six of the 27 crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. The sideswipe (same direction) type crashes were throughout Segment 1B. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Although there is no significant pattern of off -road left or head-on crashes, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered due to the high volumes and narrow median. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 10 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 1C (MP 230.87 - MP 235.19) Segment 1O begins midway between the 124th and 132' Avenue intersections and extends north to approximately 400 feet north of the center of the SH 7 interchange. There were a total of 169 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 125 PDO crashes, 41 injury crashes and three fatal crashes. Figure 6 presents a graphical representation of the non - intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Rear end type crashes (36.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (27.2%) and sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (12.4%). Figure 6 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 1C: MP 230.87 — MP 235.19) Fatal Crashes There were three fatal crashes that occurred in Segment 1O (MP 230.87 — MP 235.19). The first crash occurred at MP 233.31 on August 23. 2011 north of the intersection of 144th Avenue. The crash occurred in dry, daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C and was in the inside lane. Vehicle #1 made an abrupt turn into the center median, crossed into the northbound traffic, and collided with Vehicle #2. Vehicle #3 was behind Vehicle #2, and the crash debris hit the vehicle. Vehicle #4 was also traveling northbound and was broadsided by Vehicle #1. Vehicle #1 driver was not wearing a seatbelt and was the fatality in the crash. No drugs or alcohol were reported. There was no barrier between northbound and southbound traffic. Vehicles #2 and #4 were trucks. No cause was listed for the crash. No crash pattern was found, but potential remedial are suggested in the following discussion. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 11 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The second crash occurred at MP 233.92 on November 6, 2012 south of the intersection of Bromley Lane. The crash occurred in dry, daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85, the driver attempting to pass slower traffic by changing lanes. As Vehicle #1 was attempting to change lanes, Vehicle #2 changed lanes into the lane Vehicle #1 was currently occupying. Vehicle #1 swerved back into its original lane but lost control and went into the center median. The vehicle rolled over twice before coming to a stop. Vehicle #2 was not hit but returned to the scene of the crash. Vehicle #1 was going 70 mph in a 65 mph speed zone. The cause of the crashes was cited to be reckless and aggressive driving. No drugs or alcohol were involved. The fatality was one of the passengers in Vehicle #1. No crash pattern was found, but potential remedial are suggested in the following discussion. The third crash occurred at MP 234.49 on October 29, 2008 south of the SH 7 interchange. The crash occurred in dry, dark, unlighted conditions. A pedestrian was attempting to cross US 85C eastbound at approximately Jessup Street which does not have access to US 85C (approximately 0.5 mile north of Bromley Lane). Pedestrian ran in front of Vehicle #2, Vehicle #2 was not able to stop in time and stuck the pedestrian on the passenger side of the vehicle. Pedestrian was suspected for drugs and/or alcohol and was the fatality. No crash pattern was found Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were 33 crashes northbound and 29 crashes southbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that 56 of the 62 were dry road conditions. This crash pattern seen above is related to the high traffic volumes, congestion, and higher speeds near the signalized intersections at 136th Avenue and Bromley Lane. Recommendations for these two intersections can be found in a later section of this report. The frequency of sideswipe (same direction) type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes indicated there were 14 crashes northbound and seven crashes southbound. Nineteen of the 21 crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. The sideswipe (same direction) type crashes were throughout Segment 10. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequencies of off -road, off -road right, and off -road left crashes were higher than expected for this type of roadway. For Segment 10. these types of crashes involved fixed object crashes (46 —higher than expected), overturning crashes (17 including one fatality —higher than expected), sideswipe (opposite) (4 including one fatality), and head on (2). This sub -segment already has outside shoulder rumble strips. Due to the relatively narrow median and number of cars crossing or ending up in the median, a cable rail median barrier should be considered for this sub -segment. The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were eight crashes northbound and nine crashes southbound. Twelve of the 17 occurred on dry roadway conditions. The overturning type crashes were throughout Segment 10. Only four of the 17 were documented of traveling over the posted speed limit. Eleven of the 17 occurred in daylight lighting conditions. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current locational pattern. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 12 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the fixed object type crashes indicated that 22 crashes occurred northbound and 24 crashes occurred southbound. Only 21 of the 46 crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. The fixed object type crashes occurred throughout Segment 1C. It can be seen in Figure 7 of the fixed object type crashes, fence type crashes (34.6%) were the predominant crash type followed by embankment type crashes (28.3%). In addition to considering a cable rail barrier in the median, it is recommended that the clear zone for all roadside obstacles be reviewed in the field. Figure 7 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 1C: MP 230.87 - MP 235.19) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 13 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment1D D (MP 235.20 - MP 236.62) Segment 1D begins just north of the center of the SH 7 interchange and extends north to approximately 400 feet north of the intersection with CR 2.5. There were a total of 46 non - intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 850: 34 PDO crashes and 12 injury crashes. Figure 8 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub - segment. Rear end type crashes (41.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (26.1%) and sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (15.2%). Figure 8 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 1 D: MP 235.20 — MP 236.62) Rear End 19 41.3% Sideswipe (Opposite) Other Object 1 Wild Animal 2 2.27x, _ 1 _4.3% _2.2% Overturning 4 .1 io i� 40 Fixed Object 12 25.1% Sideswipe (Same) 7 15.2% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were 13 crashes northbound and six crashes southbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that 17 of the 19 were dry road conditions. Fifteen of the 19 crashes occurred during daylight lighting conditions. A review of the locations of the crashes indicated a pattern related to signalized intersections but not any in particular. However, recommendations for intersections can be found in the intersection portion of this report. The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the fixed object type crashes indicated that seven of the 12 fixed object crashes were fence related crashes. Of the fence type crashes, three occurred northbound and four crashes occurred southbound. Only two of the seven crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. Two occurred at MP 236.00 near the intersection of 168th Avenue and three at MP 236.33 north of 168th Avenue. No pattern was found for the fixed object type crashes, but it is recommended to review the existing snow/ice removal procedures to ensure current procedures are sufficient. Although there is no significant pattern of off -road left or head-on crashes, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered south of CR 2 due to the high volumes and narrow median. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 14 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 1 E (MP 236.63 - MP 238.32) Segment 1E begins 400 feet north of the intersection with CR 2.5 and extends north to approximately 1,200 feet north of CR 6 (the north Brighton Urban Area boundary). There were a total of 40 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 23 PDO crashes, 16 injury crashes, and one fatal crash. Figure 9 presents a graphical representation of the non - intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Overturning type crashes (37.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (25.0%) and rear end type crashes (22.5%). Figure 9 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 1E: MP 236.63 — MP 238.32) Fatal Crashes There was one fatal crash that occurred in Segment 1E at MP 237.41 on August 15, 2009 north of the intersection of CR 4. The crash occurred in dry, daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C in the left through lane and stopped to attempt a U-turn in a median crossover (no signs were posted in the median). Vehicle #2 was also in the southbound left through lane and rear -ended Vehicle #1. Alcohol was suspected in both drivers of the vehicles. Vehicle #2 driver was the fatality. No crash pattern found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were eight crashes northbound and seven crashes southbound. Twelve of the 15 occurred on dry roadway conditions. The overturning type crashes were throughout Segment 1E. None of the overturning type crashes were documented to be traveling over the posted speed limit of 65 mph. Eight of the 15 occurred in daylight lighting conditions. Nine of the crashes resulting in the vehicle leaving the left side of the road; four went off the right side. A review of the crash history indicates that these crashes occurred throughout the sub -segment. It should be noted that a cable rail median barrier has been constructed recently. This could reduce the number of vehicles that depart into the median and overturn. There are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 15 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were three crashes northbound and six crashes southbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that all nine crashes were dry road conditions. Eight of the nine crashes occurred during daylight lighting conditions. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern and there are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 16 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 2: US 85C MP 238.33 - MP 243.00 Segment 2 begins at the north Brighton Urban Area boundary (MP 238.33), which is approximately 1,200 feet north of Weld CR 6 and extends north to approximately one-third mile north of CR 14.5 (14`h Street in Fort Lupton — MP 243.00). During the five-year study period, there were 137 non -intersection crashes reported within Segment 2. The south sub -segment (2A) is classified as a rural, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility while the northern sub -segment (2B) is classified as an urban, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility. The entire Segment has an access category of EX. Figure 10 shows US 85C Segment 2 in relation to the study area. Table 3 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 10 Segment 2 Vicinity Map US 85C (MP 238.33 - MP 243.00) Segment 2B Segment 2A r 1 52 _ WCR 6 r FART LUPTON Table 3 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 2 US 85C (MP 238.33 - MP 243.00) Sub -Segment Descriptions Mile Points Number of Crashes PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 2A — Fort Lupton CL Start & Fort Lupton Interchange MP 238.33 — MP 241.58 65 27 2 94 2B - Fort Lupton CL End MP 241.59 - MP 243.00 31 12 0 43 Since Segment 2A is classified as a rural, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility, SPFs have been calibrated by CDOT. Figure 11 shows that frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a high potential for crash reduction (LOSS IV). Figure 12 shows that the severity of crashes is about the mean for this roadway type (LOSS II -Ill). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 17 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 11 Segment 2A (MP 238.33 - MP 241.58) — Total Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling Four -Lane Divided Highway — Lower Limit (20%) —Total — Upper Limit (80%i • Observed (EB) 16 4 Accidents/Mile/Year 14 12 2 0 Segment 2A MP 238 33 - MP 241 58 SPF - 664 0 5 000 10 000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45 000 50.000 AADT Figure 12 Segment 2A (MP 238.33 - MP 241.58) — Injury & Fatal Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling Four -Lane Divided Highway Loner Limrt (20%) —INJ + FAT Upper Limit (80%) .. Observed (EBr 15 000 20 000 25 000 AADT 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 5 000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 10 000 Page 18 50 000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 2A (MP 238.33 - MP 241.58) Segment 2A begins approximately 1,200 feet north of CR 6 (the north Brighton Urban Area boundary) and extends north to the center of the SH 52A interchange (MP 241.58). There were a total of 94 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85O: 65 PDO crashes, 27 injury crashes and two fatal crashes. Figure 13 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (29.8%) were the predominant crash type followed by overturning type crashes (21.3%) and sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (18.1%). Figure 13 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 2A: MP 238.33 — MP 241.58 Fatal Crashes There were two fatal crashes that occurred in Segment 2A (MP 238.33 — MP 241.58). The first fatal crash occurred at MP 238.38 on March 2. 2008 just north of CR 6.25. The crash occurred in dry, dark, unlighted, and windy conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on US 85C when the driver over -corrected and skidded across the northbound lanes, across the median and into the southbound lanes. Then Vehicle #1 drove off the right side of the roadway and collided with a delineator post. The vehicle was reported to be going at the speed limit. Alcohol was suspected, no seat belt and the driver was ejected from the vehicle. No crash pattern was found. It should be noted that a cable rail has been constructed in the median in this area since this crash occurred. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 19 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The second fatal crash occurred at MP 241.1 on June 6, 2008 south of the SH 52A interchange. The crash occurred in dry. daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C attempting a lane change from right to left; however, there was a vehicle occupying the left lane. The driver overcorrected to the left, and Vehicle #1 rotated counter -clockwise, went through the median and began rolling over. Additionally, a second vehicle traveling northbound collided with the driver's side of Vehicle #1 while the vehicle was still in motion of the rolling over. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. Both vehicles were going the speed limit. The fatality was one of the passengers in Vehicle #1. No crash pattern was found. It should be noted that a cable rail has been constructed in the median in this area since this crash occurred. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were nine crashes northbound and 11 crashes southbound. Twelve of the 20 occurred on dry roadway conditions. The overturning type crashes were throughout Segment 2A. Only one of the overturning type crashes were documented to be traveling over the posted speed limit of 65 mph. Thirteen of the 20 occurred in daylight lighting conditions. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern. It should be noted that a cable rail median barrier has been constructed recently. This could reduce the number of vehicles that depart into the median and overturn. It is recommended to review the existing snow/ice removal procedures to ensure existing procedures are sufficient. It should be noted that a cable rail has been constructed in the median in this segment since this crash occurred. The frequency of sideswipe (same direction) type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes indicated there were seven crashes northbound and ten crashes southbound. Thirteen of the 17 crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. The sideswipe (same direction) type crashes were throughout Segment 2A. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequency of embankment type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the embankment type crashes indicated there were five crashes northbound and six crashes southbound. Seven of the 11 crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. Only four crashes occurred in daylight lighting conditions. The embankment type crashes were throughout Segment 2A. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern, and there are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 20 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 2B (MP 241.59 - MP 243.00) Segment 2B begins near the center of the SH 52A interchange (MP 241.59) and extends north to approximately one-third mile north of CR 14.5 (14th Street in Fort Lupton — MP 243.00). There were a total of 43 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 31 PDO crashes and 12 injury crashes. Figure 14 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (51.2%) were the predominant crash type followed by overturning type crashes (14.0%) and sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (11.6%). Figure 14 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 2B: MP 241.59 — MP 243.00) Fixed Object 22 51.2% Other Non - Collision 2 Head On 4.7% 2 Wild Animal _ 4.7% 2 __4.7`)/0 Rear End 4 9.3% _ Overturning 6 14.0% Sideswipe (Same) 5 11.6% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the fixed object type crashes indicated that 14 crashes occurred northbound and eight crashes occurred southbound. Only 11 of the 22 crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. The fixed object type crashes were throughout Segment 2B. It can be seen in Figure 15 that of the fixed object type crashes. sign type crashes (27.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by delineator post type crashes (22.7%). A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern. It should be noted that this segment has barriers in the median (either concrete Type 7 or cable rail) as well as rumble strips along the outside shoulders. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 21 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 15 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 2B: MP 241.59 — MP 243.00) Sign 6 27.3% Delineator Post 5 22.7% Light Pole/Utility Pole Tree 1 1 4.5% 4.5% Fence 3 13.6% Cable Rail 1 _4.5% Concrete Barrier 2 9.1% Embankment 3 13.6% Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 22 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3: US 85C MP 243.01 - MP 262.00 Segment 3 begins approximately one-third mile north of CR 14.5 (14th Street in Fort Lupton — MP 243.00) and extends north to approximately 600 feet north of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) overpass in south LaSalle (MP 262.00). During the five-year study period there were 307 non -intersection crashes reported within Segment 3. This segment is classified as a rural, four -lane rolling (R -4-R) facility, and it has an access category of EX. Figure 16 shows the US 85C Segment 3 in relation to the study area. Segment 3 is 18.99 miles and it was broken into seven sub -segments for the detailed analyses. Table 4 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 16 Segment 3 Vicinity Map US 85C (MP 243.01 - MP 262.00) Segment 3G Segment 3F Segment 3E Segment 3D 5pn.nt 38 152 R WCR 44 WCR 32 Re WCR F RT UP ON Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 23 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Table 4 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 3 US 85C (MP 243.01 - MP 262.00) Mile Points Number of Crashes Sub -Segment Descriptions PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 3A — North of Fort Lupton LC — Colorado Road (CR) 20 MP 243.01 — MP 245.19 37 13 2 52 3B — CR 20 — CR 26 MP 245.20 — MP 248.20 42 25 3 70 3C — CR 26 — Platteville CL Start MP 248.21 — MP 250.64 17 14 1 32 3D — City of Platteville MP 250.65 — MP 253.00 19 9 0 28 3E — Platteville CL End — Gilcrest CL Start MP 253.01 — MP 255.91 22 16 0 38 3F — Town of Gilcrest MP 255.92 — MP 257.00 8 1 0 9 3G — Gilchrest CL End — Greeley Urban Area Start MP 257.01 — MP 262.00 50 28 0 78 Since Segment 3 is classified as a rural, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility, SPFs have been calibrated by CDOT. Figure 17 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a high potential for crash reduction (LOSS IV) for Segments 3A and 3B and a moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS III) for Segment 3G. Figure 18 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS III) for Segment 3B. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 24 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 17 Segment 3 (MP 243.01 — MP 262.00) — Total Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling Four -Lane Divided Highway —Laver Limit (20%) —Taal Upper Limit (80%) • Observed (EB) Expected 10 9 8- Accidents/Mile/Year Accadents/M dere ear 6- 5- 4- 3 - Segment 3B MP 245 20 - MP 248 20 SPF - 4 46 Segment 3G MP 257 01 - MP 262 00 SPF - 3 10 Segment 3E MP253.01-MP25591 SPF - 2.69 Segment 3A MP 243.01 - MP 245 19 SPF - 4 53 5,000 10.000 Segment 3F MP 255 92 - MP 257 00 SPF - 1 85 Segment 3C MP 248 21 - MP 250 64 SPF - 2.89 Segment 3D MP 250.65 - MP 253 00 SPF - 2.39 15.000 20 000 25 000 30.000 35,000 AADT Figure 18 Segment 3 (MP 243.01 — MP 262.00) — Injury & Fatal Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling Four -Lane Divided Highway 45 LLower Limit (20%i + FAT Upper Limit (80%) o Observed (ES) 35 - 2.5 - 15 - 05 - Segment 3E MP253.01-MP25591 SPF- 1 15 Segment 3C MP248.21 -MP 25064 SPF - 134 Segment 3G MP 25701 -MP 26200 SPF - 1 15 Segment 3D MP 250 65 - MP 253 00 SPF - 084 Segment 3F MP 255 92 - MP 257 00 SPF - 0 39 Segment 3B MP 24520-MP24820 SPF - 178 LOSS IV LOSS III LOSS II Segment 3A MP24301-MP24519 SPF - 1 37 LOSS I 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch AADT Page 25 25.000 30,000 35,000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3A (MP 243.01- MP 245.19) Segment 3A begins approximately one-third mile north (MP 243.01) of CR 14.5 (14th Street in Fort Lupton) and extends north to the CR 20 intersection (MP 245.19). There were a total of 52 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 37 PDO crashes, 13 injury crashes and two fatal crashes. Figure 19 presents a graphical representation of the non - intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (36.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by wild animal type crashes (15.4%) and sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (15.4%). Figure 19 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3A: MP 243.01 — MP 245.19) Other Non - Collision Parked Motor Other Object 1 Vehicle 1 1.9% 1 1.9% 1.9% f� - Fixed Object 19 36.5% VVild Animal_ 8 15.4% __Overturning 6 11.5% Rear End 1410 7 13.5% Sideswipe (Same) 8 15.4% _Unknown 1 1.9% Fatal Crashes There were two fatal crashes that occurred in Segment 3A (MP 243.01 — MP 245.19). The first fatal crash occurred at MP 243.33 on July 20, 2008 north of the intersection with CR 16. The crash occurred in dry roadway conditions in the daytime. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on US 85C in the left through lane. Vehicle #2 was ahead of Vehicle #1 in the same lane. Vehicle #1 collided with the passenger side rear corner of Vehicle #2 in a rear end collision, then continued north across the right lane and right shoulder before coming to a stop at the east roadway edge facing south. Vehicle #2 came to a stop in the left lane facing north after being hit by Vehicle #1. Vehicle #1 was traveling 75 mph in a 65 mph (or 45 mph construction zone) before striking Vehicle #2. The crash was noted to be careless driver and distracted/other. Both driver and passenger in Vehicle #1 were ejected and the passenger was the fatality. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. No crash pattern was found. The second fatal crash occurred at MP 243.41 on July 14, 2010 north of the intersection with CR 16. The crash occurred in dry roadway conditions in the night. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on US 85C and was changed lanes from right to left. Vehicle #1 then collided with Vehicle #2 in a sideswipe same direction crash. Both vehicles ran off the left side of the roadway into the center median. Neither vehicle was reported to be speeding. Vehicle #2 was suspected of alcohol use. Both driver and passenger of Vehicle #2 were ejected and the fatality Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 26 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 was in Vehicle #2. Driver of Vehicle #1 was cited for a lane violation but there was no apparent contributing factor. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of sideswipe (same direction) type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes indicated there were five crashes northbound and three crashes southbound. Five of the crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. The sideswipe (same direction) type crashes were throughout Segment 3A. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 20 of the fixed object type crashes, embankment type crashes (47.4%) were the predominant crash type. Of those embankment crashes, one crash occurred northbound and eight crashes occurred southbound. Three of the nine crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. Five of the crashes occurred during icy roadway conditions. Overall, there was a concentration of crashes between MP 243.9 and MP 244.0. A review of these crashes as well as all fixed object crashes in Segment 3A indicates that there is no current pattern to the crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Figure 20 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 3A: MP 243.01 - MP 245.19) Light Pole/Utility Pole 1 Sign 53% 1 Mailbox Embankment 9 47.4% 5.3°% 1 5.3% Cable Rail 3 15.8% Delineator Post 2 10.5% Fence 2 10.5% Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 27 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3B (MP 245.20 - MP 248.20) Segment 3B begins at the CR 20 intersection (MP 245.20) and extends north to the CR 26 intersection (MP 248.20). There were a total of 70 non -intersection crashes along this sub - segment of US 85C: 42 PDO crashes, 25 injury crashes and three fatal crashes. Figure 21 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Overturning type crashes (37.1%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (32.9%) and wild animal type crashes (10.0%). Figure 21 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3B: MP 245.20 — MP 248.20) Fatal Crashes There were three fatal crashes that occurred in Segment 3B (MP 245.20 - MP 248.20). The first fatal crash occurred at MP 246.01 on February 28, 2009 south of the intersection with CR 22. The crash occurred in dry roadway conditions at night. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C. Vehicle #1 ran off the left side of the roadway into the center median and collided with a delineator post. Vehicle #1 continued in the center median and overturned, rotating two and a half times before coming to a rest. The driver was ejected from the vehicle and was the resulting fatality. Alcohol was listed as the cause of the crash. No crash pattern was found. The second fatal crash occurred at MP 246.02 on March 2, 2008 south of the intersection with CR 22. The crash occurred in dry roadway conditions at night. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C. Vehicle #1 ran off the left side of the roadway into the center median and collided with a highway sign. Vehicle #1 rolled % times and partially ejected the driver. The driver was the resulting fatality. Alcohol was listed as the cause of the crash. No crash pattern was found. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 28 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The first third crash occurred at MP 247.58 on March 30, 2009 south of the intersection with CR 24.5. The crash occurred in icy roadway conditions in the dawn or dusk. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on US 85C in the left through lane and Vehicle #2 was traveling southbound on US 85C Vehicle #1 lost control. crossed over the median, and collided with the side of Vehicle #2 in a side swipe opposite direction crash. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were 12 crashes northbound and 16 crashes southbound. Twenty of the crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. The overturning type crashes were throughout Segment 3B. A review of the crash history indicates that there were concentrations of crashes at MP 246.0 (four crashes) and between MP 246.8 and MP 247.0 (ten crashes). There were four crashes (one fatal and three injury) at MP 240.0 all occurred at night with dry roads, two were alcohol -related, one driver fell asleep, and one had an illness. At the northerly area (MP 246.8 and MP 247.0), the only identifiable pattern was eight went off the road on the left. It should be noted that this sub -segment has rumble strips along the outside shoulders, and a cable rail barrier has recently been constructed in the median. The barrier should help reduce the number and severity of overturning crashes into the median. Thus, there are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 22 of the fixed object type crashes, embankment type crashes (30.4%) were the predominant crash type. Of those embankment crashes, six crashes occurred northbound, and one crash occurred southbound. Five of the seven crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. Two of the crashes occurred during icy roadway conditions. Five of the fixed object crashes were fence type crashes. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the fixed object type crashes. At this time, there are no suggestions for improvement beyond the recently installed cable rail median barrier. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 29 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 22 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 3B: MP 245.20 - MP 248.20) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 30 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3C (MP 248.21 MP 250.64) Segment 3C begins at the CR 26 intersection (MP 248.21) and extends north to the intersection with SH 66 (MP 250.64). There were a total of 32 non -intersection crashes along this sub - segment of US 85C: 17 PDO crashes, 14 injury crashes and one fatal crash. Figure 23 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (34.4%) were the predominant crash type followed by overturning type crashes (28.1%) and rear end type crashes (12.5%). Figure 23 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3C: MP 248.21 — MP 250.64) Fixed Object 11 34.4% Other Non - Collision 1 3.1% Head On Sideswipe 1 Domestic Animal 3.1 °�� , (Opposite) 1 1 3.1% 3.1% Other Object 1 3.1% Overturning 9 28.1% Wild Animal 3 9.4% Fatal Crash There was one fatal crash that occurred in Segment 3C (MP 248.21 — MP 250.64). The fatal crash occurred at MP 248.45 on December 19, 2010 north of the intersection with CR 26. The crash occurred in dry roadway conditions in the daytime. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C, and Vehicle #2 was traveling northbound on US 85C Vehicle #1 crossed over the center grass median and entered the northbound roadway. Vehicle #1 collided head-on with Vehicle #2. and then continued northeast before going off the edge of the east roadway. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were eight crashes northbound and one crashes southbound. Eight of the crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions Seven of the nine overturning type crashes occurred south of CR 28 between MP 248.80 and MP 249.10, which is a straight section of road. It should be noted that this sub -segment has rumble strips along the outside shoulders, and a cable rail barrier has recently been constructed in the median. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 31 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 There are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 24 of the fixed object type crashes, embankment type crashes (27.3%) were the predominant crash type. Of those embankment crashes, two crashes occurred northbound and one crash occurred southbound. All three of the crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. Three of the fixed object crashes were guardrail type crashes. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the fixed object type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Figure 24 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 3C: MP 248.21 — MP 250.64) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 32 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3D (MP 250.65 - MP 253.00) Segment 3D begins at the intersection with SH 66 (MP 250.65) in Platteville and extends north to approximately one -quarter mile south (MP 253.00) of the intersection with CR 36. There were a total of 28 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 19 PDO crashes and 9 injury crashes. Figure 25 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (39.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (17.9%) and overturning type crashes (17.9%). Figure 25 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3D: MP 250.65 — MP 253.00) Observations / Recommendations The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 26 of the fixed object type crashes, fence type crashes (36.4%) and culvert/headwall type crashes were the predominant crash types. Of the fence crashes, three crashes occurred northbound, and one crash occurred southbound. All four of the fence type crashes occurred during snowy/icy/slushy roadway conditions. Of the culvert/headwall type crashes, three crashes occurred northbound. and one crash occurred southbound. Only one of the culvert/headwall type crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the fixed object type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 33 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 26 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 3D: MP 250.65 - MP 253.00) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 34 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3E (MP 253.01 - MP 255.91) Segment 3E begins approximately one -quarter mile south (MP 253.01) of the intersection with CR 36 and extends north to the intersection with CR 40 (MP 255.91). There were a total of 38 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 22 PDO crashes and 16 injury crashes. Figure 27 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Overturning type crashes (47.4%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (18.4%) and other object type crashes (13.2%). Figure 27 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3E: MP 253.01 — MP 255.91) Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were 12 crashes northbound and six crashes southbound. Seven of the crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. Eleven of the 18 vehicles that overturned went off the left side of the road. These crashes occurred throughout Segment 3E. It should be noted that this sub -segment has rumble strips along the outside shoulders, and a cable rail barrier has recently been constructed in the median. The barrier should help reduce the number and severity of overturning crashes into the median. Thus, there are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 28 of the fixed object type crashes. delineator post crashes (42.9%) were the predominant crash type. Of the delineator crashes. two crashes occurred northbound, and one crash occurred southbound. Two of the crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the fixed object type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 35 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 28 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 3E: MP 253.01 - MP 255.91) Sign 2 28.6% / Delineator Post 3 42.9% Embankment 2 28.6% Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 36 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3F (MP 255.92 - MP 257.00) Segment 3F begins at the intersection with CR 40 (MP 255.92) and extends north to approximately one -quarter mile south (MP 257.00) of the intersection with CR 42. There were a total of nine non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: eight PDO crashes and one injury crash. Figure 29 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (44.4%) and overturning type crashes (44.4%) were the predominant crash types. Figure 29 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3F: MP 255.92 — MP 257.00) Observations / Recommendations Although the frequency of crashes was not higher than expected for this type of roadway, and four of each fixed object overturning crashes in a five-year period is not considered a pattern. Therefore, there are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 37 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 3G (MP 257.01 MP 262.00) Segment 3G begins approximately one -quarter mile south (MP 257.01) of the intersection with CR 42 and extends north to approximately 600 feet north (MP 262.00) of the UPRR overpass in south LaSalle. There were a total of 78 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 50 PDO crashes and 28 injury crashes. Figure 30 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (38.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by overturning type crashes (26.9%) and rear end type crashes (12.9%). Figure 30 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3G: MP 257.01 — MP 262.00) Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were 14 crashes northbound, six crashes southbound, and one crash westbound. Thirteen of the crashes occurred in dry roadway conditions. Twelve of the 21 vehicles that overturned went off the left side of the road: six went off the right side. These crashes occurred throughout Segment 3G. It should be noted that this sub -segment has rumble strips along the outside shoulders, and a cable rail barrier has recently been constructed in the median. The barrier should help reduce the number and severity of overturning crashes into the median. Thus, there are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 38 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 31 of the fixed object type crashes, embankment type crashes (30.0%) were the predominant crash type. Of those embankment crashes, six crashes occurred northbound, and three crashes occurred southbound. Seven of the crashes occurred during dry roadway conditions. Seven of the fixed object crashes were sign type crashes. A review of the crash history indicates that the crashes occurred throughout the sub -segment, although there were concentrations between MP 258.69 and MP 258.76 (6 crashes — 3 off left) as well as at MP 261.3 (4 crashes — 3 off left). The cable rail barrier that was recently been constructed in the median should reduce the likelihood of these crashes becoming more serious. There are no further suggestions for improvement at this time. Figure 31 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 3G: MP 257.01 — MP 262.00) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 39 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 4: US 85C MP 262.01 - MP 265.76 Segment 4 begins approximately 600 feet north (MP 262.01) of the UPRR overpass in south LaSalle and extends to approximately 2,300 feet north (MP 265.76) of the intersection with 31st Street in Evans at the interchange with SH 34. During the five-year study period there were 68 non -intersection crashes reported within the segment. This segment is classified as an urban, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility, and it has an access category of EX. Figure 32 shows the US 85C Segment 4 in relation to the study area. Segment 4 is 3.75 miles and it was broken into two sub -segments for the detailed analyses. Table 5 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 32 Segment 4 Vicinity Map US 85C (MP 238.33 — MP 243.00) Table 5 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 4 US 85C (MP 262.01 - MP 265.76) Sub -Segment Descriptions Mile Points Number of Crashes PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 4A — Greeley Urban (Town of La Salle) MP 262.01 — MP 263.80 16 7 0 23 4B — Greeley Urban Area (City of Evans) — US 34 Interchange MP 263.81 — MP 265.76 31 13 1 45 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 40 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 4A (MP 262.01- 263.80) Segment 4A begins approximately 600 feet north (MP 262.00) of the UPRR overpass in south LaSalle and extends north to approximately 1.900 feet north (MP 263.80) of CR 52, the southern portion of the South Platte River crossing. There were a total of 23 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 16 PDO crashes and 7 injury crashes along this US 85C segment. Figure 33 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (43.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (30.4%). Figure 33 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 4A: MP 262.01 — MP 263.80) Observations / Recommendations There were no significant crash types in this segment of US 85C. However, it is worth noting that the fixed object type crashes had 10 crashes of which only five occurred on dry roadway conditions. Directionally, seven crashes were northbound and three crashes were southbound. The fixed object type crashes were primarily concentrated near the southern portion of the bridge over the South Platte River. It can be seen in Figure 34 of the fixed object type crashes, guard rail type crashes (30.0%) and delineator post type crashes (30.0%)were the predominant crash type followed by bridge rail and embankment (each 20%). Guardrail and bridge rail are normally designed and located to prevent crashes that are more serious. Based on a review of the crash history, it is recommended that the existing snow/ice removal procedures be reviewed to ensure existing procedures are sufficient. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 41 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 34 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 4A: MP 262.01 - MP 263.80) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 42 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 4B (MP 263.81 265.76) Segment 4B lies begins approximately 1,600 feet south (MP 263.81) of the intersection with 42' Street and extends north to the interchange with US 34 (MP 263.81). There were a total of 45 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85C: 31 PDO crashes, 13 injury crashes and one fatal crash. Figure 35 presents a graphical representation of the non - intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Rear end type crashes (48.9%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (22.2%). Figure 35 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 4B: MP 263.81 — MP 265.76) Rear End 22 48.9% Pedestrian _Parked Motor Other Non- 1 Vehicle Collision _2.2% 1 1 2.2% 2.2% Overturning 5 /1:00;11.1% Sideswipe (Same) 5 11.1% Fixed Object 10 22.2% Fatal Crashes There was one fatal crash that occurred within Segment 4B. The crash occurred at MP 264.54 on February 20, 2010 south of the intersection of 37th Street. The crash occurred in dry dark - unlighted conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound (approximately 0.25 mile south of 37th Street) struck a pedestrian that was walking southbound along US 85C. The pedestrian was suspected of alcohol intoxication and was the fatality. No cause was noted. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were 14 crashes northbound, six crashes southbound. one crash eastbound, and one crash westbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that 20 of the 22 crashes were dry road conditions. Eighteen of the 22 crashes occurred during daylight lighting conditions. This crash pattern could be related to close approximate to intersections within the segment. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern, and there are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Reference the intersection section of this report for additional recommendations within this sub - segment of US 85C. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 43 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 5: US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 273.00 Segment 5 begins near the UPRR overpasses (MP 265.85) within the interchange with US 34 and extends to approximately one-half mile north (MP 273.00) of the intersection with SH 392/CR 68. During the five-year study period there were 113 non -intersection crashes reported within the segment. This segment is classified as an urban, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility, and it has an access category of EX. Figure 36 shows the US 85L Segment 5 in relation to the study area. Segment 5 is 7.15 miles, and it was broken into two sub -segments for the detailed analyses. Table 6 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 36 Segment 5 Vicinity Map US 85L (MP 265.85 — MP 273.00) Table 6 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 5 US 85L (MP 265.85 - MP 273.00) Sub -Segment Descriptions Mile Points Number of Crashes PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 5A - City of Greeley MP 265.85 - MP 269.50 49 14 1 64 5B - City of Greeley MP 269.51 - MP 273.00 30 18 1 49 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 44 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 5A (MP 265.85 - 269.50) Segment 5A begins near the UPRR overpasses within the interchange with US 34 (MP 265.85) and extends north to one -mile north of the intersection with 5th Street (MP 268.49) in Greeley. There were a total of 64 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: 49 PDO crashes, 14 injury crashes and one fatal crash. Figure 37 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Rear end type crashes (39.1%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (26.6%). Figure 37 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 5A: MP 265.85 — MP 269.50) Other Non - Collision _ 1 1.6% Rear End 25 39.1% Pedestrian Wild Animal I) 3.1% 1 Fixed Object 17 26.6% _3.1'V, _Overturning 6 9.4% Sideswipe (Same) 11 17.2% Fatal Crashes The fatal crash occurred on August 29. 2010 at MP 266.02, north of the US 34 interchange. The crash occurred in dry daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 (a motorcycle) was traveling southbound on the exit ramp from US 85C to westbound US 34 and collided with the guardrail on the curve in the ramp. Vehicle #1 was reported to be traveling 60 mph in a 45 mph ramp. Alcohol and drugs was suspected for both the driver and passenger of Vehicle #1. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were nine crashes northbound and 16 crashes southbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that 22 of the 25 crashes were dry road conditions. Eighteen of the 25 crashes occurred during daylight lighting conditions. This crash pattern seen above could be related to close approximate to intersections within the segment. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern, and there are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Reference the intersection section of this report for additional recommendations within this sub -segment of US 85L. The frequency of sideswipe (same direction) type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes indicated there were seven crashes northbound and four crashes southbound. All 11 of the crashes occurred in dry Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Page 45 Engineering Branch March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 roadway conditions. The sideswipe (same direction) type crashes were located throughout Segment 5A. A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to the sideswipe (same direction) type crashes. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 38 of the fixed object type crashes, guardrail type crashes (52.9%) were the predominant crash type followed by concrete barrier type crashes (17.6%). A review of the guard type crashes indicated that eight of the nine crashes occurred north of the US 85/US 34 interchange. Of those guardrail crashes, one crash occurred northbound and eight crashes occurred southbound. Seven of the nine crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. Four of the vehicles were noted as exceeding the posted speed limit (45 mph). Guardrail and concrete barrier are normally designed and located to prevent crashes that are more serious. It is recommended that a solar powered dynamic speed message display (DSMD — radar) be considered near the beginning of the curves to warn drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit. Figure 38 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 5A: MP 265.85 — MP 269.50) Delineator Post 1 Fence 1 Other Fixed 5.9% Object 1 5.9% Guard Rail 9 52.9% 5.9% Embankment 2 11.8% Concrete Barrier 3 17.6% Although there is no significant pattern of off -road left or head-on crashes, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered due to the high volumes and narrow median from MP 268.7 to the north. Rumble strips should be considered for both inside and outside shoulders through this section (and shoulders widened if necessary). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 46 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 5B (MP 269.51- 273.00) Segment 5B begins one -mile north of the intersection with 5th Street (MP 268.49) in Greeley and extends north to approximately the mid -point (MP 273.00) between CR 68 and 70. There were a total of 49 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: 30 PDO crashes. 18 injury crashes and one fatal crash. Figure 39 presents a graphical representation of the non - intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (53.1%) were the predominant crash type followed by overturning type crashes (26.5%). Figure 39 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 5B: MP 269.51 — 273.00) Parked Motor Sideswipe Vehicle (Same) 1 Other Object 2 Other Non - 2.0% _ 1 _4.1% Collision 2.0% 3 _6.1% Fixed Object 26 53.1% Rear End 3 6.1 `%� P s Overturning 13 26.5% Fatal Crashes The fatal crash occurred on August 15, 2008 at MP 270.41, north of the US 85G Business route split. The crash occurred during wet roadway conditions at 19:45. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on US 85G Bypass. Vehicle #1 lost control on the wet roads and traveled into the center median hitting a traffic sign. Driver was the fatality. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. Vehicle was noted to be going 5 mph over the speed limit of 55 mph. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of off -road, off -road right, and off -road left crashes were higher than expected for this type of roadway; there were 42 crashes with these outcomes. There were dry road conditions when slightly more than half (23) of the crashes occurred. There were approximately equal numbers during daylight versus dark, dawn, or dusk, and the directional split between northbound and southbound crashes was nearly equal. It is recommended that cable rail median barrier be considered to help reduce the number and severity of crashes into the median due to the high number of vehicles leaving the roadway. Rumble strips should be considered for outside shoulders (which should be widened as necessary to accommodate rumble strips). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 47 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 40 of the fixed object type crashes, embankment type crashes (38.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by guardrail type crashes (30.8%). Figure 40 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 5B: MP 269.51 — 273.00) A review of the embankment type crashes indicated that two crashes occurred northbound and eight crashes occurred southbound. Six of the ten crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. Only three of the crashes occurred during daylight conditions. Six of the ten crashes occurred between MP 272.63 and MP 273.00, just to the north of CR 68. As mentioned previously, rumble strips should be specifically considered between MP 272.63 and MP 273.00 for both inside and outside shoulders. Outside shoulders should be widened as necessary to accommodate rumble strips. A variable message sign (VMS) for each direction that is tied into pavement conditions sensors to warn drivers of slippery conditions should be considered through this section. A review of the guardrail type crashes indicated that three crashes occurred northbound and five crashes occurred southbound. Half of the eight crashes occurred during daylight lighting conditions. Only one of the eight occurred with dry roadway conditions. Seven of the eight guardrail crashes occurred between MP 270.22 and MP 270.35 (the location relatively tight curves in both directions and a long bridge in the southbound direction). It is recommended the existing snow/ice removal procedures be reviewed to ensure existing procedures are sufficient. The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were eight crashes northbound. four crashes southbound, and one eastbound. Ten of the 13 occurred on dry roadway conditions. Six of the ten overturning type crashes were located between MP 272.78 to MP 273.00. Of the six, none were indicated to be going over the posted speed limit of 65 mph. Three of the six that occurred in close proximity of each other occurred in daylight lighting conditions. The previously mentioned cable rail barrier, rumble strips, and review of existing snow/ice removal procedures should also help reduce the number and severity of overturning crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 48 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 6: US 85L MP 273.01 - MP 280.27 Segment 6 begins approximately one-half mile north of the intersection with SH 392/CR 68 (MP 273.01) and extends north to the intersection with Jackie Ann Street and 1St Street (MP 280.27) in Ault. During the five-year study period there were 50 non -intersection crashes reported within the segment: 35 PDO crashes and 15 injury crashes. This segment is classified as a rural, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility, and it has an access category of EX, except for short Nor -Rural Regional Highway (NR -A) or Non -Rural Arterial (NR -B) sections in Eaton and Ault. Figure 41 shows the US 85L Segment 6 in relation to the study area. Segment 6 is 7.26 miles, and it was broken into four sub -segments for the detailed analyses. Table 7 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 41 Segment 6 Vicinity Map US 85L (MP 273.01 - MP 280.27) Table 7 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 6 US 85L (MP 273.01 - MP 280.27) Sub -Segment Descriptions Mile Points Number of Crashes PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 6A — Rural — South of Eaton MP 273.01 — MP 275.00 13 8 0 21 6B — Town of Eaton MP 275.01 — MP 276.10 13 2 0 15 6C — Rural — South of Ault MP 276.11 — MP 279.26 5 5 0 10 6D — Town of Ault MP 279.27 — MP 280.27 4 0 0 4 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 49 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Since Segment 6 is classified as a rural, four -lane rolling (U -4-R) facility. SPFs have been calibrated by CDOT. Figure 42 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a high potential for crash reduction (LOSS IV) for Segment 6B and a moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS III) for Segment 6A. Figure 43 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction (LOSS III) for all sub -segments of Segment 6. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 50 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 42 Segment 6 (MP 273.01 — MP 280.27) — Total Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling Four -Lane Divided Highway Lower Limit (20%) —Tsai — Upper Limit (80°0) • Observed (EB) = Expected 3 LOSS N 25 - 2 0 m a t5 — C 0 V u 1 — Accidents/Mile/Year 05 — r F r Segment 68 MP 27501 • MP 276 10 SPF - 2 52 Segment 6D MP 279 27 - MP 280 27 SPF - 0 89 r • LOSS III LOSS 11 Segment 6A MP 273 01 - MP 275 00 SPF - 208 LOSSI J -. Segment 6C MP 276 11 - MP 279 26 SPF - 0.83 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 AADT 10 000 12 000 14 Figure 43 Segment 6 (MP 273.01 — MP 280.27) — Injury & Fatal Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling Four -Lane Divided Highway 16 14 12 1 —Lower Limit (20%) I NJ + FAT upper Lim,t (80%) o Observed (EB, 08 — • Segment 6C MP 276 11 - MP 279 26 SPF - 0 41 Segment 6D 0 6 — MP 279 27 - MP 280 27 SPF 0 19 04 02 - 0 _ n • Segment 68 MP 275 01 - MP 276 10 SPF - 0 49 r 2 000 4 000 6 000 AADT H LOSS IV LOSS II LOSS I Segment 6A MP 273 01 - MP 275 00 SPF • 0 82 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 51 8 000 10000 12 000 14 000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 6A (MP 273.01 - MP 275.00) Segment 6A begins near the mid -point between CR 68 and 70 (MP 273.00) and extends north to approximately 1,150 feet south (MP 275.00) of Colorado Parkway in Eaton. There were a total of 21 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: 13 PDO crashes and eight injury crashes. Figure 44 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Overturning type crashes (52.4%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (33.3%). Figure 44 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 6A: MP 273.01 — MP 275.00) Observations / Recommendations The frequency of overturning type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. A review of the overturning type crashes indicated there were eight crashes northbound and three crashes southbound. Five of the 11 crashes occurred on icy/slushy roadway conditions. Five of the 11 overturning type crashes were located between MP 273.47 to MP 273.50 (the vicinity of the intersection with CR 70). Of the five crashes at that location, only one was indicated to be going over the posted speed limit of 65 mph. Two of the five that occurred in daylight lighting conditions and only one crash was in dry roadway conditions. The southbound roadway appears to have adequate outside shoulder width and some sections have rumble strips. It is recommended that CDOT consider widening the northbound outside shoulder so that rumble strips can be constructed along the entire sub -segment. While off -left crashes are not noted as significant, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered throughout the sub - segment. It is also recommended to review the existing snow/ice removal procedures to ensure existing procedures are sufficient. The frequency of crashes in dark -unlighted conditions was higher than expected for this type of roadway. Eleven of the 21 crashes were in dark -unlighted conditions. The crashes were throughout the Segment 6A with two clusters of crashes, MP 273.02 - MP 273.10 (4 crashes) and MP 273.47 — MP 273.51 (4 crashes). It is recommended to review the retroreflectivity of all signs, delineator posts, and pavement markings to make sure they meet standards. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 52 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 6B (MP 275.01- MP 276.10) Segment 6B approximately 1,150 feet south (MP 275.00) of Colorado Parkway in Eaton and extends north to the intersection of 5th Street (MP 276.10) in Eaton. There were a total of 15 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: 13 PDO crashes and two injury crashes. Figure 45 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Overturning type crashes (26.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by parked motor vehicle type crashes (20.0% and sideswipe (same direction) type crashes (20.0%). Figure 45 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 6B: MP 275.01 — MP 276.10) Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there are no significant patterns to crashes along Segment 6B. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 53 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 6C (MP 276.11- MP 279.26) Segment 6C begins at the intersection of 5th Street (MP 276.11) in Eaton and extends north to approximately 1,900 feet south (MP 279.26) of B Street in Ault. There were a total of 10 non - intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: five PDO crashes and five injury crashes. Figure 46 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Overturning type crashes (50.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (30.0%). Figure 46 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 6C: MP 276.11 — MP 279.26) Overturning 5 50 0% Rear End 1 Sideswipe 10.0% (Same) 1 10.0% idah Fixed Object 3 30.0% Observations / Recommendations Although the frequency of overturning type crashes was not higher than expected for this type of roadway, a review of the overturning type crashes indicated some concern. All five of the crashes were northbound. Four of the five crashes occurred on dry roadway conditions. Alcohol was involved in two of crashes. These five crashes were spread through Segment 6C. The southbound roadway appears to have adequate outside shoulder width with rumble strips installed. It is recommended that CDOT consider widening the northbound outside shoulder so that rumble strips can be constructed. North of CR 37 (MP 276.86), US 85L returns to the cross section with a depressed median. While off -left crashes are not noted as significant, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered through this section. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 54 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 6D (MP 279.27 - MP 280.27) Segment 6D begins approximately 1,900 feet south of B Street (MP 279.62) and extends north to the intersection with Jackie Ann Street and 1St Avenue (MP 280.27) in Ault. There were a total of four non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: all four were PDO crashes. Figure 47 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub - segment. Fixed object type crashes (75.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by a broadside type crash (25.0%). Figure 47 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 6D: MP 279.27 — MP 280.27) Broadside 1 25.0% Fixed Object 3 75.0% Observations / Recommendations Although the frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway, three crashes in a five-year period is not considered a pattern. The most southerly one -quarter mile of this sub -section has a cross section with a depressed median. The southbound roadway appears to have adequate outside shoulder width with rumble strips installed. It is recommended that CDOT consider widening the northbound outside shoulder so that rumble strips can be constructed. While off -left crashes are not noted as significant, it is recommended that a cable rail median barrier be considered through this section with a depressed median. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 55 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 7: US 85L MP 280.28 - MP 290.00 Segment 7 begins at the intersection with Jackie Ann Street and 1St Street (MP 280.28) in Ault and extends north to one -mile north (MP 290.00) of the intersection with CR 100. During the five-year study period there were 34 non -intersection crashes reported within the segment: 27 PDO crashes and 7 injury crashes. This segment is classified as a rural, two-lane rolling (R -2-R) facility. and it has an access category of EX, except for a short Non -Rural Arterial (NR -B) section through Nunn. Figure 48 shows the US 85L Segment 7 in relation to the study area. Segment 7 is 9.72 miles long, and it was broken into two sub -segments for the detailed analyses. Table 8 displays the divisions and crash summaries for each sub -segment. Figure 48 Segment 7 Vicinity Map US 85L (MP 280.2873.01 - MP 280.27) Table 8 Number of Non -Intersection Crashes — Segment 7 US 85L (MP 280.28 - MP 290.00) Sub -Segment Descriptions Mile Points Number of Crashes PDO INJ FAT TOTAL 7A — Town of Pierce MP 280.28 — MP 283.90 12 3 0 15 7B — Town of Nunn MP 283.91 — MP 290.00 15 4 0 19 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 56 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Since Segment 7 is classified as a rural, two-lane rolling (U -2-R) facility, SPFs have been calibrated by CDOT. Figure 49 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction (LOSS II) for both Segments 7A and 7B. Figure 50 also shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction (LOSS II) for both Segments 7A and 7B. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 57 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 49 Segment 7 (MP 280.28 — MP 290.00) — Total Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling 2 -Lane Divided Highway Accidents/Mile/Year Accidents/MiieNear 3_ r---- Lava Limit (20%) Total Upper Limit (80%) • Observed (EB) Expected 3 — 25 — 2 15 1 05 0 i .- Segment 78 MP28391 MP29000 SPF - 0 74 2.000 t. 3 000 A 1 4.000 5.000 MDT 6 000 7 000 8 000 Segment 7A MP 280 28 - MP 283 90 SPF - 0 95 LOSS IV 9 000 Figure 50 Segment 7 (MP 280.28 — MP 290.00) — Injury and Fatal Crashes per Year Rural Flat and Rolling 2 -Lane Divided Highway 06 - 04 02 —Laver Limit I20% 'NJ f FAT Upper Limit (80%) o Observed (EB) L Segment 78 MP 28391 h1P2900 SPF - 0 28 L -, Segment 7A MP 280 28 - MP 283 90 SPF-034 L J LOSS IV LOSS III LOSS II 1 toss+ 1 000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 2 000 3 000 MDT Page 58 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 7A (MP 280.28 - MP 283.90) Segment 7A begins at the intersection with Jackie Ann Street and 1St Avenue (MP 280.28) in Ault and extends north to the intersection of CR 90 (MP 283.90) in Pierce. There were a total of 15 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: 12 PDO crashes and two injury crashes. Figure 51 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (60.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by head-on and wild animal type crashes (20.0% each). Figure 51 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 7A: MP 280.28 — MP 283.90) _Head On 3 20.0% gooses Fixed Object 9 60.0°%0 Wild . Animal 3 20.0% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of roadway. It can be seen in Figure 52 of the fixed object type crashes, fence and embankment type crashes (33.3% each) were the predominant crash type. A review of the fixed object type crashes indicated that eight of the nine crashes occurred between MP 280.5 and MP 281.50. Of these crashes, six crashes occurred northbound and three crashes occurred southbound. Four of the nine crashes occurred with dry roadway conditions. In addition, off -road and off -road right type crashes were higher than expected for this type of roadway. Outside of Pierce or where there is adjacent residential development, it is recommended that CDOT consider widening the shoulders sufficiently so that outside rumble strips can be constructed for both directions. In addition, a centerline rumble strip should also be considered through this sub -segment, as it might help both head-on and off -road left type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 59 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 52 Fixed Object Crash Types (Segment 7A: MP 280.28 - MP 283.90) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 60 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Segment 7B (MP 283.91 MP 290.00) Segment 7B begins intersection of CR 90 (MP 283.90) in Pierce and extends north to one -mile north (MP 290.00) of the intersection with CR 100. There were a total of 19 non -intersection crashes along this sub -segment of US 85L: 15 PDO crashes and four injury crashes. Figure 53 presents a graphical representation of the non -intersection crash types for this sub -segment. Fixed object type crashes (31.6%) were the predominant crash type followed by wild animal and overturning type crashes (15.8% each). Figure 53 Non -Intersection Crash Types (Segment 7B: MP 283.91 — MP 290.00) Fixed Object 6 31 6% Wild Animal 3 15.8% Other Non -Collision 1 Rear End 5.3% 2 10.5% Overturning 3 15.8% Sideswipe (Opposite) 2 10.5% Railway Vehicle 2 10.5% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there are no significant patterns to crashes along Segment 7B. Outside of Nunn or where there is adjacent residential development, it is recommended that CDOT consider widening the shoulders sufficiently so that outside rumble strips can be constructed for both directions. A wider shoulder has been constructed north of CR 100 (MP 289.15) to the end of Segment 7B. Rumble strips should be installed here also. In addition, a centerline rumble strip should also be considered through this sub -segment, as it might help both sideswipe (opposite) and off -road left type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 61 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Intersection Crash Analysis The magnitude of safety problems at intersections can also be assessed through the use of SPFs. The SPF reflects the complex relationship between exposure (measured in ADT on all legs of the intersection) and the crash count for an intersection measured in crashes per year. The SPF models provide an estimate of the normal or expected crash frequency and severity for a range of ADT among similar intersection facilities. All of the dataset preparation was performed using the CDOT crash databases. Crash history for each intersection was prepared using the most recent five years of available crash data. As previously discussed in the segment evaluation, if the level of safety predicted by the SPF represents a normal or expected number of crashes at a specific level of ADT, then the degree of deviation from the norm can be stratified to represent specific levels of safety. LOSS -I — Indicates low potential for crash reduction LOSS -II — Indicates better than expected safety performance LOSS -III — Indicates less than expected safety performance LOSS -IV — Indicates high potential for crash reduction Table 9 shows the location and number of crashes at the intersections along the study corridor. There are 112 intersections with 24 intersections signalized within the 63.11 miles of US 85 study area. Fifty-seven of those are adjacent to railroad crossings. In urban areas, there are 20 signalized intersections and 16 unsignalized intersections. In rural areas, there are four signalized intersections and 72 unsignalized intersections. Only intersections with five (one per year) or more crashes are studied in detail in the following section of the report. The above described SPF intersection analysis methodology was used in the analysis of the signalized intersections in urban areas along the study segment. The results of these analyses are discussed in more detail in the following section. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 62 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Table 9 Intersection Related Crashes by Location Intersection By Cross Street with US 85 MP Legs Signalized Crash Total SH 44 All 04th Avenue 227.39 4 Yes 115 Long Peak Drive 227.91 3 No 8 112th Avenue 228.57 4 Yes 7 120th Avenue 229.76 4 Yes 67 SH 22A/124th Avenue 230.29 4 Yes 40 132nd Avenue 231.38 4 No 5 136th Avenue 231.93 4 Yes 35 144th Avenue 233.04 4 No 18 Bromley Lane 234.09 4 Yes 91 Denver Street 235.60 4 No 12 CR 2/168th Avenue 236.03 4 Yes 46 CR 2.5 236.55 3 No 8 CR 4 237.06 3 No 4 CR 6 238.09 4 Yes 6 CR 6.25/6.5 238.33 4 No 3 CR 8 239.08 4 No 14 CR 14.5/14th Street 242.66 4 Yes 26 CR 16 243.21 3 No 9 CR 18 244.21 4 No 23 CR 18.5 244.70 3 No 3 CR 20 245.21 4 No 1 CR 22 246.21 4 No 12 CR 25.5 246.33 3 No 0 CR 22.5 246.71 4 No 5 CR 24 247.19 4 No 2 CR 24.5 247.70 4 No 1 CR 26 248.20 4 No 1 CR 28 249.22 4 No 10 CR 30 250.25 3 No 2 SH 66 250.65 4 Yes 27 Marion Avenue 251.06 4 No 2 CR 32 251.22 4 Yes 30 CR 34 252.23 4 No 3 CR 36 253.27 4 No 5 SH 60/CR 27 253.81 3 No 6 CR 38 254.60 4 No 2 CR 29/CR 38.5 255.26 4 No 0 CR 40 255.91 4 No 0 Main Street 256.55 4 No 2 CR 31 256.86 4 No 3 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 63 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Intersection By Cross Street with US 85 MP Legs Signalized Crash Total CR 42 257.26 4 Yes 7 CR 33 258.37 4 No 1 CR 44 258.60 4 No 28 CR 46/CR 35 259.93 4 No 8 CR 48 W 261.32 3 No 3 CR 37/CR 48 E 261A2 4 No 3 Sunset Drive 262.47 4 No 0 1st Avenue/SH 375 262.63 4 Yes 7 2nd Avenue 262.72 4 No 1 3rd Avenue 262.81 4 No 0 4th Avenue 262.90 4 No 0 5th Avenue 262.99 4 No 5 1St Street 263.13 3 No 2 SH 394/CR 52 263.44 4 No 8 42nd Street 264.11 4 Yes 32 39th Street 264.48 4 No 1 CR 54/371h Street 264.71 4 Yes 39 31St Street 265.19 4 Yes 42 22nd Street 266.65 4 Yes 49 18th Street/ US 34 267.18 4 Yes 36 16th Street 267.44 4 Yes 41 13th Street 267.77 4 Yes 12 8th Street/SH 263A 268.22 4 Yes 32 5th Street 268.49 4 Yes 15 O Street 270.43 3 No 7 11th Avenue 271.19 3 No 6 CR 66 271.48 4 No 4 CR 68/SH 392A 272.48 4 Yes 48 CR 70 273.50 4 No 3 CR 72 274.50 4 No 4 Colorado Parkway 275.22 4 No 0 Orchard Street 275.49 3 No 1 CR 74 + Collins Street 275.59 4 Yes 13 1St Street 275.65 4 No 0 2nd Street 275.76 4 No 0 3rd Street 275.87 3 No 0 4th Street 275.96 3 No 0 5th Street 276.07 4 No 2 7th Street 276.35 3 No 0 CR 76 276.62 4 No 5 CR 37 276.86 4 No 0 CR 78 277.74 4 No 1 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 64 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Intersection By Cross Street with US 85 MP Legs Signalized Crash Total CR 80 278.74 4 No 2 B Street 279.62 3 No 1 A Street 279.69 3 No 1 SH 14C 279.76 4 Yes 10 2"d Street 279.84 3 No 1 3rd Street 279.91 4 No 1 Allison Street 280.02 3 No 0 Fry Street 280.08 3 No 0 Jackie Ann Street 280.26 4 No 0 15t Avenue 280.28 3 No 0 CR 84 280.83 4 No 2 CR 86 281.87 4 No 2 CR 88 282.91 4 No 3 Main Street 283.61 4 No 0 Shafer Avenue 283.67 4 No 0 Park Avenue 283.79 4 No 0 CR 90 283.89 4 No 3 CR 92 284.81 4 No 0 CR 94 285.83 4 No 1 CR 96 286.86 4 No 4 CR 98 287.84 4 No 2 8th Court 288.23 3 No 0 7th Street 288.29 3 No 0 6th Street 288.31 3 No 0 5th Street 288.41 3 No 0 4th Street 288.53 4 No 2 3rd Street 288.60 3 No 0 Logan Avenue 288.65 3 No 0 2nd Street 288.68 3 No 0 CR 100 289.00 4 No 6 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 65 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 44 (104th Avenue) (MP 227.39 & MP 1.80) The intersection of US 85C and SH 44 (104th Avenue) is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection just north of 1-76 in Commerce City. The east and west approaches have dual left - turn lanes with one through lane on each approach. The north and south approaches have single left -turn lanes with two through lanes on both approaches. Right -turn lanes are provided on all four approaches to the intersection with right -turn acceleration lanes on all but the east leg. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 45 mph and 35 mph on SH 44 (104th Avenue). Figure 54 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 54 Aerial Photo: US 85C / SH 44 (104th Avenue) (MP 227.39 & MP 1.80) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with SH 44 (104th Avenue), Figure 55 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS Ill) for a four -lane divided signalized four -leg intersection. Figure 56 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS Ill). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 66 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 55 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (SH 44 [104t" Avenue]) Minor AADT = 13,700 Figure 56 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (SH 44 [104t' Avenue]) Minor AADT = 13,700 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 67 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 115 crashes, 86 were property damage only, 28 resulted in injuries and one fatal crash. Figure 57 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end crashes (71.3%) were predominant followed by broadside (9.6%) and sideswipe same direction (8.7%) type crashes. Figure 57 US 85C / SH 44 1104th Avenue] (MP 227.39 & MP 1.80) 115 Total Crashes Other Non - Collision Head On 1 1 0.9%___<1.:9% Rear End 82 71.3% imelosil Approach Turn Other Object 9 1 _78% 09% _Sideswipe (Same) 10 8.7% Broadside 11 9 6% Fatal Crashes The fatal crash occurred on April 24, 2011 at 23:06 in the night. The crash occurred during rainy conditions so the roadways were wet; the intersection is lighted. Vehicle #1 was traveling eastbound on SH 44 (104th Avenue), and Vehicle #2 was traveling southbound. Vehicle #1 went through a red light, causing a broadside collision. The driver of Vehicle #1 was the fatality. No alcohol or drugs were suspected, and both drivers were wearing seatbelts. No crash pattern was found. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the rear end crash history indicated that there were 29 crashes northbound, 26 crashes southbound, 12 crashes eastbound and 15 crashes westbound. Road conditions for rear end type crashes showed that only eight of 82 crashes (9.7%) were related to inclement weather. Figure 58 indicates the time of day rear end type crashes occurred. It can be seen that rear end type crashes occur during peak periods of the day including the AM, mid -day and PM peak periods when congestion is typically higher. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 68 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 58 Time of Day — Rear End Type Crashes Based upon the identified crash patterns at this intersection, the following mitigation measures should be considered: • Reviewing/updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. • Consider repositioning flashing warning signs (W2-1) at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) of the upcoming signalized intersection further south on US 85C for the northbound traffic and consider adding one north of the intersection for the southbound traffic. These signs should be appropriately sized for an expressway (48"x48"). If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 69 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / Long Peak Drive (MP 227.91) The intersection of US 85C with Long Peak Drive is a three -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection in Commerce City. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The eastbound approach provides only a right -turn lane with an acceleration lane. Figure 59 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 59 Aerial Photo: US 85C / Long Peak Drive (MP 227.91) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were eight crashes, five were property damage only and three were injury related. Figure 60 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes and fixed object type crashes were the two were predominant type of crashes (25% each) at intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 70 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 60 US 85C / Long Peak Drive (MP 227.91) 8 Total Crashes Other Non - Collision 1 12.5% Fixed Object 2 25.0% Rear End 2 25.0% "00. Sideswipe (Same) 1 12.5% Approach Turn 1 12.5% Overtaking Turn 1 12.5% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and Long Peak Drive. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 71 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 112th Avenue (MP 228.57) The intersection of US 85C and 112th Avenue is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection in Commerce City. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. 112th Avenue provides shared left- turn/through/right-turn lane with right -turn acceleration lanes onto US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on 112th Avenue is 45 mph. Figure 61 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 61 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 112th Avenue (MP 228.57) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with 112th Avenue, Figure 62 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period was significantly better than expected for a four -lane divided signalized four -leg intersection which indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Figure 63 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 72 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 62 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (112th Avenue) Minor AADT = 6,800 Figure 63 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (112th Avenue) Minor AADT = 6,800 Accidents/Year Lower Limit (20%) INJ +FAT Upper Lima (B0%) o Observed (EB) Expected LOSS IV 6- 5- 4� 3 2- 098 O • LOSS III 97 LOSS II LOSS I 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Mainline AADT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 73 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were seven crashes. which all seven were property damage only. Figure 64 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (71.4%) were the predominant crash type followed by sideswipe (same) type crashes (28.6%). Figure 64 US 85C / 112th Avenue (MP 228.57) 7 Total Crashes Sideswipe (Same) 2 28.6% Rear End 5 71.4% Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the rear end crashes had five crashes of which four occurred on dry roadway conditions. Directionally, two occurred northbound and three occurred southbound. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally. consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 74 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 120th Avenue (MP 229.76) The intersection of US 85C and 120th Avenue is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. Southbound US 85C vehicles turning right have an acceleration on the west leg of the intersection. The west leg of 120th Avenue provides one left - turn lanes, one through lane, and a right -turn lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The east leg has a left -turn lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on 120th Avenue is 45 mph. Figure 65 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 65 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 120th Avenue (MP 229.76) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with 120th Avenue. Figure 66 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 67 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction (LOSS II). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 75 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 66 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (120th Avenue) Minor AADT = 10,400 Lower Limit Total Upper Limit • Observed (ED) O Expected (20%) (80%) 30 LOSS IV 25 - LOSS III v 20 - LOSS II 601 15 - 0 u 362 • 1I - Q LOSS I 10 - 5 - 0 i i 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70.000 M arnhne MDT Figure 67 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (120th Avenue) Minor AADT = 10,400 INJ + FAT Limit ,, Observed (ED) Expected Lower Limit (20%) Upper (80%) LOSS IV m` b - 5- 73 LOSS III LOSS II c 4- -0 353 O - Q 3 - LOSS, 2- 1- 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Mainline AADT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 76 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 67 crashes, 51 were property damage only, and 16 resulted in injuries. Figure 68 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (55.2%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crashes (17.9%) and broadside type crashes (11.9%). Figure 68 US 85C / 120th Avenue (MP 229.76) 67 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. Directionally, 18 rear end type crashes occurred northbound, nine southbound, eight eastbound and two westbound. Thirty-six of the 37 rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement and one crash was on icy road conditions. Reviewing and updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals should be considered to help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 77 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 124th Avenue (SH 22A) (MP 230.29 & MP 1.84) The intersection of US 85C and 124th Avenue is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. 124th Avenue provides one combine left-turn/through/ right -turn lane on the east and west legs of the intersection with right -turn acceleration lane provided onto US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on 124th Avenue is 35 mph. Figure 69 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 69 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 124th Avenue (SH 22A) (MP 230.29 & MP 1.84) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with 124th Avenue. Figure 70 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 71 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for this intersection type (LOSS II). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 78 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 70 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (124th Avenue) Minor AADT = 5,200 Figure 71 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (124th Avenue) Minor AADT = 5,200 Lower Limit (20%) INJ +FAT Upper Limit (80%) O Observed (EB) Expected 6 LOSS IV 5 - Accidents/Year 4- 3- 2 - LOSS III 39 LOSS I I 96 O LOSS I 10.000 20.000 30,000 40,000 Mainline AADT 50,000 60.000 70,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 79 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 40 crashes, 26 were property damage only, and 14 resulted in injuries. Figure 72 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (62.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crashes (17.5%). Figure 72 US 85C / 124th Avenue (MP 230.29) 40 Total Crashes Overturning Sideswipe 1 (Opposite) 1 2.5% 2.5%1 Rear End 25 62.5% Sideswipe (Same) 2 _5.0% Broadside 4 10.0% Approach Turn 7 17.5% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that 12 of the rear end crashes were northbound, 11 southbound, one eastbound and one westbound. Twenty-three of the 25 crashes occurred on dry pavement, one crash on wet road conditions and one on icy road conditions. Reviewing and updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals should be considered to help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Although the frequency of approach turn type crashes is not higher than expected, five of the seven crashes involved southbound vehicles. This situation should be monitored, and a protected -only left turn signal for southbound vehicles installed if it persists. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 80 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 132nd Avenue (MP 231.38) The intersection of US 85C with 132nd is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. US 85C has two through lanes on the main approaches. The northbound approach provides a left -turn lane. The southbound approach only provides a right -turn lane. 132nd Avenue provides one combine left-turn/through/right-turn lane on the east and west legs of the intersection with an eastbound right -turn acceleration lane provided onto southbound US 85C. 132nd Avenue does not provide a railroad crossing to the east and is fenced off. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 73 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 73 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 132nd Avenue (MP 231.38) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were five crashes, all five were property damage only. Figure 74 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Fixed object type crashes and wild animal type crashes were the only types of crashes occurring at the 132nd Avenue intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 81 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 74 US 85C / 132nd Avenue (MP 231.38) 5 Total Crashes Wild Animal 2 40.0% Fixed Object 3 60.0% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and 132" Avenue. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 82 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 136th Avenue (MP 231.93) The intersection of US 85C and 136th Avenue is a four -leg. divided, signalized intersection. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The west leg of 136th Avenue provides one combine left-turn/through/right-turn lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The east leg of 136th Avenue provides one combine left-turn/through and a separate right -turn lane with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on 136th Avenue is 45 mph. Figure 75 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 75 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 136th Avenue (MP 231.93) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with 136th Avenue, Figure 76 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 77 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 83 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 76 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (136th Avenue) Minor AADT = 3,000 Limit Total Upper Limit • Observed (EB) a Expected Lower (20%) (80%) 16 LOSS IV 14 - 1--- 12 LOSS III 10 -. ._LOSS I I CO 11) 43 8- a -0 21 • __-- __ Q6 _ ------- LOSS I 4- 2- i 0 10,000 20,000 30.000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Mainline AADT Figure 77 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (136th Avenue) Minor AADT = 3,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 84 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 35 crashes, 29 were property damage only, and six resulted in injuries. Figure 78 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (60.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crashes (20.0%). Figure 78 US 85C / 136th Avenue (MP 231.93) 35 Total Crashes Sideswipe (Same) Broadside 1 2 2.9% 5.7% Fixed Object 4 x11.4% / IIIININISI Rear End 21 Approach Turn 60.0% 7 20.0% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that 13 of the rear end crashes were northbound, seven southbound, and one westbound. Nineteen of the 21 rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement, and two crashes occurred on wet road conditions. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 85 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 144th Avenue (MP 233.04) The intersection of US 85C with 144'h Avenue is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches provide a left -turn and right -turn deceleration lane onto 144th Avenue. There are two through lanes along US 85C. 144th Avenue provides right out only access to US 85C with acceleration lanes onto US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph, and 144th Avenue posted speed limit is 45 mph. Figure 79 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 79 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 144th Avenue (MP 233.04) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 18 crashes, eleven were property damage only, five resulted in injuries and two were fatalities. Figure 80 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (44.4%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object turn type crashes (27.8%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 86 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 80 US 85C / 144th Avenue (MP 233.04) 18 Total Crashes Fatal Crashes The two fatal crashes at the intersection of 144th Avenue occurred in 2008. The first crash occurred on July 5. 2008 at 14:08 during dry, daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling westbound on 144th Avenue and failed to stop for the stop sign at US 85C, causing a broadside crash with Vehicle #2 that was traveling southbound. The front passenger of Vehicle #1 was the fatality. Alcohol was not involved; however, the driver of Vehicle #1 was driving without a valid driver's license. The second reported fatal crash occurred on July 9, 2008 at 18:46 in dry, daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound approaching 144th Avenue to make a left -turn. Vehicle #2 was traveling southbound. Vehicle #1 failed to yield to Vehicle #2, causing an approach turn crash. The driver in Vehicle #1 was the fatality Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that the eight broadside crashes occurred before the 144th Avenue approaches were converted into right -turn onto US 85C only in early 2011. Since the conversion, there has been no more broadside type crashes reported at 144th Avenue. It is recommended to monitor situation for possible additional corrective measures. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 87 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / Bromley Lane (MP 234.09) The intersection of US 85C and Bromley Lane is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Brighton. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The west leg of Bromley Lane provides a left -turn lane, two through lanes, and right -turn lanes with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The east leg of Bromley Lane provides two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and right -turn lanes with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on Bromley Lane is 35 mph. Figure 81 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 81 Aerial Photo: US 85C / Bromley Lane (MP 234.09) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with Bromley Lane, Figure 82 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 83 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 88 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 82 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (Bromley Lane) Minor AADT = 17,200 Figure 83 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (Bromley Lane) Minor AADT = 17,200 Lower Limit (20%) INJ + FAT Upper Limit (80%) 0 Observed (ES) Expected I0 LOSS IV 9- Accidents/Year 8- 7- 6- 5- 4 3 2- 253 LOSS HF 7Q LOSS II LOSS I 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70.000 Mainline AADT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 89 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 91 crashes, 82 were property damage only, eight resulted in injuries, and one fatal crash. Figure 84 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (68.1%) were the predominant crash type followed by sideswipe (same side) and broadside type crashes (8.8% each). Figure 84 US 85C / Bromley Lane (MP 234.09) 91 Total Crashes Fatal Crashes The one fatal crash at the intersection with Bromley Lane occurred on May 15. 2008 at 23:38, under dry, dark -lighted conditions. A pedestrian was crossing US 85C eastbound south of Bromley Lane, not at the crosswalk. Vehicle #1 was traveling southbound on US 85C with the green light and collided with the pedestrian. The fatality was the pedestrian. No drugs or alcohol were reported. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that 39 of the rear end crashes were northbound, nine southbound, six eastbound, and eight westbound. Fifty-five of the 62 rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement, five crashes on wet road conditions, and two were on snowy/slushy road conditions. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 90 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 The Bromley Lane approaches were recently widened to provide a second left -turn lane for westbound traffic. This intersection should be monitored to see if this has changed any crash patterns. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 91 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 7D (MP 235.10 & MP 76.99) The interchange of US 85C with SH 7 has a diamond configuration with roundabouts where the on- and off -ramps from US 85C intersect with SH 7D. The west roundabout incorporates the west frontage road along US 85C, and the east roundabout includes a bypass lane for westbound to northbound traffic. Both roundabouts have two-lane configurations. All approaches of SH 7D have two lanes in each direction. Only the northbound off -ramp from US 85C has two lanes. All other approaches and exits have single lanes. The posted speed limit on eastbound SH 7D is 30 mph and 25 mph on westbound. Figure 85 shows an aerial view of the interchange. Figure 85 Aerial Photo: US 85C / SH 7D (MP 235.10 & MP 76.93/77.05) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 98 crashes related to the roundabouts, 91 were property damage only and seven resulted in injury. Figure 86 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Sideswipe (same) type crashes (43.9%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end (22.4%), fixed object (14.3%), and broadside type crashes (12.2%). There were 46 crashes at the west roundabout, while the east experienced 52. The percentage of rear -end type crashes was higher at the west roundabout (37% vs. 10%) while the percentage of sideswipe (same) and broadside type crashes was higher at the east roundabout (62% vs. 50%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 92 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 86 US 85C / SH 7D (MP 235.10 & MP 76.99) 98 Total Crashes Sideswipe Parked Motor Overtaking (Opposite) Vehicle Turn 1 1 Overturning 3 1.0% 1 0% 2° 3.1% _2.0/° Sideswipe (Same) 43 43.9% r Broadside 12 Al2.2% Rear End 22 22.4% Fixed Object 14 14.3% Observations / Recommendations There are no diagnostics nor SPFs available for roundabouts, but the prevalence of sideswipe (same) and rear end type crashes appears to be the expected types of crashes. Although only a few officer narratives were available at this location for review, many "broadside" crashes have probably been incorrectly coded. Officer narratives at other roundabouts reference vehicles failing to yield right-of-way when entering the roundabout and colliding with a vehicle in the roundabout as both broadside and sideswipe (same direction) crashes. Thus, if broadside crashes are mostly miscoded, sideswipe (same) crashes would be between 50 and 55 percent of the total. Without a frame of reference, the total number of crashes seems high — an average of ten crashes at each roundabout over the five-year study period. After 2008 (8 crashes), the other four years had crash totals in the mid -20's. There were 46 crashes at the west roundabout and 52 at the east. A total of nine crashes were noted as being caused by vehicles on the US 85C off -ramps (six northbound and three southbound). A brief review (Google StreetView) of the signing reveals that the regulatory, warning, and guide signing for the roundabout is inconsistent. It is recommended that a thorough review of the signing be conducted and signing upgraded to conform to the most recent guidance in the MUTCD (2012 Supplement). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 93 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / Denver Street (MP 235.60) The intersection of US 85C with Denver Street is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches provide a left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto Denver Street. There are two through lanes along US 85C. Denver Street's east leg provides right -turn out only access to US 85C with right -turn acceleration lanes onto northbound US 85C. The west leg of Denver Street is a left-turn/through/right-turn lane with right -turn acceleration lanes onto southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Denver Street has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Figure 87 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 87 Aerial Photo: US 85C / Denver Street (MP 235.60) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 12 crashes. eleven were property damage only and only one resulted in injury. Figure 88 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Fixed object type crashes (41.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by broadside type crashes (33.3%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 94 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 88 US 85C / Denver Street (MP 235.60) 12 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that the four fixed object type crashes occurred in dry road conditions and one in icy road conditions. Two occurred in daylight conditions and three in dark unlighted/lighted conditions. Three vehicles struck signs, one hit a fence, and one hit a light pole. There is no correctible pattern to these crashes, and there are no suggestions for improvement at this time. It should be noted that the island restricting westbound Denver Street traffic to right turns only was installed in early 2013. The four broadside crashes all were caused by westbound vehicles on Denver Street, and the turn restriction should have corrected the broadside problem. The intersection should be monitored to make sure this has happened. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 95 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 2 (168th Avenue/Baseline Road) (MP 236.03) The intersection of US 85C and CR 2 is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east leg provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane with a right -turn acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The west leg of the intersection has a left -turn/ through lane and dedicated right -turn lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 50 mph, and the posted speed limit on CR 2 is 30 mph. Figure 89 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 89 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 2 (168th Avenue/Baseline Road) (MP 236.03) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with CR 2 (168th Avenue/Baseline Road). Figure 90 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS Ill) for a four -lane divided signalized four -leg intersection. Figure 91 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction for this intersection type (LOSS Ill). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 96 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 90 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (CR 2 [168th Avenue/Baseline Road]) Minor AADT = 4,500 Lower Umit (20%) --TON Upper Umit (80%) • Observed (EB) O Expected 18 16 14 - 6- 4- 2- 0 _ 0 917 LOSS III LOSS II LOSS I 10,000 20.000 30.000 40,000 50.000 60,nnr Mainline AADT Figure 91 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (CR 2 [168th Avenue/Baseline Road]) Minor AADT = 4,500 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 97 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 46 crashes. 31 were property damage only and 15 resulted in injuries. Figure 92 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (45.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by broadside type crashes (19.6%). Figure 92 US 85C / CR 2 (168th Avenue/Baseline Road) (MP 236.03) 46 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the rear end crashes had 21 crashes of which 19 occurred on dry roadway conditions. Directionally, ten of the 21 occurred northbound, five southbound, one eastbound, and five westbound. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 98 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 2.5 (MP 236.55) The intersection of US 85C with CR 2.5 is a three -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The southbound approach provides a left -turn deceleration lane. There are two through lanes along US 85C. CR 2.5 provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 93 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 93 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 2.5 (MP 236.55) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were eight crashes, three were property damage only and five resulted in injuries. Figure 94 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (37.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (25.0%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 99 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 94 US 85C / CR 2.5 (MP 236.55) 8 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and CR 2.5. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 100 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 6 (MP 238.09) The intersection of US 85C and CR 6 is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east leg provides a left -turn lane and a through/right-turn lane with a right -turn acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The west leg of the intersection has a left - turn lane and through/right-turn lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph, and the posted speed limit on CR 6 is 35 mph. Figure 95 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 95 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 6 (MP 238.09) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with CR6. Figure 96 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period was significantly better than expected for a four -lane divided signalized four -leg intersection which indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Figure 97 shows that the severity of crashes also significantly indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 101 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 96 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (CR 6) Minor AADT = 1,700 L Limit (20%) Total — Upper Limit (80%) • Observed (EB) o Expected Lower 12 LOSS 10 - LOSS III 8" V a -0 u 6 5 14 LOSS H fr- u Q 4 - LOSS I 2 - _ 2,09 • 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Mainline AADT Figure 97 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (CR 6) Minor AADT = 1,700 Umit (20%) I NJ + FAT Upper Limit (80%) o Observed (EB) - Expected Lower 4 35 LOSS IV -------- __----- 3- LOSS III 25- 55 +L ' 2 LOSS II y a 1 66 d15 - - i - O 1O551 05- n 5,000 10.000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,n00 M ainline AADT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 102 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012). there were six crashes. four were property damage only and two resulted in injuries. Figure 98 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (83.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object type crashes (16.7%). Figure 98 US 85C / CR 6 (MP 238.09) 6 Total Crashes Fixed Object 1 16.7% Rear End 5 83.3% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that all five of the rear end crashes were southbound and all occurred on dry pavement. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 103 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 8 (MP 239.08) The intersection of US 85C with CR 6 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto CR 8. There are two through lanes along both directions of US 85C. CR 8 provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane and right -turn acceleration lanes onto US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 99 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 99 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 8 (MP 239.08) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were 14 crashes, seven were property damage only and seven resulted in injuries. Figure 100 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (35.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (21.4%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 104 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 100 US 85C / CR 8 (MP 239.08) 14 Total Crashes Other Non - Collision _ 1 7.1% Broadside 5 35.7% Rear End 3 21.4% Approach Turn 1 _7.1% Sideswipe (Same) 2 I 14.3% Fixed Object 2 14.3% Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the broadside crashes had five crashes that all occurred on dry roadway conditions. Directionally, the five broadside type crashes occurred westbound. Field visit did not find sight distance as an issue. It is recommended to monitor this intersection for future broadside crashes and review the need for a right -turn only island for westbound traffic if the issue persists. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 105 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 52A (MP 241.59 & MP 19.96) The interchange of US 85C with SH 7 has a diamond configuration with signalized intersections where the off -ramps (and on -ramps) from US 85C intersect with SH 52A. At each intersection, there is one through lane on SH 52A with separate left -turn lanes for the on -ramps. The left -turn arrows at each intersection are protected -permitted phasing. The off -ramps each have a left/through lane and a separate right turn lane. The posted speed limit on SH 52A is 30 mph. Figure 101 shows an aerial view of the interchange. Figure 101 Aerial Photo: US 85C / SH 52A (MP 235.10 & MP 19.96) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the west intersections of SH 52A with the ramps to/from US 850. Figure 102 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a high potential for crash reduction for a signalized two-lane ramp intersection (LOSS IV). Figure 103 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a to moderate to high potential for crash reduction (LOSS III). For the east intersections of SH 52A with the ramps to/from US 85C, Figure 104 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a high potential for crash reduction for a signalized two-lane ramp intersection (LOSS III/IV). Figure 105 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a to moderate potential for crash reduction (LOSS II/III). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 106 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 102 Two -Lane (Mainline) Signalized Ramp Intersection Total Crashes per Year (West Ramps — SH 52A at US 85C) SH 52A AADT = 9,500 Figure 103 Two -Lane (Mainline) Signalized Ramp Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (West Ramps — SH 52A at US 85C) SH 52A AADT = 9,500 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 107 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 104 Two -Lane (Mainline) Signalized Ramp Intersection Total Crashes per Year (East Ramps — SH 52A at US 85C) SH 52A AADT = 13,600 45 4 35 3 Lower Limit (20%) Total Upper Limit (80%) m"25 m 2 — C 0 Q 1 5 1 05 I 1 J 1 I 1 1 1L i I T 0 / _ 0 5 000 10.000 15.000 Mainline AADT 20 000 25 000 Figure 105 Two -Lane (Mainline) Signalized Ramp Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (East Ramps — SH 52A at US 85C) SH 52A AADT = 13,600 09 Lower Limit (20%) --INJ + FAT Upper Limit (80%) 0 8 0 7 06 I_ 05— to int) - 04 i'__.___ C IV -0 Q 0 3 02 -r — _ 1 7 I I I 1 t I g I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I �, I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I 1 4 _ I I I I I I I I I I -f 1 -L I I I I I I + 1 I 1 1 t I ..--- ' i a I I I I .. I I I I - 000 T T I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 -+ + +--- I 1 t I I t t t H't7r 0 5.000 10 000 15 000 20 000 Mainline AADT 25 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 108 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 25 crashes at the intersections or related to them, 21 were property damage only and four resulted in an injury. Figure 106 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear -end (64.0%) type crashes were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object (24.0%) type crashes (12.2%). The east intersection/ramps experienced 15 of the crashes, and the west had 10. The patterns of rear -end and fixed object type crashes was fairly consistent between the two intersections. Figure 106 US 85C / SH 52A (MP 235.10 & MP 19.96) 25 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations There are no direct diagnostics available for two-lane (mainline) signalized ramp intersection roundabouts to determine the expected number of crashes. However, the prevalence of rear end type crashes would be higher than expected if these intersections were either normal 3 -leg or 4 -leg intersections. Since most of the crashes were caused by vehicles travelling on SH 52A, this general comparison would appear to be valid. At the west intersection, four of the six rear - end type crashes were eastbound, while five of the rear -end crashes at the east intersection were westbound on SH 52A and four were northbound on the US 85C off -ramp. These vehicles were all approaching the first of two signalized intersections at the interchange. There does not appear to be a sight -distance concern with see the second signal when looking from under the US 85C bridges. A brief review (Google StreetView) of the signing reveals that the there are no advance intersection warning signs provided for the intersection. Installing intersection warning signs (W2-1) should be considered on SH 52A and the northbound US 85C off -ramp. If the problem persists and separation distances allow, a flashing beacon could be considered which connects to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. This could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection and reducing the frequency of rear end type crashes. Reviewing the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could help reduce rear end type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 109 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 14.5 (14th Street) (MP 242.66) The intersection of US 85C and CR 14.5 is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Fort Lupton. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east leg of CR 14.5 provides a left -turn lane and a through/right-turn lane with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The west leg provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on CR 14.5 is 25 mph. Figure 107 shows an aerial of the intersection. Figure 107 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 14.5 (14th Street) (MP 242.66) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with CR 14.5, Figure 108 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 109 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a moderate to high potential for crash reduction for this intersection type (LOSS Ill). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 110 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 108 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (CR 14.5 [14th Street]) Minor AADT = 4,550 Figure 109 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (CR 14.5 [14th Street]) Minor AADT = 4,550 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 111 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 26 crashes, 15 were property damage only, ten resulted in injuries, and one fatal crash. Figure 110 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (38.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crash (34.6%). Figure 110 US 85C / CR 14.5 [14t11 Street] (MP 242.66) 26 Total Crashes Fatal Crashes There was one fatal crash that occurred on August 13, 2010 at 9:14 under dry, daylight conditions. Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on US 85C approaching 141/2 Street and was attempting a left -turn when it was struck by southbound Vehicle # 2 on the passenger side of the vehicle. This approach turn type crash was noted to be careless driver and driver inexperience for the driver of Vehicle #1. Neither vehicle was speeding. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. Fatality was the passenger of Vehicle #1. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of approach turn type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that five of the approach turn type crashes were northbound, three southbound. and one westbound. All nine of the approach turn type crashes occurred on dry pavement road conditions. The signal provides protect -permitted left - turn movements along the mainline. Site visit indicated there could be a sight distance issue due to the intersection is positioned on a curve along US 85C. It was observed that northbound left - turning vehicles have difficulty viewing the mainline when there are opposing left -turning vehicles. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 112 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 It is recommended to consider converting the northbound and southbound left -turn operations to protected only. Additionally, reviewing/updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could provide more clearance time for turning movements to clear the intersection. Consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 113 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 16 (MP 243.21) The intersection of US 85C with CR 16 is a three -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. Access to CR 16 is only provided via northbound US 85C. There is a northbound right -turn deceleration lane on US 85C. CR 16 has right -turn only access. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 111 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 111 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR '16 (MP 243.21) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were nine crashes, five were property damage only and four resulted in injuries. Figure 112 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (33.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (22.2%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 114 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 112 US 85C / CR 16 (MP 243.21) 9 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that there were three broadside crashes that all occurred before 2012. Sometime in early 2012, the median was closed so that westbound vehicles can only turn right at the intersection. This has eliminated the broadside crash problem through 2014. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 115 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 18 (MP 244.21) The intersection of US 85C with CR 18 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto CR 18. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The east leg of CR 18 provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane and right -turn acceleration lanes onto northbound US 85C. The west leg of the intersection provides left-turn/through lane and right turn lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 113 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 113 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 18 (MP 244.21) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 23 crashes, ten were property damage only and 13 resulted in injuries. Figure 114 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (43.5%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crashes (34.8%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 116 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 114 US 85C / CR 18 (MP 244.21) 23 Total Crashes Other Non - Collision _ 1 4.3% Broadside 10 43.5% Overtaking Turn 1 4.3% Wild Animal Approach Turn 8 34.8% 1 4.3% -Fixed Object 1 4.3% Other Object 1 4.3% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that six of the broadside type crashes were eastbound vehicles (four hitting southbound vehicles and two hitting northbound vehicles) and three were westbound (all hitting northbound vehicles). None of the at -fault vehicles was a large truck. Six of the crashes resulted in a total of 15 injuries. Ten broadside type crashes occurred on dry pavement road conditions during daylight hours. Only two of the crashes involved eastbound vehicles that crossed the median and struck a northbound vehicle; seven vehicles struck US 85C vehicles in the closer direction of travel. Six of the vehicles were going straight while three were making left turns. A site visit indicated there is not a sight distance issue. There is no indication in the crash records that the at -fault vehicles failed to stop at the stop signs. There are double posted intersection warning signs (W2-1) on both approaches of US 85C. It is recommended that the size of these signs be increased to freeway standard (48"x48"). This intersection should be monitored in the future to see if more aggressive measures (such as beacons on the stop signs, intersection warning signs, or ultimately right turn only restrictions for both CR 18 approaches) might be appropriate. The frequency of approach turn type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that one of the approach turn type crashes was northbound and seven were southbound. Seven of the crashes resulted in 15 injuries. All eight of the approach turn type crashes occurred on dry pavement road conditions. Five of the crashes occurred during daylight hours. It should be noted that the position of the southbound left -turn lane was shifted further east in the median to give better visibility of oncoming northbound traffic. There was only one southbound approach turn crash in 2012. It is recommended to monitor this intersection for future approach turn crashes and determine the need for more aggressive measures (such as closing the median to create right -in, right -out turns for both CR 18 approaches) if the issue persists. Closing the median to create right -in, right -out turns for both CR 18 approaches would positively address both broadside and approach turn type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 117 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 22 (MP 246.21) The intersection of US 85C with CR 22 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound approach provides a right -turn deceleration lane onto CR 22 with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The southbound approach provides left -turn onto CR 22. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The east leg of the intersection provides a left- turn/through/right-turn lane. The west left of the intersection provides access to a private residency. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 115 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 115 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 22 (MP 246.21) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 12 crashes, six were property damage only and six resulted in injuries. Figure 116 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (33.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn and sideswipe (same) type crashes (16.7% each). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 118 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 116 US 85C / CR 22 (MP 246.21) 12 Total Crashes Broadside 4 33.3% Approach Turn 2 16.7% Rear End 1 8.3% Overtaking Turn 1 81% Domestic Animal 1 8.3% Sideswipe (Same) 2 16.7% Fixed Object 1 8.3% Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that there were four broadside crashes that all occurred on dry roadway conditions. Directionally, the four broadside type crashes occurred westbound. Three vehicles were making left turns, and two hit northbound vehicles while one hit a southbound vehicle. A field visit did not find sight distance as an issue. There are double posted intersection warning signs (W2-1) on both approaches of US 85C. Increasing the size of these signs to freeway standard (48"x48") could be considered. This intersection should be monitored in the future to see if more aggressive measures (such as beacons on the stop signs, intersection warning signs, or ultimately right turn only restrictions for both CR 18 approaches) might be appropriate. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 119 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 22.5 (MP 246.71) The intersection of US 85C with CR 22.5 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound approach provides left -turn deceleration lane onto CR 22. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The east and west approaches of the intersection provide left- turn/through/right-turn lanes. The posted speed limit on US 85 is 65 mph. Figure 117 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 117 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 22.5 (MP 246.71) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were five crashes and all were property damage only. Figure 118 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 120 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 118 US 85C / CR 22.5 (MP 246.71) 5 Total Crashes Fixed Object 1 4.0%20 11 Approach Turn 1 20.0% Sideswipe (Same) 1 20.0% Overturning 1 20.0% Com Rear End 1 200% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and CR 22.5. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 121 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 28 (MP 249.22) The intersection of US 85C with CR 28 is a four -leg, divided. unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto CR 28. There are two through lanes along US 85C. CR 28 provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane and right -turn acceleration lanes onto both directions of US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph; however, directly north of the intersection the posted speed limit changes to 55 mph. Figure 119 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 119 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 28 (MP 249.22) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were 10 crashes, four were property damage only and six resulted in injuries. Figure 120 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (70.0%) were the predominant crash type. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 122 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 120 US 85C / CR 28 (MP 249.22) 10 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that four of the approach turn type crashes were eastbound and three were westbound. There was no strong pattern by direction for the vehicles on US 85C that were struck. All seven of the broadside type crashes occurred on dry pavement road conditions. Site visit did not find sight distance as an issue. There are double posted intersection warning signs (W2-1) on both approaches of US 85C. Increasing the size of these signs to freeway standard (48"x48") could be considered. This intersection should be monitored in the future to see if more aggressive measures (such as beacons on the stop signs, intersection warning signs, or ultimately right turn only restrictions for both CR 18 approaches) might be appropriate. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 123 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 66 (MP 250.65) The intersection of US 85C and SH 66 is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Platteville. The northbound approach provides both left -turn and right turn deceleration lanes. The southbound approach provides a right -turn deceleration lane for turning onto westbound SH 66. US 85C has two through lanes on the main approaches. The east leg (Platte Street) has a left-turn/through/right-turn lane approach. The west leg provides a left-turn/through lane with right -turn lane and an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 55 mph, and the posted speed limit on SH 66 is 35 mph. Figure 121 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 121 Aerial Photo: US 85C / SH 66 (MP 250.65) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 24 crashes, 20 were property damage only and four that resulted in injuries. Figure 122 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (50.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by broadside type crash (16.7%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 124 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 122 US 85C / SH 66 (MP 250.65) 24 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the rear end type crashes had 12 crashes of which 11 occurred on dry roadway conditions and one on icy road conditions. Directionally, four occurred northbound. five were southbound, and three occurred eastbound. Reviewing and updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could be considered to help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. Additionally. consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 125 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 32 (MP 251.22) The intersection of US 85C and CR 32 is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Platteville. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east and west legs have a single lane approach for left/through/right turns. The adjacent frontage road on the west side of the intersection is included in the signalization. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 50 mph, and the posted speed limit on CR 32 is 30 mph. Figure 123 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 123 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 32 (MP 251.22) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 30 crashes, 22 were property damage only and eight that resulted in injuries. Figure 124 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (50.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by broadside and approach turn type crashes (16.7% each). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 126 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 124 US 85C / CR 32 (MP 251.22) 30 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the rear end type crashes had 15 crashes of which ten occurred on dry roadway conditions and three on icy road conditions. Directionally, five occurred northbound and ten occurred southbound. Reviewing and updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals could be considered to help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. There should be consideration of shifting the change in speed limit sign further north to provide drivers more time to slow down before a signalized intersection. Additionally, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs (at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds) further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 127 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 36 (MP 253.27) The intersection of US 85C with CR 36 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto CR 36. There are two through lanes along US 85C. CR 36 provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane on both approaches. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 125 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 125 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 36 (MP 253.27) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were five crashes, three were property damage only and two resulted in injuries. Figure 126 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Fixed object type crashes (40.0%) were the predominant crash type. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 128 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 126 US 85C / CR 36 (MP 253.27) 5 Total Crashes Overturning 1 20.0 % Fixed Object 2 40.0% A Nol lifr Broadside 1 20.0% Approach Turn 1 20.0% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and CR 36. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 129 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 60 (CR 27) (MP 253.81) The intersection of US 85C with SH 60 (CR 27) is a three -leg. divided, unsignalized intersection. There is a southbound right -turn deceleration lane and a northbound left turn lane on US 85C. There are two through lanes along US 85C. SH 60 has a left -turn lane and a channelized right - turn lane with an acceleration lane on southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 127 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 127 Aerial Photo: US 85C / SH 60 (CR 27) (MP 253.81) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were six crashes, four were property damage only and two resulted in injuries. Figure 128 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. • Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 130 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 128 US 85C / SH 60 [CR 27] (MP 253.81) 6 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and SH 60 (CR 27). There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 131 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 42 (MP 257.26) The intersection of US 85C and CR 42 is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection. CR 42 has been signalized since the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012). There are both left - turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east and west legs have a single lane approach with right -turn acceleration lanes along each direction of US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 60 mph, and the posted speed limit on CR 42 is 20 mph. Figure 129 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 129 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 42 (MP 257.26) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were seven crashes, five were property damage only and two resulted in injuries. Figure 130 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (85.7%) were the predominant crash type. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 132 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 130 US 85C / CR 42 (MP 257.26) 7 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. Broadside type crashes are common for unsignalized intersections. Since the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), a traffic signal has been installed. It is expected that this signal will mitigate the historic pattern of broadside type crashes. It is recommended to monitor this intersection for any future crash patterns. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 133 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 44 (MP 258.60) The intersection of US 85C with CR 44 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto CR 44. There are two through lanes along US 85C. Both approaches from CR 44 have a left-turn/through lane with a short channelized right -turn access with an acceleration lane onto both directions of US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. The posted speed limit on CR 44 is 45 mph. Figure 131 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 131 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 44 (MP 258.60) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were 28 crashes, fifteen were property damage only and thirteen resulted in injuries. Figure 132 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (96.4%) were the predominant crash type. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 134 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 132 US 85C / CR 44 (MP 258.60) 28 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that 11 of the broadside type crashes were eastbound, 15 westbound and one southbound. Twenty-four of the 27 broadside type crashes occurred on dry pavement road conditions, two on wet road conditions and one on icy road conditions. Broadside type crashes at this intersection had 18 crashes that involved either trucks or buses. Twenty-four of the crashes involved eastbound and northbound vehicles or westbound and southbound vehicles — meaning that the side road vehicles crossed the median and then were struck from the right. Site visit did not find sight distance as an issue; however, the intersection is angled at approximately 45 degrees. This means that the drivers of almost all of the at -fault vehicles had to look more than 90 -degrees over their shoulders to see oncoming traffic. This larger angle may make it harder for large trucks and busses to see oncoming traffic. Given that there are existing businesses on each corner on the west side and there are UPRR tracks to the east, realigning the approaches to be perpendicular would be very expensive. There are currently double posted intersection warning signs (W10-2) on both approaches of US 85C. Unfortunately, the northbound posting is at MP 258.213, south of the intersection with CR 33 (MP 258.37). Increasing the size of these signs to freeway standard (48"x48") and adding northbound signs south of CR 44 should be considered. Flashing beacons for these signs should also be considered. If a pattern of side road drivers failing to stop becomes apparent, flashing read beacons could be added to larger stop signs. This intersection should be monitored in the future to see if more aggressive measures (such as a traffic signal) might be appropriate. Constructing a signal will likely reduce the broadside collisions but could also increase the overall number of crashes. especially rear end crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 135 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 46 / CR 35 (MP 259.93) The intersection of US 85C with CR 46/CR35 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes onto CR 46/CR35. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The approaches from CR 46/CR35 both have a left-turn/through/right-turn lanes and right -turn acceleration lanes onto US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 65 mph. Figure 133 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 133 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 46 / CR 35 (MP 259.93) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were eight crashes, five were property damage only and three resulted in injuries. Figure 134 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (37.5%) and approach turn type crashes (37.5%) were the predominant crash types. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 136 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 134 US 85C / CR 46 / CR 35 (MP 259.93) 8 Total Crashes Approach Turn 3 37.5% Fixed Object 2 25.0% Broadside 3 37.5% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and CR 46/CR 35. There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 137 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 375 (1St Avenue) (MP 262.63) The intersection of US 85C and SH 375 (1St Avenue) is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in LaSalle. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes in both directions along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east and west legs have a left -turn lane and through -right lane approach with right -turn acceleration lanes. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 40 mph, and the posted speed limit on SH 375 is 25 mph. Figure 135 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 135 Aerial Photo: US 85C / SH 375 (1St Avenue) (MP 262.63) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with SH 375 (1St Avenue), Figure 136 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period indicates a low potential for crash reduction for a four -lane divided signalized four -leg intersection which indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS I). Figure 137 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 138 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 136 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (SH 375 [1St Avenue]) Minor AADT = 3,200 Figure 137 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (SH 375 [1St Avenue]) Minor AADT = 3,200 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 139 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were seven crashes, five were property damage only and two resulted in injury. Figure 138 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (42.9%) and approach turn type crashes (42.9%) were the predominant crash types. Figure 138 US 85C / SH 375 [1St Avenue] (MP 262.63) 7 Total Crashes Approach Turn 1 14.3% Rear End 3 42.9% Broadside 3 42.9% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85C and SH 375 (1St Avenue). There are no suggestions for improvement at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 140 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 5th Avenue (MP 262.99) The intersection of US 85C and 5th Avenue is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection located in LaSalle. There are both left -turn and right -turn deceleration lanes provided in both directions along US 85C with two through lanes on the main approaches. The east and west legs have a single left-turn/through/right-turn lane approach. The 5th Avenue westbound approach has a right -turn acceleration lane. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 40. Figure 139 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 139 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 5th Avenue (MP 262.99) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were five crashes. one was property damage only and four resulted in injuries. Figure 140 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Approach turn type crashes (80.0%) were the predominant crash type. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 141 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 140 US 85C / 5' Avenue (MP 262.99) 5 Total Crashes Parked Motor Vehicle 1 20.0% Approach Turn 4 80.0% -- Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the approach turn type crashes had four crashes that all occurred on dry roadway conditions. Directionally, two of the approach turn type crashes occurred northbound and two occurred southbound. Field visit did not find sight distance as an issue. This intersection should be monitored for future approach turn crashes and the need for more aggressive measures reviewed if the issue persists. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 142 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / SH 394 / CR 52 (MP 263.44) The intersection of US 85C with SH 394/CR 52 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide left -turn lanes onto SH 394/CR 52. The northbound approach provides a right -turn deceleration lane. There are two through lanes along US 85C. SH 394/CR 52 provides a left-turn/through/right-turn lane at each approach onto US 85C. The CR 52 westbound approach includes a right -turn acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 50 mph. Figure 141 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 141 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 52 (MP 263.44) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012). there were eight crashes, four were property damage only and four resulted in injuries. Figure 142 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (87.5%) were the predominant crash type. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 143 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 142 US 85C / CR 52 (MP 263.44) 8 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicate that the broadside type crashes had seven crashes which five occurred on dry roadway conditions, one occurred on wet road conditions, and one with road treatment roadway conditions. Directionally, five broadside type crashes occurred eastbound, one occurred westbound and one occurred southbound. Field visit did not find a sight distance issue for westbound traveling vehicles but did observe that eastbound traffic has an issue seeing northbound US 85C vehicles. Three of the five eastbound crashes were with northbound vehicles that require drivers to look more than ninety -degrees out of the right side of their vehicles. It is noted that the railroad crossing on the east leg was not a contributing factor to the broadside type crashes. There are currently double posted (inside and outside shoulders) intersection warning signs (W10-2) on both approaches of US 85C. Increasing the size of these signs to freeway standard (48"x48") and adding flashing beacons should be considered. This intersection should be monitored for future broadside crashes and the need for more aggressive measures reviewed if the issue persists. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 144 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 42nd Street (MP 264.11) The intersection of US 85C with 42' Street is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Evans. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right - turn deceleration lanes onto 42nd Street. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The east and west legs have a left -turn lane and through/right-turn lane with right -turn acceleration lanes onto both directions of US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 50 mph. The posted speed limit on 42nd Street is 35 mph. Figure 143 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 143 Aerial Photo: US 85C 142nd Street (MP 264.11) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with 42nd Street (MP 264.11). Figure 144 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period was significantly better than expected for a four -lane divided signalized four -leg intersection which indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Figure 145 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS I). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 145 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 144 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (42"d Street) Minor AADT = 10,500 Figure 145 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (42"d Street) Minor AADT = 10,500 Expected Lower Limit (20%) INJ +FAT Upper Limit (80%) o Observed (ES) - 8 6 5- E1 4 v 173 u 3 - r� : 332 Losssl -f LOSS III LOSS II _ __ _ __ LOSS I 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45.000 50,000 Mainline AA.DT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 146 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 32 crashes, 24 were property damage only and eight resulted in injuries. Figure 146 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (71.9%) were the predominant crash type. Figure 146 US 85C / 42"d Street (MP 264.11) 32 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that 12 of the rear end crashes were northbound, four southbound, four eastbound, and three westbound. Sixteen of the 23 rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement, two crashes on wet roads, four were on snowy/icy roads, and one on a treated roadway. It was noted that this is the first signalized intersection in the northbound direction entering the Greeley urban area. There are currently no upcoming intersection warning signs provided for the intersection. Installing an intersection warning sign (W2-1) with flashing beacon on northbound US 85L should be considered. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. This could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection and reducing the frequency of rear end type crashes. Additionally, it is recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals to reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes at the other approaches to the intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 147 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / CR 54 (37th Street) (MP 264.71) The intersection of US 85C with 3791 Street is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Evans. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right - deceleration turn lanes onto 37th Street. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The east and west legs have a left -turn lane and through/right-turn lane. The westbound approach includes a short channelized right -turn lane with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The eastbound approach has a right -turn acceleration lane along southbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 45 mph. The posted speed limit on 37th Street is 30 mph. Figure 147 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 147 Aerial Photo: US 85C / CR 54 (37th Street) (MP 264.71) I Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with CR 54 (3791 Street), Figure 148 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 149 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for this intersection type (LOSS II). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 148 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 148 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (CR 54 [37th Street]) Minor AADT = 9,700 Figure 149 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (CR 54 [37th Street]) Minor AADT = 9,700 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 149 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Overturni1 ng 1 �6i° 2.6% Rear End 20 51.3% Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were 38 crashes, 27 were property damage only, 10 resulted in injuries and one fatal crash. Figure 150 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (51.3°/x) were the predominant crash type. Figure 150 US 85C / CR 54 [37th Street] (MP 264.71) 38 Total Crashes Pedestrian Sideswipe (Opposite) 1 2 6°%% -Fixed Object 2 5.1% ___Broadside 3 7.7% _Sideswipe (Same) 3 7.7% Approach Turn 8 20.5% Fatal Crashes The one fatal crash at the intersection of US 85C / CR 54 (37th Street) occurred on January 8, 2009 at 5:55am. The crash occurred in dry dark -lighted conditions. Vehicle #1 (a motorcycle) was traveling westbound on 37th Street and was stopped at a red light waiting to make a left - turn. When the light turned green, Vehicle #1 began to turn left and collided with Vehicle #2 that was traveling eastbound through the intersection. Alcohol and drugs was suspected for both the driver and passenger of Vehicle #1. Cause was failure to yield right of way. No crash pattern found. Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at this intersection. However, it is worth noting that the rear end crashes had 19 crashes or which 16 occurred on dry roadway conditions and three on snowy road conditions. Directionally, 13 occurred northbound, three occurred southbound. one occurred eastbound and two occurred westbound. Based on this information, there does not appear to be a correctable pattern. However, consideration of repositioning intersection warning signs further away from the intersection could improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. It was noted that reduction of the posted speed limit is located after the intersection warning signs. Providing more distance before the intersection with slower speeds might also help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. It is also recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals for the signals at the intersection to reduce rear end type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 150 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85C / 31St Street (MP 265.19) The intersection of US 85C with 31St Street is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Evans. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right - turn lanes onto 31St Street. There are two through lanes along US 85C. The eastbound approach provides a left -turn lane and a through/right-turn lane with a right -turn acceleration lane onto southbound US 85C. The westbound approach provides a left -turn lane, through lane and a channelized right -turn lane with a right -turn acceleration lane onto northbound US 85C. The posted speed limit on US 85C is 45 mph. The posted speed limit on 31St Street is 30 mph. Figure 151 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 151 Aerial Photo: US 85C / 31St Street (MP 265.19) Rh, imilitobr I 'Wet '- . . t. • I 4 Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85C with 31St Street. Figure 152 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 153 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low to moderate potential for this intersection type (LOSS II). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 151 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 152 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (31St Street) Minor AADT = 8,000 25 20 m 15 u) a C 10 5— n Lower Limit (20%) Total Upper Lint (80%) • Observed (ES) o Expected - - 7 16 _—f- LO LOSS III LOSS II _ '—_ LOSS I , , 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Mainline AADT Figure 153 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (31St Street) Minor AADT = 8,000 C Lower Limit INJ +FAT Upper Limit Observed (EB) Expected I (20%) (80%) 3 7 5 LOS )13"4. 83- LOSS III LOSS II L Q 2 - 1 - 2 279 __ . LOSS I 0 0 r , 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,00n Mainline AADT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 152 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 42 crashes, 29 were property damage only and 13 resulted in injuries. Figure 154 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (64.3%) were the predominant crash type. Figure 154 US 85C / 31St Street (MP 265.19) 42 Total Crashes _Approach Turn 3 7.1% _Fixed Object 3 7.1% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that 12 of the rear end crashes were northbound, 10 southbound, two eastbound, and three westbound. Twenty-two of the 27 rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement, one crash on wet road conditions, two were on snowy road conditions, one on road treatment road conditions and one marked as foreign material road conditions. Twenty-two of the rear end type crashes occurred during the day, three during the night, one at dawn/dusk and one was unknown. The intersection of US 85C with 31' Street is directly south of the interchange with US 34. The close proximity to the interchange can cause drivers not to notice the signalized intersection before it is too late to stop. It is recommended to consider intersection warning signs to improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. It is also recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals which could help reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 153 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / 22"d Street (MP 266.65) The intersection of US 85L with 22nd Street is a four -leg. divided, and signalized intersection located in Greeley. The northbound and southbound US 85C approaches provide both left -turn and right -deceleration turn lanes onto 22nd Street. There are two through lanes along US 85L and on 22nd Street. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide a left -turn lane, through lane and a through/right-turn lane with right -turn acceleration lanes onto both directions of US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 50 mph. Figure 155 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 155 Aerial Photo: US 85L / 22"d Street (MP 266.65) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with 22nd Street Figure 156 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 157 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a moderate potential for crash reduction for this intersection type (LOSS II/LOSS III). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 154 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 156 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (22nd Street) Minor AADT = 13,200 Figure 157 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (22nd Street) Minor AADT = 13,200 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 155 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 49 crashes, 33 were property damage only and 16 resulted in injuries. Figure 158 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (57.1%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crashes (24.5%). Figure 158 US 85C / 22nd Street (MP 266.65) 49 Total Crashes Other Object Fixed Object 1 Bicycle 1 _2.0% 1 _2.0% 2.0% Rear End 28 57.1% Broadside 6 _12.2% Approach Turn 12 24.5% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that eight of the rear end crashes were northbound, six southbound, two eastbound, and twelve westbound. Twenty-four of the 28 rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement and four crashes were on wet road conditions. Twenty-six of the rear end type crashes occurred during the day, one during the night and one at dawn/dusk lighting conditions. Rear end type crashes at this intersection had nine crashes that involved either trucks or buses. The intersection of US 85C with 22' Street is directly north of the interchange with US 34. The close proximity to the interchange can cause drivers not to notice the signalized intersection before it is too late to stop. It is recommended to consider intersection warning signs in the northbound direction to improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection. Although the frequency of approach turn type crashes were not higher than expected, it is worth noting that the approach type crashes had 12 crashes of which 11 occurred on dry roadway conditions and one on wet roadway conditions. Directionally, three occurred northbound, five occurred southbound and four occurred westbound. None of the approach turn type crashes involved trucks or buses. All left -turn movements at the intersection are currently protected -only. Based on this information, there does not appear to be a correctable pattern. However, it is recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals for the signals at the intersection to reduce approach turn type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 156 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / US 34D (18th Street) (MP 267.18) The intersection of US 85L with US 34D (18th Street) is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Greeley. The northbound and southbound US 85L approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn lanes onto US 34 (181h Street). The northbound approach has a channelized right -turn lane. There are two through lanes along US 85L. The eastbound approach has a left -turn lane, through/right-turn lane with an acceleration lane onto US 85L. The westbound approach has a left -turn lane, a through lane and a right -turn channelized lane with an acceleration lane onto US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 50 mph. The posted speed limit on US 34D (18th Street) is 30 mph. Figure 159 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 159 Aerial Photo: US 85L / US 34D (18th Street) (MP 267.18) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with US 34 (18th Street). Figure 160 shows that the frequency of total crashes over the five-year study period was significantly better than expected for a four - lane divided signalized four -leg intersection which indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Figure 161 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 157 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 160 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (US 34D [18th Street]) Minor AADT = 9,000 Figure 161 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (US 34D [18th Street]) Minor AADT = 9,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 158 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 36 crashes, 28 were property damage only, and 8 resulted in injuries. Figure 162 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (36.1%) were the predominant crash type followed by fixed object and broadside turn type crashes (both 19.4%). Figure 162 US 85L / US 34D [18t" Street] (MP 267.18) 36 Total Crashes Sideswipe (Opposite)._ 1 2.8°ro Rear End _ 13 36 1% Fixed Object 7 19.4% _Overtaking Turn 1 2 _Sideswipe (Same) 3 8.3% _Approach Turn 4 11.1% Broadside 7 19.4% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of fixed object type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that five of the fixed object crashes were northbound, one southbound; and one westbound. Five of the seven fixed object crashes occurred on dry pavement, one was on icy and one was on slushy road conditions. Two of the fixed object type crashes occurred during the day, three during the night and two at dawn/dusk lighting conditions. Fixed object type crashes at this intersection had three that involved either trucks or buses. There was no pattern to the fixed objects that were hit and therefore no improvement recommendations. Although the frequency of rear end type crashes was not higher than expected it is worth noting that the approach type crashes had 13 crashes that 11 occurred on dry roadway conditions and two on wet roadway conditions. Directionally, five occurred northbound, seven occurred southbound and one occurred westbound. Only one of the approach turn type crashes involved trucks or buses. Northbound and southbound left -turn movements at the intersection are currently protected -only. It is unknown when this more restrictive phasing was instituted. Westbound left -turn movements are permitted with a sign that specifies that "left turn yield on green." However, it is recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals for the signals at the intersection to reduce approach turn type crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 159 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / 16th Street (MP 267.44) The intersection of US 85L with 16th Street is a four -leg, divided, and signalized intersection located in Greeley. The northbound and southbound US 85L approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn lanes onto 16th Street. There are two through lanes along US 85L. The eastbound approach has a left -turn lane, a through lane and a right -turn lane with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85L. The westbound approach has a left -turn lane, a through lane and a right - turn channelized lane with an acceleration lane onto southbound US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 50 mph. The posted speed limit on 16th Street is 30 mph. Figure 163 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 163 Aerial Photo: US 85L / 16t' Street (MP 267.44) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with 16th Street, Figure 164 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four -leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 165 shows that the severity of crashes also indicates a low to moderate potential for reduction (LOSS II). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 160 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 10,000 20.000 30.000 40.000 Mainline MOT Figure 164 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (16th Street) Minor AADT = 7,300 Figure 165 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (16t'' Street) Minor AADT = 7,300 Lower Limit (20%) - FAT Upper Limit (80%) O Observed (EB) o Expected] 50,000 60,000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 161 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 41 crashes, 31 were property damage only and 10 resulted in injuries. Figure 166 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (36.6%) and approach turn type crashes (36.6%) were the predominant crash types. Figure 166 US 85L / 16th Street (MP 267.44) 41 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of approach turn type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that six of the approach turn crashes were northbound, seven southbound. and two westbound. Twelve of the 15 approach turn crashes occurred on dry pavement, one on wet conditions, one on snowy conditions, and one marked as foreign material road conditions. Eleven of the approach turn type crashes occurred during the day, three during the night and one at dawn/dusk lighting conditions. Approach turn type crashes at this intersection had three crashes that involved either trucks or buses. All left -turn movements at this intersection are currently protected -only. However, the analysis period of 2008 to 2012 consists of some crash records that occurred before the installation of the protected -only left turn phasing. It is expected that the installation of protected -only left -turn phasing will reduce the frequency of approach turn type crashes. The intersection should be monitored to determine if the left -turn phasing reduces crashes at this intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 162 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / 13th Street (MP 267.77) The intersection of US 85L with 13th Street is a four -leg, divided, and signalized intersection located in Greeley. The northbound and southbound US 85L approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn lanes onto 13th Street. There are two through lanes along US 85L. The east and west legs have a left-turn/through/right-turn approach. The westbound right -turn is channelized with an acceleration lane onto northbound US 85L. The eastbound right -turn onto southbound US 85L also has an acceleration lane. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 50 mph. The posted speed limit on 13th Street is 30 mph. Figure 167 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 167 Aerial Photo: US 85L / 13t' Street (MP 267.77) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with US 34 (13th Street), Figure 168 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low potential for crash for a signalized four -lane divided three -leg intersection (LOSS l). Figure 169 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 163 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 168 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (13th Street) Minor AADT = 5,200 6 Lower Limit (20%) Total — Upper Limit (80%) 0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000 Mainline AADT Figure 169 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (13th Street) Minor AADT = 5,200 Laver Limit (20%) INJ + FAT Upper Limit (80%) 5- 416 O 2 42 LOSS IV LOSS III LOSS II LOSS I 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000 Mainline AADT Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 164 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were 12 crashes, eight were property damage only and four resulted in injuries. Figure 170 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (41.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (25.0%). Figure 170 US 85C / 13th Street (MP 267.77) 12 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that three of the broadside crashes were eastbound and two were westbound. Four of the five broadside crashes occurred on dry pavement and one crash was on wet road conditions. Four of the broadside type crashes occurred during the day and one during the night. None of the broadside type crashes at this intersection involved either trucks or buses. The intersection of US 85L and 13th Street was recently signalized. Since the range of the crash analysis occurred during a time when the intersection was not signalized and the fact the all of the broadside crashes involved side street traffic, it is expected that the recent signal installation will reduce the number of broadside crashes at this intersection. No additional improvements are recommended. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 165 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / SH 263A (8t`' Street) (MP 268.22) The intersection of US 85L with SH 263A (8th Street) is a four -leg, divided, signalized intersection located in Greeley. The northbound and southbound US 85L approaches provide both left -turn and right -turn lanes onto SH 263A (8th Street). There are two through lanes along US 85L. The east and west legs have a left-turn/through/right-turn approach with right -turn acceleration lanes onto US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 45 mph. The posted speed limit on 8th Street is 30 mph. Figure 171 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 171 Aerial Photo: US 85L / SH 263A (8t'' Street) (MP 268.22) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with SH 263A (8th Street), Figure 172 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low potential for crash for a signalized four -lane divided three -leg intersection (LOSS l). Figure 173 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low potential for crash reduction (LOSS l). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 166 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 172 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (SH 263A [8th Street]) Minor AADT = 13,700 30 25 — Louver Limit (20%) Total — Upper Limit (80%) 20 - m ii 5 0 5 000 10 000 0 LOSS IV /loss III 10000 15000 LOSS I 0 5 000 20.000 25 000 Mainline AADT 30 000 Figure 173 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (SH 263A [8th Street]) Minor AADT = 13,700 —Laver Limit (20%) INJ + FAT — Upper Limit (80%) o Observed (EB) . Expected Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 15 000 20 000 Mainline AADT Page 167 30 000 35 000 40 000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were 32 crashes, 26 were property damage only and six resulted in injuries. Figure 174 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (46.9%) were the predominant crash type followed by broadside type crashes (18.8%). Figure 174 US 85C / SH 263A (8th Street) (MP 268.22) 32 Total Crashes Overturning Sideswipe 1 (Opposite) 3.1 % 2° Fixed Object _6.3/° 2 Rear End 15 46.9% Broadside 6 18,8% _6.3% Sideswipe (Same) 3 94% _Approach Turn 3 9.4% Observations / Recommendations Although none of the crash types at this intersection are significantly higher than expected, there are patterns to the rear end and broadside type crashes that consideration should be given to addressing. Eight of the 15 rear end crashes were northbound and six of these occurred in the afternoon and early evening. Five of the six broadside crashes occurred when vehicles on US 85L ran through a red light. There are a number of guide signs of the US 85L approaches to this intersection so drivers should be aware that they are approaching it but may not be aware that the signal is red. There are currently no upcoming intersection warning signs provided for the intersection. Installing intersection warning signs (W2-1) with flashing beacon on US 85L should be considered. The speed limit on US 85L is 45 mph so there should be sufficient separation distance to connect the flashing beacon to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. This would improve driver awareness of the upcoming signalized intersection and reducing the frequency of rear end type crashes. Additionally. it is recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals to reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes at the other approaches to the intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 168 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / 5th Street (MP 268.49) The intersection of US 85L with 5th Street is a four -leg, divided, and signalized intersection located in Greeley. The northbound and southbound US 85L approaches provide both a left -turn and a right -turn lane onto 5th Street. There are two through lanes along US 85L. The east and west legs have a left-turn/through-right-turn approach with right -turn acceleration lanes onto US 85L The posted speed limit on US 85L is 50 mph. The posted speed limit on 5'h Street is 30 mph. Figure 175 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 175 Aerial Photo: US 85L / 5th Street (MP 268.49) Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with 5th Street, Figure 176 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash for a signalized four -lane divided three - leg intersection (LOSS II). Figure 177 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a low to moderate potential for crash reduction for this intersection type (LOSS II/). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 169 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 176 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (5t) Street [MP 268.49]) Minor AADT = 5,800 Accidents/Year AccidentsiYear 0 5 000 10 000 15 000 Mainline AADT 20 000 4 — Lower Limit (20°6) Total —Upper Limit (80%) 30 000 Figure 177 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (5th Street [MP 268.49]) Minor AADT = 5,800 - Laver Limit (20%) INJ + FAT Upper Lima (80%) 35 - 3 25 - 2 1 5 - 05 LOSS N 10 000 15 000 20 000 Mainline AADT 0 5 000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 170 25 000 30 000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were fifteen crashes, eleven were property damage only and four resulted in injuries. Figure 178 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes (66.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by approach turn type crashes (20.0%). Figure 178 US 85L / 5th Street (MP 268.49) 15 Total Crashes Rear End 10 66.7% Sideswipe (Same) 1 Fixed Object 6.7% 1 J 6.7% --A11111100, Approach Turn 3 20.0% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of rear end type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that two of the rear end crashes were northbound. six eastbound, and two westbound. Nine of the ten rear end crashes occurred on dry pavement and one crash was on wet road conditions. Eight of the rear end type crashes occurred during the day, one during the night and one at dawn/dusk lighting conditions. None of the rear end type crashes at this intersection involved either trucks or buses. The intersection of US 85C with 5th Street was improved in 2012 with upgraded signals and mast arms and all approaches were brought up to current roadway standards. It is expected that these changes should provide some level of reduction in the level of crashes experienced at this intersection. It is recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals to reduce the frequency of rear end type crashes at the other approaches to the intersection. It is also recommended that crashes patterns continue to be monitored in the future. Advanced warning signs (W2-1) with flashing beacons might be a further improvement. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 171 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / O Street (MP 270.43) The intersection of US 85L with 0 Street is a three -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. A northbound right -turn and southbound left -turn lane onto 0 Street are provided. There are two through lanes along US 85L. 0 Street only allows right -turn onto northbound US 85L, and there is a right -turn acceleration lane. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 65 mph. Figure 179 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 179 Aerial Photo: US 85L / O Street (MP 270.43) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 172 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were seven crashes, five were property damage only and two resulted in injuries. Figure 180 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Approach turn type crashes (28.6%) and sideswipe (same) type crashes (28.6%) were the predominant crash types. Figure 180 US 85L / O Street (MP 270.43) 7 Total Crashes Approach Turn 2 28.6% Sideswipe (Same) 2 28.6% Overturning 1 14.3% Broadside 14.3% Fixed Object 1 14.3% Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at the intersection of US 85L and O Street. There are no suggestions for improvements at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 173 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / 11th Street (MP 271.19) The intersection of US 85L with CR 6 is a three -leg.. divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound approach has a left -turn onto 11th street and two through -lanes. The southbound direction has a through/through-right-turn approach. 11th Street provides a left -turn and right - turn lane, both movements have acceleration lanes onto US 85L The posted speed limit on US 85 is 65 mph. The posted speed limit on 11th Street is 45 mph. Figure 181 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 181 Aerial Photo: US 85L / 11t'' Street (MP 271.19) Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 174 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were six crashes, three were property damage only and three resulted in injuries. Figure 182 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (50.0°/0) were the predominant crash type. Figure 182 US 85L / 11th Street (MP 271.19) 6 Total Crashes _Rear End 1 16.7% Broadside 3 50.0°/a 40 Sideswipe (Same) 1 16.7% Approach Turn 1 16.7% Observations / Recommendations There are no significant crash types at the intersection of US 85L and 1191 Street. There are no suggestions for improvements at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 175 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / SH 392A (CR 68) (MP 272.48) The intersection of US 85L with SH 392 (CR 68) is a four -leg, divided, and signalized intersection located in Lucerne. The northbound and southbound US 85L approaches provide both left -turn and channelized right -turn lanes onto SH 392. There are two through lanes along US 85L. The east and west legs have a through-left-turn/right-turn approach. The right -turn lanes off SH 392A are channelized and have acceleration lanes onto US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 55 mph. The posted speed limit on SH 392 is 45 mph. Figure 183 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 183 Aerial Photo: US 85L / SH 392A (CR 68) (MP 272.48) .1 Safety Performance Function Analysis For the intersection of US 85L with State Highway 392 Figure 184 shows that the frequency of total crashes indicates a high potential for crash reduction for a signalized four -lane divided four - leg intersection (LOSS IV). Figure 185 shows that the severity of crashes indicates a high potential for crash reduction (LOSS IV). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 176 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 184 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Total Crashes per Year (SH 392A [MP 272.48)) Minor AADT = 13,200 — Laver Limit (20%) Tota — Upper Limit (80%) • Observed (EB) o Expectel AccidentsNear 0 5000 10 000 15.000 Mainline AADT 20 000 Figure 185 Four -Lane Divided Signalized Four -Leg Intersection Injury + Fatal Crashes per Year (SH 392A [MP 272.48]) Minor AADT = 13,200 — Laver Limit (20%) INJ + FAT — Upper Limit (80%) o Observed (EB) Expected 0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Mainline AADT Page 177 25 000 0Gn 30 000 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 48 crashes, 27 were property damage only and 21 resulted in injuries. Figure 186 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Approach turn type crashes (33.3%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (18.8%). Figure 186 US 85C / SH 392A (MP 272.48) 48 Total Crashes Approach Turn 16 33.3% Rear End 9 188% Other Non - Collision 1 2.1% a Overturning 2 _4.2% Broadside 9 18.8% _Sideswipe (Same) 3 6.3% Fixed Object 8 16.7% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of approach turn type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that ten of the approach turn type crashes were northbound and six were southbound. Thirteen of the sixteen approach turn type crashes occurred on dry pavement. two crashes were on wet road conditions, and one was on icy road conditions. Nine of the approach turn type crashes occurred during the day, four during the night, and three at dawn/dusk lighting conditions. Approach turn type crashes at this intersection had two crashes that involved either trucks or buses. During most of the study period (2008 through at least July 2012), there were no left turn phases for the US 85L approaches. Currently, there is protected/permitted left turn phasing for the north and south approaches. A quick check of 2013 and 2014 crash records reveals that the approach turn problem probably persists. Changing to flashing yellow left turn arrows or protected only left turn phasing might be considered. Upgrading the signal installation by relocating the signal poles from the median (where they can obstruct sight distance of oncoming traffic) to the outside shoulders might also be considered. Although the broadside type crashes at this intersection are not significantly higher than expected, there is a directional pattern with six of the nine crashes caused by US 85L vehicles. To possibly reduce the number of broadside type crashes, connecting the flashing beacons on the intersection warning signs (W2-1) on US 85L to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases could be considered. It is also recommended to review/update the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals to reduce the frequency of rear end and other types of crashes. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 178 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / CR 74 (Collins Street) (MP 275.59) The intersection of US 85L with CR 74 (Collins Street) is a four -leg, divided, and signalized intersection located in Eaton. The northbound approach provides a left -turn and a right -turn lane onto CR 74, with two through lanes along US 85L. The southbound approach has left -turn, through, and through -right -turn lanes. The westbound approach has a left -turn lane and a through -right -turn lane configuration. The eastbound approach has left -turn, through, and right - turn lanes with a right -turn acceleration lane onto southbound US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 35 mph. Figure 187 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 187 Aerial Photo: US 85L / CR 74 (Collins Street) (MP 275.59) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were 13 crashes and all 13 were property damage only. Figure 188 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Approach turn type crashes (30.8%) were the predominant crash type followed by rear end type crashes (23.1%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 179 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 188 US 85L / CR 74 (Collins Street) (MP 275.59) 13 Total Crashes Overtaking Turn Parked Motor 1 Vehicle 7.7% 1 _7.7% Approach Turn 4 30.8% Broadside 2 15.4% Rear End 3 23.1% - Sideswipe (Same) 2 15.4% Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85L and CR 74 (Collins Street). There are no suggestions for improvements at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 180 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / CR 76 (MP 276.62) The intersection of US 85L with CR 76 is a four -leg, divided, unsignalized intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches provide left -turn and a right -turn lanes onto CR 76, with two through lanes along US 85L The westbound and eastbound approaches have shared left-turn/through/right-turn configurations with right -turn acceleration lanes onto each direction of US 85L. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 55 mph for northbound traffic and 50 mph for southbound traffic. Figure 189 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 189 Aerial Photo: US 85L / CR 76 (MP 276.62) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were five crashes, and all five crashes resulted in injuries. Figure 190 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside type crashes (80.0%) were the predominant crash type followed by overturning type crashes (20.0%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 181 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 190 US 85C / CR 76 (MP 276.62) 5 Total Crashes i Overturning 1 20.0% Broadside 4 80.0% Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that three of the four broadside type crashes were eastbound, and one was westbound. Three crashes were on dry pavement, and one was on icy road conditions. All of the crashes occurred during the day with the sun generally behind the drives. All of the crashes involved either passenger vehicles or SUVs. Currently, there are stop signs for both approaches of CR 76. In addition, there are stop signs in each direction just east of the intersection where CR 76 crosses the UPRR tracks. Placing larger stop signs (R1-1 — 48"x48") should be considered for both CR 76 approaches to the intersection. The pattern of crashes should be monitored, and if the broadside pattern persists, a flashing red beacon should be considered for the stop signs and a flashing yellow beacon for the advanced warning sign (W2-1) west of the intersection for eastbound CR 76 traffic. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 182 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / SH 14C (1St Street) (MP 279.76) The intersection of US 85L with SH 14C (1st Street) is a four -leg, undivided, signalized intersection located in Ault. The northbound and southbound approaches provide left -turn and right -turn lanes onto SH 14C, with two through lanes along US 85L. The westbound and eastbound approaches have shared left-turn/through/right-turn configurations. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 35 mph. Figure 191 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 191 Aerial Photo: US 85L / SH 14C (1St Street) (MP 279.76) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 — 12/31/2012), there were ten crashes, nine were property damage only and one resulted in injury. Figure 192 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Rear end type crashes, sideswipe (same), and fixed object crashes (20.0%) were the predominant crash types at this intersection. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 183 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 192 US 85L / SH 14C (1st Street) (MP 279.76) 10 Total Crashes Observations / Recommendations A review of the crash history indicates that there is no current pattern to crashes at the intersection of US 85L and SH 14C. There are no suggestions for improvements at this time. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 184 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85L / CR 100 (MP 289.00) The intersection of US 85L with CR 100 is a four -leg, undivided, unsignalized intersection located near Nunn. All approaches are single lane approaches with shared left-turn/through/ right -turn configurations. The westbound approach is unpaved and crosses the railroad approximately 150 feet east of the intersection. The posted speed limit on US 85L is 55 mph. Figure 193 shows an aerial view of the intersection. Figure 193 Aerial Photo: US 85L / CR 100 (MP 289.00) Crash History During the five-year study period (1/1/2008 - 12/31/2012), there were six crashes, two were property damage only, three resulted in injuries. and one fatal crash. Figure 194 provides a graphical representation of crash types for this location. Broadside crashes (66.7%) were the predominant crash type followed by sideswipe (same direction) crashes (16.7%) and fixed object crashes (16.7%). Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 185 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Figure 194 US 85L / CR 100 (MP 289.00) 6 Total Crashes Broadside 4 66.7% Sideswipe (Same) 1 16.7% Fixed Object 1 16.7% Fatal Crashes This broadside type crash occurred on October 14, 2010 at 19:10 under dry and dark -unlighted conditions. Vehicle #1 (a passenger car) was traveling eastbound on CR 100, and Vehicle #2 (a large truck) was traveling northbound. The crash was reported as a front to side collision. Alcohol was suspected for the driver of Vehicle #1. Vehicle #1 was reported to be traveling 20 miles over the speed limit of 35 mph. Vehicle #1 was reported to disregard the stop sign. Observations / Recommendations The frequency of broadside type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. A review of the crash history indicated that three of the four broadside type crashes were eastbound, and one was northbound (unusual circumstances). Three crashes were on dry pavement, and one was on wet road conditions. Two of the crashes occurred during the day, and the other two were in dark, unlighted conditions. Three of the crashes involved either passenger vehicles or light trucks, and one involved a larger truck. Currently, there are stop signs for both approaches of CR 100. In addition, there is an additional stop sign before the intersection are eastbound traffic at the gravel frontage road approaching from the south. Placing larger stop signs (R1-1 — 48"x48") should be considered for both CR 100 approaches to the intersection. The additional stop sign on the west leg should be replaced with a "Do Not Block Intersection" (R10-7) sign to reduce confusion about were eastbound vehicles should stop. The pattern of crashes should be monitored, and if the broadside pattern persists, a flashing red beacon should be considered for the stop signs and a flashing yellow beacon for the advanced warning sign (W2-1) west of the intersection for eastbound CR 100 traffic. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 186 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS These conclusions and recommendations are based on the analysis of five years of crash history, field visits, and reviews of video log. Regions 1 and 4 are advised to verify through field survey, the observations made in this report regarding physical features, roadside characteristics and traffic control devices. US 85 traverses flat and rolling terrain. From 1-76 (MP 226.80) through Ault (MP 280.27), US 85 has a four -lane divided cross section. North of Ault, US 85 is a two-lane roadway. US 85 traverses urban areas in the southern segments and the Evans/Greeley/Eaton area. The middle and north segments are rural. CDOT has been active through the US 85 corridor making safety related improvements in the three years since 2012. These improvements include cable rail median barrier through much of the corridor in Weld County south of LaSalle. In addition, at least one intersection (CR 42) has been signalized, and several existing signals have been modified. The following is a brief summary of additional safety improvements that could be considered. General Recommendations The following features should be considered along US 85 as elements of any significant improvements project (such as repaving or reconstruction) that might be undertaken by the Regions: • Good skid resistance and drainage of the roadway surface, • Adjustment, repair, and upgrade of existing guardrail to meet current standards, • Elimination of pavement edge drop-offs (Safety Edge Application), • Crown correction where required, • Appropriate pavement markings, signing, and delineation, • Replace all button reflectors and guardrail reflectors to ensure good nighttime and inclement weather (fog. snow. rain, etc.) delineation. Other general improvements that the Regions should consider include: • Cable rail median barrier throughout the four -lane divided segments of the corridor. Cable rail has recently been installed between CR 2 (MP 236.03) and LaSalle (MP 265.85). Concrete barrier is deployed in the vicinity of the SH 52 interchange in Fort Lupton. • Much of the corridor south of LaSalle already has outside shoulder rumble strips installed. These should be considered for the rest of the corridor north of 5th Street in Greeley. Shoulder widening may be necessary in certain sections to accomplish this. • Most of the signalized intersections are isolated. approximately a mile or more separation with the exception of the Evans and Greeley areas. Rear end and sideswipe (same) type crashes are higher than expected, generally due to high volumes and congestion. Reviewing and updating the existing yellow/all red clearance intervals to reduce the frequency of rear end and other types of crashes should be considered. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 187 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Many of the signalized intersections have advanced warning signs (R2-1) with flashing beacons on the US 85 approaches. Repositioning these intersection warning signs at an appropriate distance for current approach speeds should be considered. If the separation distance allows, the flashing beacon should be connected to the signal controller in order to anticipate red phases. Specific Recommendations • Through Segment 1C (from midway between the 124th and 132' Avenue intersections [MP 230.87] and extending north to north of the SH 7 interchange [MP 235.19]), a specific off -road left pattern of crashes was identified, and cable rail barriers should be considered for the median of this segment. • The intersection of US 85C with CR 44 is an unsignalized intersection that has a significant broadside crash problem: 27 of 28 total crashes. CR 44 intersects US 85C at a skew angle, which makes it harder for large trucks and busses (as well as other vehicles) to see oncoming traffic. There are currently double posted intersection warning signs (W10-2) on both approaches of US 85C. Unfortunately, the northbound posting is at MP 258.213, south of the intersection with CR 33 (MP 258.37). Increasing the size of these signs to freeway standard (48"x48") and adding northbound signs south of CR 44 should be considered. Flashing beacons for these signs should also be considered. This intersection should be monitored in the future to see if more aggressive measures (such as a traffic signal) might be appropriate. Constructing a signal will likely reduce the broadside collisions but could also increase the overall number of crashes, especially rear end crashes. • The intersection of US 85L with SH 392 (CR 68) is a signalized intersection located in Lucerne. The frequency of approach turn type crashes was higher than expected for this type of intersection. Changing to flashing yellow left turn arrows or protected only left turn phasing might be considered. Upgrading the signal installation by relocating the signal poles from the median (where they can obstruct sight distance of oncoming traffic) to the outside shoulders might also be considered. • The intersection of US 85L with CR 76 in Ault is an unsignalized intersection that has a higher than expected number of broadside crashes, primarily caused by eastbound drivers. Placing larger stop signs (R1-1 — 48"x48") should be considered for both CR 76 approaches to the intersection. The pattern of crashes should be monitored, and if the broadside pattern persists, a flashing red beacon should be considered for the stop signs and a flashing yellow beacon for the advanced warning sign (W2-1) west of the intersection for eastbound CR 76 traffic. • The intersection of US 85L with CR 100 in Nunn is an unsignalized intersection that has a higher than expected number of broadside crashes. Placing larger stop signs (R1-1 — 48"x48") should be considered for both CR 100 approaches to the intersection. The additional stop sign on the west leg should be replaced with a "Do Not Block Intersection" (R10-7) sign to reduce confusion about were eastbound vehicles should stop. The pattern of crashes should be monitored, and if the broadside pattern persists, a flashing red beacon should be considered for the stop signs and a flashing yellow beacon for the advanced warning sign (W2-1) west of the intersection for eastbound CR 100 traffic. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch Page 188 March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 Appendices See attached electronic files generated during the analyses of safety along US 85. Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch March 2016 US 85C MP 226.80 - MP 265.76 US 85L MP 265.85 - MP 290.00 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Appendix E. Location Recommendations and Alternative Concepts US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 104TH AVENUE, SPUI OPTION 104TH AVE *. I- A Hazmat Site ,t, Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor © Parks and Trails Stream Crossing -ti- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 0 550 IMINICIFeet refs COLORADO Department of Transportation Historic Resource Landfill Parks & Open Space Wetlands Potential Impact Limits ' — Edge of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill Bus Stop US 85 and 104th Avenue, SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/E 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 5 4 13.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations US 85 is elevated and business access along 104th Avenue is maintained Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI with Flyover (Note: Split Diamond, DDI, and Partial Cloverleaf alternatives are also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Does not fit within community context • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resources, floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $38,200,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Add additional NB left turn lane and signal timing improvements Evaluated improvements Diamond, Split Diamond, SPUI with flyover, Diverging Diamond, Partial Cloverleaf Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Diamond Interchange, No Action Alternative Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Does not effectively address purpose and need • Would improve mobility, safety and enhance alternate modes • Disruptive to current and future development opportunities Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, Section 4(f) resources (park and open space, trail I, First Creek floodplain, wetlands, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, historic resources, and commercial development or additional information, see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Adverse impacts to Section 4(f)properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of First Creek may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124th Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112`h Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 1O4th Avenue, SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 104TH AVENUE, SPLIT DIAMOND OPTION Legend ® Hazmat Site ,b, Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor fl Parks and Trails Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 0 ICIFeet 475 S Historic Resource Landfill Parks 8 Open Space 04 Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N.. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill Bus Stop —5- Inline A \ /AO o► t . 4„. Sip the "rr' ,�ti 7Le 3t HAVANA CT • COLORADO Department of Transportation Parks Et Open Space Potential • Impact Limits 's... Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 0 400 �Feet US 85 and 104th Avenue, Split Diamond Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/E 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 5 4 13.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 104th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR. Recommended improvement type(s) Split Diamond (Note: SPUI, DDI, and partial cloverleaf alternatives are also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Would not fit within community context • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resources, floodplain, wetlands, T&E species habitat, and historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $80,500,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Add additional NB left turn lane and signal timing improvements Evaluated improvements Diamond, Split Diamond, SPUI with flyover, Diverging Diamond, Partial Cloverleaf Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Diamond Interchange, No Action Alternative Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Does not effectively address purpose and need • Would improve mobility, safety and enhance alternate modes • Disruptive to current and future development opportunities Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: land use, Section 4(f) resources (park and open space, trail), First Creek floodplain, wetlands, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, hazmat sites, historic resources, and commercial and residential development or additional information, see of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Adverse impacts to Section 4(f) properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of First Creek may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124"' Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112`h Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 104th Avenue, Split Diamond Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 104TH AVENUE, DDI OPTION nt A a Prairie Dog Colony ci a p A -_s - - r Noise Receptor Parks and Trails Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain Parks & Open Space 0 550 Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation Wetlands Potential Impact Limits "%a Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill Bus Stop Inline A US 85 and 104th Avenue, DDI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/E 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 5 4 13.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 104th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) DDI (Note. Split Diamond, SPU1, and Partial Cloverleaf alternatives are also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Does not fit within community vision • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resources. floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources • May not efficiently accommodate transit stops, esp. through bus service Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $48,700,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Add additional NB left turn lane and signal timing improvements Evaluated improvements Diamond, Split Diamond, SPUI with flyover, Diverging Diamond, Partial Cloverleaf Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Diamond Interchange, No Action Alternative Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Does not effectively address purpose and need • Would improve mobility, safety and enhance alternate modes • Disruptive to current and future development opportunities Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, Section 4(f) resources (park and open space, trail), First Creek floodplain, wetlands, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, historic resources, and commercial development nr rnn,r,a>n.,I ,nrnrmnr,on von Hooend.x 1. or the UJ C)3 i,nnn,n9 and tnvirn ,,n..nr •F _ i... N.. , Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Adverse impacts to Section 4(f)properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of First Creek may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's nacre(' Black P, D09 Poi, (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124th Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112`h Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 104th Avenue, DDI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 104TH AVENUE, PARTIAL CLOVERLEAF OPTION COLORADO Department of Transportation A Hazmat Site Historic Resource Prairie Dog Colony Landfill Noise Receptor Parks & Open Space QParks and Trails fl Wetlands Stream Crossing Potential Impact Limits NHD Streams/Ditches 'N.• Edge Of Road Floodplain Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 550 Feet Bus Stop US 85 and 104th Avenue, Partial Cloverleaf Option US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/E 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 5 4 13.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 104th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR. Recommended improvement type(s) Partial Cloverleaf (Note: Split Diamond, SPU1, and DD1 alternatives are also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Does not fit within community vision • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resources, floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources • This configuration does not effectively address the purpose and need Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 551,800,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1► • Mobility - Add additional NB left turn lane and signal timing improvements Evaluated improvements Diamond, Split Diamond, SPUI with flyover, Diverging Diamond, Partial Cloverleaf Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Diamond Interchange, No Action Alternative Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Does not effectively address purpose and need • Would improve mobility, safety and enhance alternate modes • Disruptive to current and future development opportunities Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, Section 4(f) resources (park and open space, trail), First Creek floodplain, wetlands, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, historic resources, and commercial development additional mforma ion, see f1ppend'x C. of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Adverse impacts to Section 4(f)properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of First Creek may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124th Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 104th Avenue, Partial Cloverleaf Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND LONGS PEAK DRIVE COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 and Longs Peak Drive US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type 3/4 movement Distance from railroad N/A Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No significant issues Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 2 0 3 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations This section of the US 85 corridor is recommended to operate as a freeway; a closure is compatible with a freeway classification. Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community and corridor context • Minor change to access and neighborhood circulation Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) S200,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and Closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements N/A Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Environmental considerations Minor land use conflicts or additional information, see Append,„ Cot the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use and circulation conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Commerce City, Adams County, and CDOT). ▪ The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124th Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and Longs Peak Drive US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 112TH AVENUE, SPUI OPTION Ion 4 m I I Li P 112TH Pt. 112TH DR 113TH AVE 0 4 112TH AVE n 107TH PL 1 Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation 112TH WAY 112TH PL k, Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Parks Et Open Space Potential s' Impact Limits 0-‘.. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill ® Bus Stop 0 575 Feet N US 85 and 112th Avenue, SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 200' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, railroad proximity, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM E/D 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 1.5 5 10.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 112th Avenue is elevated above US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI (Note: a skewed SPUI is also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Enhances regional transit service • Impacts to land uses, TEtE species, and historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 545,900,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Add additional WB left turn lane, extend acel/decl lanes, and signal timing improvement Evaluated improvements No Action, SPUI, Skewed SPUI, Grade Separated (no access), Single loop partial clover leaf, and closure Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Grade -separated (no access), No Action, Single loop partial clover leaf, and closure Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Does not effectively meet purpose and need • Would improve safety and enhance regional transit service • Would not meet mobility and access needs Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to commercial and residential land uses, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, and a potential historic railroad segment. or additional information, see Appon x C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124t" Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 112th Avenue, SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 112TH AVENUE, SKEWED SPUI OPTION 7oeT ? y4l' m * zo csiv 60* 70 4.4 �T e * • 1. 107TH PL — COLORADO Department of Transportation HAVANA ST Legend P Prairie Dog Colony # Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Parks & Open Space • s Potential Impact Limits 'L Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill p Bus Stop 575 Feet A US 85 and 112th Avenue, Skewed SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 200' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, railroad proximity, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM E/D 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 1.5 5 10.75 PEL Screening Process Evaluated improvements Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 112th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) Skewed SPUI (Note: SPUI is also a recommended alternative) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Moderately fits within community context • Avoids residential areas in NW quadrant • Impacts to land uses south of 112th Ave, TEE species, and historic resources • SPUI does not efficiently accommodate through bus service (requires additional signal phase) Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $47,700,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Add Additional WB left turn lane, extend acel/decel lanes, and signal timing improvement No Action, SPUI, Skewed SPUI, Grade Separated (no access), Single loop partial clover leaf, and closure Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Grade Separated (no access), No Action, Single loop partial clover leaf, and closure • Does not effectively address purpose and need • Would improve safety and enhance regional transit service • Would not meet mobility and access needs Primary considerations include impacts to commercial and residential land uses, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, and a potential historic railroad segment. Environmental considerations For additional information, see A,, , o n r, • x C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124`h Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 112th Avenue, Skewed SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 120TH AVENUE, DIAMOND OPTION O2 • 116TH AVE COLORADO Department of Transportation OAKLAND ST 118TH AVE X Access Closure Parks Et Open Space A Hazmat Site AtPrairie Dog Colony Noise Receptor `c Riparian Habitat NHD Streams/Ditches Historic Resource 550 Feet e4I ti Wetlands Potential Impact Limits Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill Bus Stop V US 85 and 120th Avenue, Diamond Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City, Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 200' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, railroad proximity, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/D 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.75 4.5 5 13.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 120th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) Tight Diamond (Note: Diverging Diamond also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access, and safety • Fits within Community context • Impacts to land uses, hazmat facilities, wetlands, T&E species, and NRHP-eligible historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 544,400,000 Interim improvements • Safety- Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Right in -right out Evaluated improvements No Action, Partial Cloverleaf, diamond, tight diamond, diverging diamond Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Diamond Interchange, and Partial Cloverleaf Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action alternative would not meet purpose and need • Diamond interchange would result in substantial impacts to residential and commercial properties, hazmat facilities, and potentially historic properties • Partial Cloverleaf would result in extensive impacts to surrounding properties; not possible to implement loop on railroad side of the highway Environmental considerations Primary environmental considerations include land uses, hazmat facilities, wetlands, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, and NRHP- eligible historic resources For additional information, see .... . of the US 85 Planning and Fnvirnnmanrnl I inlrnna Dnnnrr Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or COOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City, Brighton, and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124th Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 120th Avenue, Diamond Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 AND 120TH AVENUE, DIVERGIVING DIAMOND (DDI) OPTION 124TH AVE 120TH AVE e S i r A X * a ilk 119TH PL Legend • Access Closure A Hazmat Site ,!j Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor S Riparian Habitat NHD Streams/Ditches Historic Resource 500 Feet t D g Parks & Open Space f, Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '1. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 1T Bus Stop Inline N US 85 and 120th Avenue, Diverging Diamond (DDI) Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Commerce City, Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 200' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, railroad proximity, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/D D 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.75 4.5 5 13.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 120th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) Diverging Diamond (Note: Tight Diamond also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and safety • Fits within the context of the community • Impacts to land uses, hazmat facilities, wetlands, TEhE species, and NRHP-eligible historic resources • Does not effectively support through bus movements Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 549,700,000 Interim improvements • Safety- Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Right in -right out o e Evaluated improvements No Action, Partial Cloverleaf, diamond, tight diamond, diverging diamond Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Diamond Interchange and Partial Cloverleaf Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action alternative would not meet purpose and need • Diamond would meet access and safety needs • Diamond would result in substantial impacts to residential and commercial properties, hazmat facilities, and potentially historic properties • Partial Cloverleaf would result in extensive impacts to surrounding properties; not possible to implement loop on railroad side of the highway Environmental considerations Primary environmental considerations include commercial and residential land uses, hazmat facilities, wetlands, black -tailed prairie dog habitat, potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat, and NRHP-eligible historic resources For additional infnrmntinn coo A C f th US DC P( - x amm Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Commerce City, Brighton, and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124th Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 120th Avenue, Diverging Diamond (DDI) Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 124TH AVENUE 124TH AVE A •0eaverse ssS/IIp tzt /if 116TH AVE Focus Area 124th Ave. 0 Access Closure A Hazmat Site a Prairie Dog Colony it Noise Receptor Vik Riparian Habitat NHD Streams/Ditches Historic Resource 550 Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation 120TH AVE 119TH AVE 118TH PL 118TH AVE Parks & Open Space I/, Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '�. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and 124th Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 200' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/C 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.75 4 4.5 12.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure will not happen until access to the interchange at 120`h Avenue is provided Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would meet access and safety needs • Fits within community context • Potential impacts to land use and Hazmat facility Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5200,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Right in -right out Evaluated improvements No Action, Grade -separated interchange, and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and Grade -separated interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not meet purpose and need • The grade -separated interchange would not meet access needs and would result in extensive commercial land use impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include residential and commercial land uses and a hazmat facility For additional infnrmntinn coo n__ _ inkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Brighton, Adams County, and CD0T). • The City of Commerce City Council has formally requested that CDOT evaluate the improvements between 1-76 and 124`h Avenue as complete system, provide a more thorough analysis of community and environmental impacts, consider an alternate interchange layout at 112th Avenue, and reconsider closures. CDOT has initiated a NEPA and 30% Design Project where this analysis and consideration will occur, subsequent to the completion of the US 85 PEL. US 85 and 124th Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 132ND AVENUE „d Creek 136TH AVE _ Focus Area 132nd Ave. 4 • • r -- I r iI< Access Closure A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing , Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches - Trails 0 500 it Feet es, COLORADO Department of Transportation Floodplain Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N.. Edge of Road Top of Cut, Toe of Fill N US 85 and 132' Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type 3/a movement Distance from railroad Approximately 200' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3 1 0 4 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure supported by new interchange at 136th Avenue Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Meets access needs • Fits within community context • Potential impacts to agriculture Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $200,000 Interim improvements None see Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not meet Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary environmental considerations are potential impacts to agricultural lands Fnr nrirlihinnnl infnrmntinn d' A ppen lx r of the US 85 Plannrng and E nvironmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize impacts to agricultural lands. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Commerce City, Adams County, and CDOT). US 85 and 132"d Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 136TH AVENUE, SPUI n6Cr, k S 136TH AVE _A • - - - • Access Closure A Hazmat Site ' Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing 4 Stream Crossing -�+-- NHD Streams/Ditches - Trails Too Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation Floodplain Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '1 Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and 136th Avenue, SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 220' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS C/C Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.5 3.5 3.5 8.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 136th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI (Note: SPUI shifted north is also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, hazmat sites, floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources • SPUI configuration does not effectively support through bus movements Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $39,100,000 Interim improvements Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) Evaluated improvements No Action, Diamond, Partial cloverleaf, Junior, RI/RO interchange, SPUI, Northern SPUI Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Partial cloverleaf, Diamond Interchange and Junior RI/RO interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Diamond has substantial impacts to commercial and agricultural land uses • Partial cloverleaf and Junior RI/RO interchange would not meet access needs Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, hazmat sites, Second Creek floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources Fnr nrlrlitinnnl infnrmntinn cnn Anna.,,+:.. C h oc of t e US OJ Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of Second Creek may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTC) during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 136th Avenue. US 85 and 136th Avenue, SPUI Option US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 136TH AVENUE, NORTHERN SPUI • , • • • • , • • • • • • O ' - �s N _ at ' Seco° 136TH AVE • 14 dim A 132ND AVE Legend X Access Closure A Hazmat Site Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing jler Riparian Habitat fit, Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches /00 Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation - - - Trails Historic Resource Floodplain O.S, Wetlands Potential P Impact Limits '1.. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and 136th Avenue, Northern SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 220' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS C/C Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.5 3.5 3.5 8.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations 136th Avenue is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) Northern SPUI (Note: a SPUI is also recommended) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Avoids development in SW and SE intersection quadrants • Impacts to land use, floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources • SPUI configuration does not effectively support through bus movements Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $42,200,000 (Est. 5% more than 136th Ave. SPUI) Interim improvements Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) ppend' Evaluated improvements No Action, Diamond, Partial cloverleaf, Junior, RI/RO interchange, SPUI Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Partial cloverleaf, Diamond Interchange and Junior RI/RO interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Diamond has substantial impacts to commercial and agricultural land uses • Partial cloverleaf and Junior RI/R0 interchange would not meet access needs Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, Second Creek floodplain, wetlands, and historic resources Fnr nrlrlitinnnl infnrmniinn cnnq r h rx of t e US Planning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of Second Creek may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 136th Avenue. US 85 and 136th Avenue, Northern SPUI Option US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 144TH AVENUE COLORADO Department of Transportation o OA f 144TH AVE aY• O r 0 8 16751 a • Private Irrigation Lateral Legend Access Closure - NHD Streams/Ditches * Noise Receptor Floodplain 4 Stream Crossing ;"s' Bus Stop N 0 3O0 ICI Feet US 85 and 144th Avenue US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type 3A movement Distance from railroad Approximately 220' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS B/C Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 5 2 8.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure is supported by interchange at Bromley Lane Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Meets access and safety needs • Fits within community context • Potential impacts to land uses, historic resources, and wetlands Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5300,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No action, Diamond, Grade-separated/no access, SPUI, and closure Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Grade -separated with no access, Diamond, and SPUI Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Grade separation would meet safety or access needs • Diamond and SPUI interchanges would result in substantial land use impacts Environmental considerations Primary environmental considerations are associated with potential impacts to land uses, potentially historic railroad segment, Elmwood Cemetery (section 4(f) resource), and wetlands For nrlriitinnnl infnrmntinn see A d r•-i-,--, • peen rx of US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize impacts to land uses and traffic operations. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD on services changes to routes R, RC, RX. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Brighton, Adams County, and CDOT). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 144th Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND BROMLEY LANE w W c a w J J J_ W JESSUP ST PLATTE RIVER BLVD DOGWOOD AVE CEDAR AVE nj 851 • * , itte r sa * BROMLEY LN A BRIGHTON RD rw A* rl r I I i t35j 4Sf r 1 A COLORADO Department of Transportation JESSUP ST yaiip leialel Imo FULTON AVE W N A _ CHERRY PL A.BROMCE C z 0 IJ a Legend A Hazmat Site S, Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor S Riparian Habitat �-- NHD Streams/Ditches Trails o 400 Feet Landfill Parks Et Open Space 9/4 Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '•-. Edge Of Road r!'"1 Bus Stop A US 85 and Bromley Lane US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 550' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternate travel modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/E 2O35 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.25 4.5 5 13.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations US 85 is elevated over Bromley Lane Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access, safety • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, hazmat sites, Section 4(f) resources, T Et E Species, and historic resources • SPUI configuration does not effectively support through bus movements Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $27,400,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Additional left turn SB and WB and signal timing improvements e Peen lx of Evaluated improvements No Action, Diamond, SPUI Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Diamond interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Diamond would not meet mobility and access needs • Diamond interchange has substantial impacts to commercial land uses and residential areas Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, T Et E Species, Section 4(f) resources (Bromley Lane bike path), hazmat sites, and historic resources r $4-...-. Fnr nrirlitinnni infnrmntinn cn A d h e US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Adverse impacts to Section 4(f) properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. US 85 and Bromley Lane US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND BRIDGE STREET/SH T COLORADO Department of Transportation 7 5.684.4)7. a. Sr A A a cc 2 J Y Bus Slip Ramp EGBERT ST 12±1 EGBERT ST rs SKEEL ST Q La A BRIDGE ST BUSH ST Legend Existing RTD Park -n -Ride A Hazmat Site Noise Receptor Floodplains ''. Edge Of Road 0 200 Feet A US 85 and Bridge Street/SH 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Interchange with roundabouts Distance from railroad Approximately 800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Alternate modes Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM NB: A/B, SB: C/F 2O35 No -Action LOS NB: F/F, SB: F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) NB/SB LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3/4.25 0/0 0/0 3/4.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Ties into existing bus stop Recommended improvement type(s) Addition of bus slip ramps, grade separated crossing Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and transit service • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5600,000 Interim improvements Safety - Review the signing and upgrade to conform to MUTCD guidance Evaluated improvements No Action, bus slip ramps to station Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include commercial land uses For Qdditinnnl infnrmntinn coo A •PP Next Steps ges Repor • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Brighton, Adams County and RTD to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design. US 85 and Bridge Street/SH 7 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND DENVER STREET Access Closure Hazmat Site Parks and Trails Noise Receptor S Riparian Habitat Stream Crossing -^--- NHD Streams/Ditches 168TH AVE 625 Feet Trails Floodplain Historic Resource Landfill i Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N. Edge Of Road Focus Ara Denver S US 85 and Denver Street > IDA ST A DENVER Si - COLORADO Department of Transportation BASELINE PL BASELINE RD ROBIN ST MIDLAND ST LONGS PEAK ST US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Unsignalized, full movement Distance from railroad N/A Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2O35 No -Action LOS E/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.75 1.5 0 3.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended • Improves safety improvement evaluation • Fits within corridor and (benefits, impacts) community context • Minor impacts to land use Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 • Safety: WB right -out only Interim improvements (2013) • Mobility: Closure, except for emergency access Evaluated improvements No Action and Closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to commercial land uses (changes in travel patterns) Fnr nrirlitinnnl infnrmnhionn Ar•nnna-4:.. r nF 4-1...-... I IC OC rII- -_:.__ __ _ a r. _ __ _ __ _ , se , Next Steps In ages Repor • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Brighton and Adams County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Brighton, Adams County, and CDOT). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and Denver Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 168TH AVENUE/BASELINE ROAD/WCR 2 Legend Access Closure Hazmat Site (i Parks and Trails * Noise Receptor S{f; Riparian Habitat 4 Stream Crossing -^-- NHD Streams/Ditches 0 625 Feet 168TH AVE - Trails Floodplain Historic Resource Landfill elj Wetlands Potential Impact Limits Edge Of Road A DENVER ST A • A COLORADO Department of Transportation J a w z J 'Si N Q 61 BASELINE RD ROBIN ST MIDLAND ST w a x W 2 LONGS PEAK ST w N I- U H CO US 85 and 168th Avenue/Baseline Road/WCR 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Adams County, Weld County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 1400' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2O35 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.5 4 2 9.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations US 85 is elevated over 168th Avenue Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resource, NRHP resource, _ • Impacts to wetlands, floodplain, TEtE species, hazmat site • SPUI configuration does not effectively support through bus movements Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $31,100,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Additional left turn lanes EB and WB; signal timing improvements Evaluated improvements No Action, Diamond and SPUI Eliminated improvement types None Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Diamond Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Diamond would not meet access need • Diamond would result in substantial impacts to adjacent land uses Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, Section 4(f) resource (County Line Trail bike lane), NRHP resource, wetlands, floodplain, TELE species (migratory bird nesting), hazmat site Fnr nrlriihinnnl infnrmnhinn A d' see Peen rx of the US 85 Panning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Adverse impacts to Section 4(f) properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Potential changes in the floodplain of South Platte River may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CL0MR) and Letter of Map Revision (L0MR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T Et E species. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed TEtE species, and SB 40 resources. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Brighton, Adams County and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. US 85 and 168th Avenue/Baseline Road/WCR 2 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 2.5 • Access Closure • Hazmat Site aParks and Trails * Noise Receptor Riparian Habitat Z Stream Crossing w - NHD Streams/Ditches 0 625 ti Feet 168TH AVE - - - Trails Floodplain Historic Resource Landfill j Wetlands Potential Impact Limits ''— Edge Of Road as I 4. • A A IA ST A. • A A DENVER ST - A COLORADO Department of Transportation o-- Focus Area I WCR 2.5 CR2.5 A w S H N BASELINE PL BASELINE RD ROBIN ST MIDLAND sT LONGS PEAK ST U S H co US 85 and WCR 2.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Brighton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type 3/4 movement Distance from railroad N/A Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No significant issues Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2O35 No -Action LOS C/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 2 0 3.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve access and safety • Minor impacts to commercial land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5100,000 Interim improvements None ppen rf ►x of t e Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not meet access requirements Environmental considerations Primary considerations include commercial land uses Fnr nrirlitinnnl infnrmntinn con Q DC f1 US 8 • P(annmg and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Brighton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Brighton, Weld County, and CDOT). US 85 and WCR 2.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 4 Legend US 85 and WCR 4 Access Closure A Hazmat Site aParks and Trails *• Noise Receptor s Riparian Habitat t Stream Crossing -M- NHD Streams/Ditches 0 625 Feet 168TH AVE Trails Floodplain Historic Resource Landfill /$ Wetlands Potential Impact Limits Edge of Road A * • A IDA ST tr COLORADO Department of Transportation R3 yit * O Focus Area WCR 4 A* ra • A A • r I CR2.5 A ct f V I J CI - :5 w rn Q 00 BASELINE RD 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) N/A County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type 3/ movement Distance from railroad Approximately 1750' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No significant issues Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS C/E Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2 1.5 1 4.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2 and WCR 6 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 Interim improvements Mobility - Right -in, right -out on west leg e Evaluated improvements No Action, grade separation, and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and grade separation Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action does not effectively address purpose and need • Grade separation would meet access and safety needs, but would not be cost effective Environmental considerations Primary considerations include commercial land uses For additional infnrmntinn see App endiv r of th US 85 ni • annrng and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County, to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County and CDOT). US 85 and WCR 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 6, PARTIAL LOOP ',tars E 1 Oa X Access Closure A Hazmat Site a, Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor �-- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 0 425 Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation OA Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '1. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and WCR 6, Partial Loop US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Fort Lupton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 2700' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2O35 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3 1.5 1 5.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations WCR 6 is elevated over US 85. Recommended improvement type(s) Partial Cloverleaf Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve mobility, access and safety • Impacts to land uses, historic resources. South Platte floodplain, wetlands, TEE species and hazmat site Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 522,200,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) Evaluated improvements No Action, Partial Cloverleaf, and Diamond Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and Diamond Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • The tight diamond may result in the complete take of a mobile home community Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, historic resource, wetlands, South Platte River floodplain, TEE species and riparian, hazmat site. Fnr nririitinnnl infnrmntmnn se nno AnnA , r s *F,,, I is oc ni,...--:--.. --_.1r_..1______ ___. _, , • rnkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of South Platte River may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T 13 E species, and the migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed TEE species, and SB 40 resources. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Fort Lupton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. US 85 and WCR 6, Partial Loop US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 6.25 leg et COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend X Access Closure A Hazmat Site at Prairie Dog Colony !k* Noise Receptor �-- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 425 Feet M,/; Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '�. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill A US 85 and WCR 6.25 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Fort Lupton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR DRCOG Existing facility type Unsignalized, full movement Distance from railroad N/A Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No significant issues Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 0 2 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 6 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to commercial land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5100,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not meet corridor access requirements Environmental considerations Primary considerations include access to commercial land uses For nrirlitinnnl infnrmntinn coo Annnn,rf,, r F #M I IC oc ni,.....:__ ___, r_..!___ __ _ r.�,Nc�w�n u/ uic ui v✓ rwrnnu� uuu cnvUOnmenCal in ages Itepor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Fort Lupton and Weld County, to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Fort Lupton, Weld County, and CDOT). US 85 and WCR 6.25 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 8 a Legend 411) Prairie Dog Colony Noise Receptor VRaptor Nest NIiD Streams/Ditches 0 500 Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation CR 8.5 CR 8 Floodplain re Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill N US 85 and WCR 8 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Fort Lupton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Unsignalized, full movement Distance from railroad N/A Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/C 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.25 3 0 6.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations WCR 8 is elevated over US 85 and has existing connectivity over the South Platte River. Recommended improvement type(s) Partial cloverleaf junior interchange with hook ramps Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve mobility, access and safety • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, wetlands, floodplain, TEE species Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $24,700,000 Interim improvements • Safety - WB right out only if broadsides persist • Mobility - Signalization, when warranted see pped►x Evaluated improvements No Action, partial cloverleaf, and diamond Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and diamond Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts)• NNo Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Diamond result in substantial commercial and residential impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, wetlands, Platte River floodplain, and TEE species Fnr nrlrlitinnnl infnrrnntinn Q • 'n r of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Substantial changes in the floodplain of South Platte River may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CL0MR) and Letter of Map Revision (L0MR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T & E species, and migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed TEE species, and SB 40 resources. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Fort Lupton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. US 85 and WCR 8 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND SH 52 COLORADO Department of Transportation Q t81 a. • Ihisszsaalmirli \lamatel ;,,De 1+b9 Comple e Sidewalk Network I • der US 85 lilt GRAND AVE rz '& 4TH ST sal -PAC * — 4 ab ;lest) * * * . 3RD ST _, f . r 4t ft 11 ralwr- ist• tt _. ; 2ND ST * 4 ,f '1° -r' -111 A Asi f•'V Y 1ST ST t illll ItAla nw.y stir yi y \a/ALLE DR ;p 1 at _ +T :41 4 t, A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplains '`. Edge of Road 250 Feet N A US 85 and SH 52 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Fort Lupton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Diamond interchange Distance from railroad N/A Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, alternative travel mode Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway Existing LOS, AM/PM NB: C/C, SB: B/B 2035 No -Action LOS NB: C/C, SB: C/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) NB/SB LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2/2.25 0/0 0/0 2/2.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Pedestrian improvements are needed to connect to the pedestrian bridge over the South Platte River Recommended improvement type(s) Pedestrian improvements Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve pedestrian access • Minor impact to South Platte River Floodplain Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5200,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and pedestrian improvements Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to commercial land uses and floodplain For nrklitinnnl infnrmnrinn coo A d r h tic ppen lx of t e 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Fort Lupton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. US 85 and SH 52 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 14TH STREET/WCR 14.5 COLORADO Department of Transportation , r` ., i<r '.y - ra . WCR 14.5 • 85yi��E . a.* it .S DENVER At W z_ WCR 16 Legend Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North I-25 EIS) Hazmat Site • Noise Receptor a Parks and Trails Riparian Habitat El Historic Resource Potential de `' Impact Limits '\. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 0 550 Feet US 85 and 14th Street/WCR 14.5 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Fort Lupton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad Approximately 900' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, alternative travel mode Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Freeway to enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.5 5 2.5 11 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations A commuter bus station is identified to be in the southeast quadrant of US 85 and 14th Street/WCR 14.5. The exact location of the alignment can be determined at the time of improvement. Recommended improvement type(s) Junior interchange Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, hazmat sites, and historic resource Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 531,400,000 (includes WCR 16) Interim improvements Safety - Protected left turns only from US 85, reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) Evaluated improvements No Action, Diamond, SPUI, Channelized-T, and Junior Interchange Eliminated improvement types Diamond Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts)• Would improve mobility, access and safety • Substantial impacts to businesses Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, SPUI, and Channelized-T Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • SPUI would effectively address purpose and need, with substantial impacts to businesses • Channelized-T would improve safety; however, left turns may create mobility issues Environmental considerations Primary considerations include land uses, hazmat sites and historic resource For additionni infnrmntinn can Annond v r of rhn 1 I AG DL,...,:.-,.. .....f r_..:_______s_, , • _, _ epor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Fort Lupton and Weld County, to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with CDOT on the implementation of interregional commuter bus service as identified in the North 1-25 EIS ROD 1. US 85 and 14th Street/WCR 14.5 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 16 COLORADO Department of Transportation 4,0 kit J - .t { r . f i. WCR 14.5 Focus Area O WCR 16 r r r • r 1jk I 85*** a.≥ * S DENVER Atli w z_ V CC a 0 c WCR 16 Legend A Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North I-25 EIS) Hazmat Site Noise Receptor QParks and Trails r Riparian Habitat t Historic Resource Potential Impact Limits '�. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 0 55C Feet A US 85 and WCR 16 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Fort Lupton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Right -in, right -out (RIRO) Distance from railroad Approximately 550' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 2.5 1.5 5.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Completed in coordination with improvements at WCR 14.5. Outcome at WCR 16 is dependent on type of improvement implemented at WCR 14.5/14`h Street. Recommended improvement type(s) Right -in, right -out Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use and hazmat sites Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) S31,400,000 (includes WCR 14.5) Interim improvements Safety - addressed by closing median (2012) see ppen Jx of the US Evaluated improvements No Action, RIRO and Closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and Closure Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Closure would meet access and safety needs, however the RIRO is needed to complement the WCR 14.5 Junior interchange Environmental considerations Primary considerations include commercial land uses and hazmat site Fnr nrirlitinnnJ infnrmntil,r, d or A Planning and c nvrronmentai Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Fort Lupton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 18 COLORADO Department of Transportation Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. Legend • A i Access Closure Hazmat Site Noise Receptor Railroad Crossing Stream Crossing 0 500 Feet NHD Streams/Ditches I/, Wetlands Potential Impact Limits r Edge Of Road sWCR18.5 7 r 1 US 85 and WCR 18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 550' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS F/E Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2.75 4.5 1.5 8.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • US 85 elevated over WCR 18. • Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel roads system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Meets mobility, access and safety needs • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to commercial hazmat facility, wetlands, TEtE species, and historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $27,500,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Closing median to create right -in, right out (RIRO) • Mobility - Signalization, when warranted Evaluated improvements No Action, traffic signal, continuous flow, Shifted SPUI, SPUI, Hook ramps, and diamond Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Hook ramps, and diamond Traffic signal, continuous flow Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Hook Ramps would impact local businesses • Diamond interchange would result in substantial business impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to a commercial hazmat facility, wetlands, South Platte River floodplain, and historic resources (Platteville Ditch and railroad segment). Potential to avoid riparian areas and migratory bird habitats. For additinnnl infnrmntinn coo A endix r th US 85 ni • pp of e ann�ng and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T & E species, and the migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed TEtE species, and SB 40 resources. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 18 TO WCR 28 PARALLEL ROADS COLORADO Department of Transportation See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 24.5 :;- for More Details • • ` • WCR 24 See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 22.5 for More Details • • '4 • • • Legend A • Hazmat Site Noise Receptor x Railroad Crossing ,i Raptor Nest Riparian Habitat 0 2,750 it Feet NHD Streams/Ditches Historic Resource fl Wetlands Potential Impact Limits ''., Edge Of Road • • • • • sd'� 4':J 4\o 4. • • • • • CR28 , eI WCF 26 0 \WCR I , • • Ise wCt 22 5 See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 28 for More Details a., • See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 26 for More Details See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 24 for More Details See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 22,,- WCR 22 I • ♦, • • I for More Details See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 20/ *9 WCR 20 • • • WCR 18.5 . • • • • , ,WCR 18 , , for More Details See Summary Sheet for US 85 and WCR 18/18.5 for More Details US 85 and WCR 18 to WCR 28 Parallel Roads US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Located between Fort Lupton and Platteville County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type DNE Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Existing roadway classification DNE PEL recommended classification Collector road Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations The parallel road improvements must be in place in order for the proposed activities at WCR 18, WCR 18.5, WCR 20, WCR 22, WCR 22.5, WCR 24, WCR 24.5, WCR 26, and WCR 28 to proceed. Recommended improvement type(s) Collector road parallel to highway; exact alignment TBD Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety and mobility • Supports highway operations • Minor impacts to land use Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $36,600,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, parallel roads Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not support the highway operations Environmental considerations Considerations include minor impacts to agriculture, and impacts on a historic ditch (near WCR 26) Fnr nrlrlitinnnl infnrmntinn coo ' h S of t e U 85 P(annrng and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts US 85 and WCR 18 to WCR 28 Parallel Roads US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 18.5 Focus Area WCR 18.5 Legend X Access Closure A Hazmat Site Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Stream Crossing 0 hit Feet 500 NHD Streams/Ditches 9a Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N. Edge Of Road 4 A COLORADO Department of Transportation Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. US 85 and WCR 18.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 550' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1.5 1 3.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 18. Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel roads system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $200,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, right -in right -out, closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, right -in right -out Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts)• NNo Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Right -in, right -out Spacing with WCR 18 may be too close to ramps Environmental considerations Primary considerations include local commercial land uses see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 18.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 20 COLORADO Department of Transportation Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. 1 r 1a 1 Legend A Hazmat Site Noise Receptor ^^-- NHD Streams/Ditches Potential Impact Limits N., Edge Of Road 350 It Feet 4 A A OO 2 Union Pacific Ra I 1 1 I I I .00 WEI I WCR 20 t t t US 85 and WCR 20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 500' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 1 3.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) Right -in, right -out (RIRO) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Allows access and improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) S800,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, RIRO, and Closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and Closure Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts)• NNo Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Closure suitable for supporting parallel road system Environmental considerations Primary considerations include commercial and residential impacts see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 22 COLORADO Department of Transportation Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. WCR 22 • Access Closure * Noise Receptor Potential ' ' Impact Limits '1.. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and WCR 22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 225' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B 2O35 No -Action LOS B/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2 3 3.5 8.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel roads system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) Diamond interchange Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility and safety • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $32,000,000 Interim improvements Safety - Advanced intersection warning signs, convert to RIRO Mobility - Additional WB left turn lane Evaluated improvements No Action and diamond interchange Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include substantial impacts to agricultural and residential land uses in the SW portion of intersection see Appendrx C o,r the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 22 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 22.5 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 and WCR 22.5 Fo s Area W 22.5 C -12 rt 0 Legend It Access Closure Noise Receptor Potential Impact Limits '\. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill \'‘ \‘‘; WCR 22.5 Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. WCR 22 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 225' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2O35 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 2 4.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 22. • Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Impacts to land uses • Fits within community context • Parallel road could affect potentially historic ditch Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to agriculture, and historic ditch see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 22.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 24.5 COLORADO Department of Transportation Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. Legend • Access Closure NHD Streams/Ditches Potential Impact Limits '1. Edge Of Road 0 350 IIIIMCIFeet US 85 and WCR 24.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 2 4.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) Right -in, right -out (west side) and closure (east side) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Allows access and improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use and historic ditch Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $400,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and RIRO Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Considerations include minor impacts to agriculture, and impacts on a historic ditch from parallel road g-,-„- „7,4,4;#-;.-,„,-1 . n (....'... � :...-. • see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 24.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 26 COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend A Riparian Habitat 4 Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches 94 Wetlands Potential Impact Limits �. Edge of Road K 400 Feet WCR 26 nfri Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. s US 85 and WCR 26 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 2.5 4.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) Right -in, right -out (RIRO) Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use and historic ditch Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $800,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and RIRO Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Considerations include minor impacts to agriculture, and impacts on a historic ditch from parallel road see Appendrx C of the US 85 Planning and Envrronmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 26 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 28 o� WCR 28 I Parallel road improvements discussed on separate sheet. Location of parallel roads is not set, and can vary. Noise Receptor Historic Resource X Railroad Crossing I,/, Wetlands V Raptor Nest Potential Impact Limits Riparian Habitat ^.- Edge Of Road -�NHD Streams/Ditches Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 0 425 It Feet US 85 and WCR 28 COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 28 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS B/C Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 3 4.5 8.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • WCR 28 is elevated over US 85 and UPRR. • Should be constructed in conjunction with parallel roads between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Recommended improvement type(s) SPUI interchange Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, historic resources, wetlands, and riparian habitats Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $37,900,000 Interim improvements Enlarge advanced intersection warning signs Evaluated improvements No Action, traffic signal, SPUI, partial closure, closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements Partial closure and closure, No Action and traffic signal Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Commercial, residential, and agricultural land uses • Would not effectively address purpose and need • Loss of community connectivity at South Platte River crossing Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial, residential, and agricultural land uses • Potentially historic Platteville and Platte Valley ditches, Roland Miller Farm (Centennial Farm), railroad segment, and historic Fort Vasquez. • Wetlands east of US 85 • Eastern edge of riparian habitat and wetlands located west of US 85 that provide nesting opportunities for migratory birds cnr niirii I -in nn! infnrm..#4...-. • see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Envrronmenta( Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T & E species, and the migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed T&E species, and SB 40 resources. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 28 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 30 COLORADO Department of Transportation ELIZABETH AVE I- W co J GOODRICH AVE Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North 1-25 EIS) Access Closure Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor 600 tl Feet GRAND AVE * s*46 es * *I * *'> *'>>' VI MARION AVE 401 * **tiro * • • o CHERRY AVE m A z Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '1. Edge Of Road a ****SS* PIERCE AVE ***>* * 85 * *f**.* CENTRAL AVE * *E *1 F *► BYEit5 AVe * 1 SALISBURY AVE , * * *t WCR 32 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 WCR 30 LFocus Area WCR 30 US 85 and WCR 30 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Platteville County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 2.5 4.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Requires new parallel connection to WCR 32 (location is flexible) Recommended improvement type(s) Closure with new parallel connection to WCR 32 Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 53,000,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary consideration includes minor impacts to agricultural land uses d E , see Ap P o �, m z 1. of the US 85 P(ammg annv,ronmenta( Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Platteville and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Platteville, Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). US 85 and WCR 30 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND SH 66 COLORADO Department of Transportation ELIZABETH AVE oc I- W m J GOODRICH AVE Proposed Commuter • Bus Station ▪ (Source: North I-25 EIS) K.C Access Closure ♦ Hazmat Site Noise Receptor 0 600 Feet GRAND AVE MARION AVE DIVISION ST A VI a 'I/1 * sA IpF C CHERRY AVE N ** * ** 911 pit****** PtERVE AVE CENTRAL AVE atilitt* * BYEris AV p 1 I. • 1h1(' SALICuu'^" ''r * Stream Crossing Historic Resource ed, Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'x.. Edge Of Road T 1 P • A I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 ' I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 C I 1 Platteville Di Focus Are 5H 66 WCR 30 WCR 32 US 85 and SH 66 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Platteville County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Traffic signal Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, access Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/B 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.5 3 0 6.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Interregional commuter bus station is proposed to be located in the northwest quadrant of SH 66 and US 85 • Southbound US 85 elevated over SH 66 Recommended improvement type(s) Channelized-T with southbound grade -separation Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Impacts to land uses and hazmat site Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $16,500,000 Interim improvements Safety - Reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) Evaluated improvements No Action, Diamond (W) and Offset SPUI (E), Continuous Flow/Super Signal, Channelized-T, and Channelized-T with southbound grade -separation Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Diamond (W) and Offset SPUI (E), Continuous Flow/Super Signal, and Channelized-T Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Diamond (W) and Offset SPUI (E), Continuous Flow/Super Signal, and Channelized-T would result in community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to commercial and residential land uses Cl,� ...�.d: F:......1 ... F...-...... a:,. .. see Append►x C of the US 85 Planning and Envrronmenta( L►nkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Platteville and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with CDOT on the implementation of interregional commuter bus service as identified in the North 1-25 EIS ROD 1. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and SH 66 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND MARION AVENUE COLORADO Department of Transportation GRAND AVE ELIZABETH AVE I- N it >f ., co J GOODRICH AVE O 0 DIVISION ST M RION AVE 1 e , ***moo CHERRY AVE m _ N * * * a *** * PIERCE AVE **** * 85 - CENTRAL AVE * 1 z I BYE Adi * I >* SALISBURY AVE, Legend 1 1 A Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North 1-25 EIS) Access Closure Hazmat Site Noise Receptor 0 600 Feet Stream Crossing Historic Resource ee, Wetlands Potential Impact Limits • '— Edge Of Road A US 85 and Marion Avenue -r 'Cr a. o 4. a. rat !�.f4 v aa- C O. a- I I 1 I I I I I I i I 1 I I 1 I Focus e is Marion A I I I I I I I 1 I I I I1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 i 1 1 I I I I C 0 en C, WCR 30 e. WCR 32 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Platteville County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/D Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.5 1 0 2.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Intersection improvements to ?=: movement Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Allows access and improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $200,000 Interim improvements None see Appendix Evaluated improvements No Action and 3,4 movement Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and 34 movement Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to residential and commercial land uses r • of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Platteville and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and Marion Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND GRAND AVENUE/WCR 32 COLORADO Department of Transportation ELIZABETH AVE >- t— ce co J GOODRICH AVE DIVISION ST GRAND AV * A %'21 0A► * %SI • ** > E a- * * ** MARION AVE 101 A * ** * ** c CHERRY AVE 'i *** * ** PIERCC AVE # * *** * 85 **** CENTRAL AVE * **.1 BY • AVE SALISBURY AVE I �***I * * Legend Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North I-25 EIS) X. Access Closure ♦ Hazmat Site Noise Receptor 600 Feet Stream Crossing Historic Resource Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N.., Edge Of Road * * z O cc IL 1 1 r I • 1 I 1 A 1 I I I I 1 ► ► r J I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 • WCR 32 Focs A a WCR 32/ nd Ave. C, cu WCR 30 Platteville Ditch US 85 and Grand Avenue/WCR32 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Platteville County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 250' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/F 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.5 4 3 11.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Improvements work in conjunction with parallel road to WCR 30 in Platteville Recommended improvement type(s) Close frontage roads and add auxiliary lanes on WCR 32, as needed Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Allows access and improves safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5400,000 Interim improvements Safety Reposition flashing warning signs Evaluated improvements No Action, SPUI, and frontage road relocation Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and SPUI Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • SPUI would result in substantial community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include commercial land use impacts Fnr n!iliitinnnl inf. nrmnhinn A A r , see ppen ix of the u5 85 Planning ana Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Platteville and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts US 85 and Grand Avenue/WCR32 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 34 WCR 34 DIVISION ST r , • r • • 1* , CP OP Po Legend Igo Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing 4 Stream Crossing �-- NHD Streams/Ditches III Historic Resource 0 375 LIF.et Parks & Open Space Potential Impact Limits 'N.. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill N I r !f ffit;. WCR 34 top _ r COLORADO Department of Transportation e" i + • If 0 cc US 85 and WCR 34 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Platteville County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 160' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 1 3.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Front Street will need to be realigned on the east side • WCR 34 elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) Diamond interchange Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts land uses, wetlands and proposed greenbelt Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 538,700,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and diamond interchange Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include substantial impacts to residential and commercial land uses; and impacts to wetlands Fnr nrlrlitinnnl infnrrnnI-inn cnn A r h • P P p n c , of t e US 85 P(anrnng and Envlronmen tal L in ages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Platteville and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with RTD/other service providers during the planning, NEPA and design phases to incorporate bus service, bus stops, and supporting transit amenities into the final design, if applicable. Currently, local bus service does not stop at 168th Avenue. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 34 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 36 COLORADO Department of Transportation Focus Area WCR 36 US 85 and WCR 36 Legend X Access Closure Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches 0 ti Feet 875 Potential Impact Limits 'N.. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill A US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 60' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS B/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1.5 2 4.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure will happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 34 and SH 60 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to agricultural land uses ire Next Steps of the US 85 P(annrng and Environmental Linkages Report • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 36 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND SH 60 WCR 36 US 85 and SH 60 COLORADO Department of Transportation A Hazmat Site Noise Receptor -^-- NHD Streams/Ditches Potential Impact Limits ''. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill 0 350 ICI Feet A US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2035 No -Action LOS D/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3 1.5 0 4.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations SH 60 is elevated over US 85 Recommended improvement type(s) Diamond interchange Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land use and hazmat facility Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $38,500,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and diamond interchange Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include substantial impacts to commercial and residential land uses; impacts to agricultural land uses and hazmat facility see ,ip p o x C of the US 85 Plannrng and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and SH 60 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 38 COLORADO Department of Transportation eset Y x4454_ _• Focus Area WCR 38 X Access Closure Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches 0 SICI Feet 875 Potential Impact Limits "N, Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and WCR 38 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1.5 2.5 5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure happens in conjunction with improvements at SH 60 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to agriculture Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to agricultural land uses see ; ;,,,,,,,,;, , of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 38 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 38.5/WCR 29 COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 38.5ie �. - ' wCP. 35 WCR 36 Focus Area —o WCR 29/WCR 38.5 x Legend Potential Impact Limits X Access Closure Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches 0 875 '1. Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and WCR 38.5/WCR 29 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 30' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 2.5 4.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to agriculture Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $200,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to agricultural land uses Fnr nrir4 i-innnl in Fnrmn#inn _L sL_ I If (IL- nt _ _ a r • , JCC ,; r , nvironmento! Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 38.5/WCR 29 I US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 40 WCR 40 Potential Impact Limits '.. Edge Of Road f I S 175 Feet • I • • I ' I I I I A 1 I • • • I I / • I I I • I I • I / • I • I 6 • I ' I • 6 • • •5 . , I • COLORADO Department of Transportation 7. US 85 and WCR 40 i US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Gilcrest County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 210' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1 1 3.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Creates a southern gateway in Gilcrest Recommended improvement type(s) Frontage road realignment Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts)• • Improves mobility and safety • Fits within community context Impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $1.200,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and frontage road realignment Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to agricultural and commercial land uses see Appendix C of the US 85 Piannrng and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Gilcrest and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 40 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND ELM STREET 4TH ST 85 Legend A Hazmat Site 4 Noise Receptor ^.. Edge of Road 0 100 Feet 5TH ST misik .4.414 A A COLORADO Department of Transportation w US 85 and Elm Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Gilcrest County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Access (frontage roads) Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM 2035 No -Action LOS Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 0 0 1.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Convert to 3/ access; close frontage road access Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land use and hazmat facility Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $300,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and 3/4 Access Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to residential and commercial land uses and a hazmat facility see Appendix C of the US d5 Plonn►ng and Envrronmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Gilcrest and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and Elm Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND MAIN STREET h t MAIN ST 6TH ST revs Legend :, Noise Receptor ^. Edge Of Road I 200 Feet 1 I' 04 r 0 11 r cot I 9TH ST r sit COLORADO Department of Transportation 'St& ir di A s 5. 1. S' 8J I US 85 and Main Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Gilcrest County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Access (frontage roads) Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.25 1.5 0 2.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Channelized-T Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $800,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, RIRO, closure and Channelized-T Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, RIRO, closure Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action and other alternatives would not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to residential and commercial land uses as well as hazmat facilities or additIonal information, see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Gilcrest and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and Main Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND ASH STREET 12TH ST fe 4 air 1 A r OT,Vis S as 85 o No C Rec Noise Receptor 0 150 IMCIFeet COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 and Ash Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Gilcrest County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type 4 movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 80' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity, access Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM D/C 2035 No -Action LOS B/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.75 1.5 1 4.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) No Action, maintain / access Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Fits within community context • Avoids impacts to environmental resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements - Eliminated improvement types - Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) Feasible, not recommended improvements - Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Environmental considerations 1-_____J IrL•__ _. •_t . - ion, see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • US 85 and Ash Street COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 42 US 85 and WCR 42 Legend Potential Impact Limits 'ti Edge Of Road Lane Striping US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Gilcrest County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 30' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS C/C Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Signal was added in 2012 Recommended improvement type(s) Add eastbound left turn lane Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility • Fits within community context • Minor impact to water treatment plant Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $600,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and add eastbound left turn lane Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to water treatment facility C,r liar: i 4: see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Gilcrest and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and WCR 42 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 33 INTERIM IMPROVEMENT • • , COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend • A * X Access Closure -^— NHD Streams/Ditches Hazmat Site Potential ' Impact Limits Noise Receptor '•. Edge Of Road Railroad Crossing 0 350 IMMICI Feet N A US 85 and WCR 33 Interim Improvement US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Peckham County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 240' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity, access (frontage road, alignment) Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 1 3 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Improvements work in conjunction with WCR 44 interim improvements. Closure is an interim improvement for the ultimate design of TUDI on the north side of WCR 44 (See US 85 Et WCR 44 TUDI summary sheet). Recommended improvement type(s) Closure Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Would not fit within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) See WCR 44 Interim improvements See WCR 44 —Interim Improvement Evaluated improvements No Action, closure, Channelized-T, Grade Separation; Junior Interchange with WCR 44, Diamond, RIRO Eliminated improvement types Grade separation Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) A Grade separation interchange concept was eliminated due to substantial community impacts Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Channelized-T, Grade Separation; Junior Interchange with WCR 44, Diamond, RIRO Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Other alternatives evaluated would result in a range of community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to residential and agricultural land uses Fnr nririi'-innnl infnrmnf- in., see AP v e a, x ( of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Peckham, Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). US 85 and WCR 33 Interim Improvement US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 44 INTERIM IMPROVEMENT Legend * ea el 3 OM - - -SI a • I a • . * • I I . . . . . . . I . I I I I . I I I . . I I I I I I . I I I . I • . I . COLORADO Department of Transportation • • • • Access Closure A Hazmat Site • Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing 0 350 Feet --- NHD Streams/Ditches Potential " Impact Limits e-.. Edge Of Road A US 85 and WCR 44 Interim Improvement US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Peckham County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 190' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access (frontage roads, alignment) Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 4.5 3.5 9 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Improvements work in conjunction with WCR 33 improvements. Intersection improvements are interim for the ultimate design of TUDI on the north side of WCR 44 (See US 85 & WCR 44 TUDI summary sheet). Recommended improvement type(s) Realigned frontage road Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve mobility and safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land us and historic resource Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 54,200,000 (includes improvements to WCR 33) Interim improvements • Safety - Advanced intersection warning signs with beacons (to be signalized when needed) • Mobility - Intersection improvements Evaluated improvements No Action, Channelized-T at WCR 33, Junior Interchange w/ WCR 33, Diamond, Realigned frontage road, SPUI Bypass, TUDI North, and TUDI South Eliminated improvement types Grade separation on current alignment Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would result in severe impacts to community Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Junior Interchange w/ WCR 33, Diamond Interchange, Channelized-T at WCR 33, SPUI Bypass, and TUDI South Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Other interchange concepts evaluated would result in substantial community impacts Environmental considerations Primary environmental considerations include minor impacts to commercial land uses, and potentially historic ditch Fnr twit-1itinnnl in fnrmnti.... , see APP„„dix Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 44 Interim Improvement US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 44 TUDI COLORADO Department of Transportation •414— sar • • • • PECKHAM DRIVE C X WCR 44 • • • X Access Closure r--- NHD Streams/Ditches Hazmat Site Noise Receptor Railroad Crossing Stream Crossing 700 -Feet Potential Impact Limits Edge Of Road Top Of Cut, Toe Of Fill US 85 and WCR 44 TUDI US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Peckham County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 190' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity, access (frontage roads, alignment) Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 4.5 3.5 9 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations WCR 44 is elevated over US 85 and UPRR Recommended improvement type(s) TUDI located north of WCR 44 Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve mobility and safety • Fits within community context • Limited Impacts to land uses, historic resource, and hazmat sites Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $30,600,000 Interim improvements • Signalized intersection at existing WCR 44 alignment and closure of WCR 33 on east side (see separate Summary Sheet) Evaluated improvements No Action, Channelized-T at WCR 33, Junior Interchange w/ WCR 33, Diamond, Realigned frontage road, SPUI Bypass, TUDI North, and TUDI South Eliminated improvement types Grade separation on current alignment Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) Would result in severe impacts to community Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Junior Interchange w/ WCR 33, Diamond Interchange, Channelized-T at WCR 33, SPUI Bypass, and TUDI South Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address purpose and need • Other interchange concepts evaluated would result in substantial community impacts Environmental considerations Primary environmental considerations include minor impacts to commercial land uses, hazmat sites, and potentially historic ditch Fnr nrlrlitinnnl infnrmntinn • see ppon<,,x Cof the US 85 Planning and Envrronmentaf Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 44 TUDI US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 46/WCR 35 WCR 46 [85 in m Q.' V 3 In m 3 US 85 and WCR 46/WCR 35 COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 46 Legend • Access Closure Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Historic Resource Potential Impact Limits '1. Edge Of Road 0 250 INNIINCI Feet A US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 30' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1.5 4 6.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Channelized-T with closure on the east side; parallel bike facility on WCR 46 and WCR 35 Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility and safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land use and historic resource (US 85) Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $1,400,000 Interim improvements Mobility - restriping see Evaluated improvements No Action and Channelized-T with closure on the east side Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: residential and agricultural land uses west of US 85; potential historic Segment of US 85 within project area Fnr nrlrlii-innni infnrrnnh inn,1 ; P,,,,�,x L of the US 85 Planning and c nvrronmenta( Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Partial closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). US 85 and WCR 46/WCR 35 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 48/WCR 37 US 85 and WCR 48/WCR 37 Access Closure * Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing '\... Edge of Road D 150 tl Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 40' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity, access (alignment) Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 2.5 4.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Channelized-T with closure on the east side Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land use and historic resource Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5600,000 Interim improvements Mobility - closure of east leg of intersection Evaluated improvements No Action, Full movement interchange, 3/4 movement interchange, Channelized-T interchange Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Full movement interchange, and 3/4 movement interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need • Other interchange concepts evaluated would be less compatible with the community Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: • Agricultural and commercial land uses • Railroad segment (potential historic resource) Pr,r nririi tirinnl ir. Fn.rr.... a:a.. • , see App.,nd,x u of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Weld County to avoid or minimize • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. assessed will require surveys land use conflicts. US 85 and WCR 48/WCR 37 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 1ST AVENUE Z` ciZN A SThq`F ik At A Q Legend TODD AVE 4 i COLORADO Department of Transportation '85 A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor Potential e" Impact Limits 'N- Edge Of Road 300 Feet A US 85 and 1st Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) LaSalle County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 580' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS D/D Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2 1.5 2.5 6 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Consider implementation of all improvements in LaSalle (151 Ave, 2nd Ave, 3rd Ave, 4`h Ave, and 5`h Ave.) Recommended improvement type(s) Turn lane extensions; enhancements to the pedestrian environment along and across US 85 as intersection improvements are made Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety, reduces railroad operation issues • Fits within community context • Minimal impacts to land use and potential historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5300,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, Junior Interchange, and turn lane extensions w/ traffic signals Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, Junior Interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts)• No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need • Junior interchange concept would result in substantial community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minimal impacts to: • Residential and commercial land uses • Hazmat facilities • Parcels 50 years old or older (potential historic resources) see Appendix C of the US 85 P(annrng and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with LaSalle and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and 1St Avenue US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 2ND AVENUE A TODD AVE COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor Potential •" Impact Limits 'N— Edge Of Road 0 300 It Feet A US 85 and 2nd Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) LaSalle County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS B/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 0 2 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Consider implementation of all improvements in LaSalle (1st Ave, 2nd Ave, 3'° Ave, 4th Ave, and 5th Ave.) Recommended improvement type(s) Right -in, right -out (RIRO); enhancements to the pedestrian environment along and across the highway Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use, hazmat facility and potential historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5300,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and RIRO Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minimal impacts to: • Commercial and residential land uses • Hazmat facility • Parcels 50 years old or older (potential historic resources) Fnr nrirlitinnnl infnrmntinn rnn A.,r..,..,r:., r ,.F .-L... 1 is or ni.-__:__ __ -J r-__ xc Fifr CIw�n �, v/ u�r v� o-� r-lUul1117� UIIU criv,ronmenrai �InKages Kepor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with LaSalle and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 2nd Avenue US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 4TH AVENUE COLORADO Department of Transportation A Hazmat Site t Noise Receptor Potential ' Impact Limits '\-. Edge Of Road J 300 lInd Feet A US 85 and 4th Avenue US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) LaSalle County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 0 2 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Consider implementation of all improvements in LaSalle (1S` Ave, 2nd Ave, 3rd Ave, 4th Ave, and 5`h Ave.) Recommended improvement type(s) Right -in, right -out (RIRO); enhancements to the pedestrian environment along and across the highway Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use, hazmat, and Section 4(f) resource Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $300,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and RIRO Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: • Residential, commercial and recreational land uses • Hazmat facilities • Main LaSalle Park (Section 4(f)) see Hppenaix c of me u� ts� ~canning and tnvironmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Adverse impacts to Section 4(f) properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with LaSalle and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 4th Avenue US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 1sT STREET Legend Pk Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor Sz Riparian Habitat 4 Stream Crossing -�- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplains Historic Resource Wetlands Potential Impact Limits 'N— Edge Of Road v 0 300 l Feet GN�p‘I 394 H` tiA STy O 44- a I I I I r r r r r r US 85 and 1st Street (LaSalle) riz ;perfrir • WCR 50.5 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) LaSalle County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type 4 movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Median channelization for left turn lane; enhancements to the pedestrian environment along and across the highway Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Moderately fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $200,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, Median channelization for left turn Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to commercial land uses (changes in travel patterns) Fnr nrirlitinnnl infnrmntinn cne, Anne. r../: ! F ♦0. 1 if OC nl___:__ r._ xc ..NNcrrvr� '- v/ urr v� o.� rtuitiriii any CnVlronmencat UnKages Kepor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with LaSalle and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 1st Street (LaSalle) US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND SH 394/WCR 52 1 Legend I, Prairie Dog Colony • Noise Receptor S Riparian Habitat Stream Crossing ti— NHD Streams/Ditches 0 300 Feet Floodplains Historic Resource fl, Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '\.. Edge Of Road H`GN�p:'1 '394 r„ I I I 1 I I • I I I ► I 1 1 1 I 2.1 i I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I L851 I CR 5 WCR 50.5 COLORADO Department of Transportation Air Ar.d. US 85 and SH 394/WCR 52 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) LaSalle County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 100' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 2 2.5 5.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Maintain grade -separated trail with the South Platte River Trail Recommended improvement type(s) Couplet intersections Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Fits within community context • Impacts to land use, historic resource, wetlands and T&E species Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $5,400,000 Interim improvements Safety - Advanced intersection warning signs with beacons. Monitor status of crashes Evaluated improvements No Action and couplet intersection Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Agricultural land uses • NRHP-eligible ditch segment (historic resource) • Floodplain • South Platte River TEE and riparian habitat • BTPD habitat and burrowing owls Fnr nrirlitinnnl inform t' • a ion, see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning ana Environmental L►nkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Substantial changes in the floodplain of South Platte River may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If black -tailed prairie dog habitat cannot be avoided within the project footprint, CDOT's Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy (2009) will apply, and surveys for Western Burrowing Owls will be required. If Western Burrowing Owls are found at the site, coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service will be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T E E species, and the migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed TEE species, and SB 40 resources. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with LaSalle and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and SH 394/WCR 52 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 42ND STREET tilt-%.tp JOTH ST PO se S c St I' ►" i 42ND ST -s= } ., • �L • G 40 Existing ♦ t 0 * • 4-4 opini4. tat et t: .• • 1 * byisting , 4 It *r * a s ;I 4 ti 44." 411 .' 11 0s 43 i 1 • i. *SA t1• ,ithi 4 • P • k Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North I.25 EIS) Hazmat Site Noise Receptor 600 Feet COLORADO Department of Transportation • . • • X31 trio? S. •.1a••• • • � • •al 'w4 Si sati 4 • sitia S •. a e NHD Streams/ Ditches Historic Resource Potential ` ' Impact Limits rse.—. Edge Of Road US 85 and 42nd Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Evans County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 110' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, railroad proximity, alternate travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2O35 No -Action LOS D/E Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2.75 3.5 3.5 9.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations A commuter bus station is identified to be in the southeast quadrant of US 85 and 42"`' Street Recommended improvement type(s) Auxiliary lane additions, when needed Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Minor impacts to land use, historic resource • Avoidance of T>3E species habitat Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $900,000 Interim improvements Safety - Install flashing warning signs (W2-1) northbound see Appendix Evaluated improvements No Action, traffic signal, turn restrictions, Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, turn restrictions, Texas turnaround Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action does not effectively address Purpose Need • Turn restrictions not supported - still need signal • Texas turnaround would result in community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: • Commercial and residential development • Evans Historical Marker Pnr nrirlifi,,.,.-,I ;., F......n#L-.. r of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be required. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Evans and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Transit: Coordinate with CDOT on the implementation of interregional commuter bus service as identified in the North 1-25 EIS ROD 1. US 85 and 42"d Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 37TH STREET fat sir ;44 scar �'!!'0iC grip �■ t 42ND ST A Existing - • f in tat { tpf lati I E :' A • itter; 40TH ST * "3 • * I g•`* . d / 4, ` 4..'- 4;Ks. Is e , et Legend COLORADO Department of Transportatton Opt t . mane in eery .••• r a wA 110 for ;110146161.111 kit ; a 4. etif'' . •4.4 its .4 f a NHD Streams/ Ditches Proposed Commuter Bus Station )Source: North 1.25 EIS) A Hazmat Site • Noise Receptor 600 tjFeet a-. - i • r Ir�i • "Ar Historic Resource Potential ' Impact Limits "1/4.• Edge Of Road N US 85 and 37th Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Evans County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 470' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2035 No -Action LOS D/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3 5 3 11 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Frontage road closures; auxiliary lane additions, when needed Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Allows/consolidates access • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land use and hazmat site Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $1,000,000 Interim improvements Safety reposition flashing warning signs (W2-1) Evaluated improvements No Action, Frontage road closures, and Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and Texas turnaround Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts)• No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need • Texas Turnaround would result in community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: • Commercial and residential land uses • Hazmat facility (filling station) see Append►x C of the US 85 Planning and Lnvrronmentat Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Evans and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and 37th Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 31ST STREET JM . 4 r , rit 4444 4-ar lirt la same . Y S" ■ 66 r A 42ND ST BSI ; e 1C ! e-_ ♦ * #01 •� y t I • 4 Existing -1 C • —� .le 1 C- 4 ;to oiS givr S: t to Tic Cs • * • E A tarn • 4Irt ihtfiS 9Ia a • • 4 . w 4 40TH ST to -s iiiJtE .41,713,1;,0ow boo a •Feet .t c A COLORADO Department of Transportation 'a • 41:4-7-C k -- vit -44 t. A'nt-.•II . t.� a A Proposed Commuter Bus Station (Source: North 1.25 EIS) Hazmat Site • Noise Receptor NHO Streams/ -n.-- Ditches Historic Resource Potential impact Limits Edge Of Road US 85 and 31st Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Evans County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM E/E 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 4.5 4 2.5 11 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Frontage road closure; auxiliary lane additions, when needed Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and enhances regional transit service • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses and Hazmat facilities Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 51,800,000 Interim improvements Safety - Install flashing warning signs (W2-1) southbound Evaluated improvements No Action, Frontage road closure and realignment, Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action and Texas turnaround Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need • Texas turnaround would impact commercial land uses and is not supported by the community Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: • Commercial land uses • Hazmat facilities • see Append►x C of the US 85 P(ann►ng and Env►ronmenta( L►nkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Evans and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and 31st Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 22ND STREET A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches D 500 Feet Historic Resource Potential " Impact Limits 'N.. Edge Of Road N A * AA a I i 23RD ST 25TH ST • • J .• • • Ilitt A C it lik 'o a i 1 .r e• ,e .• . yrs 414 • ;.A• COLORADO Department of Transportation .r • 4% ALMOND AVE a 20TH ST # ! ts IP *. . s-« Is a iib%j � - i t-? Its a. a5. � %Pi ei ?424sn.. a Of 4t• 4 % R l,W. - 4 • , 22ND ST ' 1 ?tip 0 ,. ir. Est Nu gib- ... • 24TH ST ns -a • A W a a Jsr 7 I. A " 26TH ST US 85 and 22nd Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 690' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2035 No -Action LOS E/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.25 4 2.5 9.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations • Texas turnaround improvements work as a system from 22' Street to 5`h Street • Requires parallel road connection to allow business access on the east of the railroad Recommended improvement type(s) Texas turnaround; parallel bike route on 1" Avenue Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, safety and access • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to land use and hazmat facilities Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $19,600,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Install flashing warning signs (W2-1) northbound • Mobility - Adaptive signal control or Michigan U's Evaluated improvements No Action, Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address purpose and need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial land uses • Hazmat facilities For nddiflnnnl infnrmntinn con A di., r ,,c fk., I If oc nt......:__ __.a r�_..,___ __ _ . Peen Next Steps in ages Repor • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 22nd Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 18TH STREET US 85 and 18th Street 16TH ST A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor -^- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplains Historic Resource Potential " Impact Limits 'N.. Edge of Road 0 500 Sri Feet 16TH ST • 19TH ST COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 980' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/C 2035 No -Action LOS D/E Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2.5 3.5 2 8 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Texas turnaround improvements work as a system from 22n° Street to 5`h Street Recommended improvement type(s) Texas turnaround; parallel bike route on ls' Avenue Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, safety and access • Moderately fits within the community context • Impacts to land uses, mobile home community, hazmat site and historic resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 516,900,000 Interim improvements Mobility - Adaptive signal control or Michigan U's Evaluated improvements No Action, Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial and residential areas • Mobile home community • Hazmat facilities • Parcels 50 years old or older (potential historic resources) see Append►x C of the US 85 rung and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 18th Street A US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 16TH STREET -o Legend A 14TH ST p ;pet 4 fie r 4-• 15TH ST t •r- Stat. Los, tfrit,.1 sas:a....: „A 7 A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor s'--- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplains Historic Resource Potential Impact Limits 'N - Edge of Road 500 Feet 16p1 ti „torn_ 43* it e 17TH a OF e late! r A, f #0 41 i _ Li 8TH ST :A •. 1 Pkn • • • 16TH ST 1 S A A. 18TH ST ' rt a. r .tIe ?e. •e- �✓ 19TH ST COLORADO Department of Transportation W ter Q a • - A Aintwir,„ 1 a '= imp • � • • a i > US 85 and 16th Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 1370' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3.5 3.5 2 9 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO ' Department of Transportation Key observations Texas turnaround improvements work as a system from 22nd Street to 5`h Street Recommended improvement type(s) Texas turnaround; parallel bike route on 15` Avenue Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Moderately fits within community context • Impacts to land uses, hazmat facilities and historic resource Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 514,600,000 Interim improvements Mobility - Adaptive signal control or Michigan U's see ppendix C of the US 85 Planning and Evaluated improvements No Action, Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial and residential land uses with a higher density of impacts east of US 85 due to new frontage road • Hazmat facilities • Potential historic railroad segment Fnr nririihinnnl infnrmnlinn• A Env,ronmen tal Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 16th Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 13TH STREET joke ft ert • 1 ;eget-, ift • • flp,'� sI P 1 .4! • j: 0 I.; Ayr Legend is -:rst #'r tJ,� i _1 tr.° a 41 ti N ; fo **' •* 'ik• ** r, wale • • * - *r r -t ?Lit.r r a," 6I •:, l S12,4 .13TH ST 1 * 4 s7 4 ¢11.04 y * ` 44 41. ehtins 15TH ST 1 * a ' 40 • jai ..fit• .>.. ✓ A 1a c $;: A A Hazmat Site 4Noise Receptor NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplains Historic Resource Potential Impact Limits �. Edge Of Road 0 500 Feet 16TH ST 9 17TH ST a"" -44 M� `rr. A 44, Lu Al 8TH ST * 1 r r 1 r W ✓ N A A Jr b r S afl • • s m w O 0 S G A-•� + 1ITH ST , • • , 16Th ST a I� r COLORADO Department of Transportation 'Al x N c Jt 4 itf 19TH ST a 85 and 13th Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 1800' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS C/E Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2 2 1.5 5.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Texas turnaround improvements work as a system from 22nd Street to 5th Street Recommended improvement type(s) Texas turnaround; parallel bike route on 1st Avenue Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility and safety • Moderately fits within Community context • Impacts to land uses and hazmat facilities Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $16,500,000 Interim improvements - Evaluated improvements No Action, traffic signal, Texas turnaround Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, traffic signal Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need • Traffic signals would not improve mobility or safety conditions Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial and residential land uses on both sides of US 85 due to new frontage roads • Hazmat facilities For odriitinnnl infnrmntinn coo ennon�:r r of the, IIc Dr. or--;.-- ......a r_..:______._, a • _,. _ epor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 13th Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 8TH STREET 3RD ST US 85 and 8th Street 5TH ST • • • • • • • • • A Hazmat Site © Parks and Trails A, Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor Riparian Habitat Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches Trails Floodplains t4/, Wetlands Potential • ' Impact Limits '\. Edge Of Road 0 500 feet 10TH ST t i t I I t JJ H I COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 2500' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM C/C 2035 No -Action LOS D/E Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2.75 3 1 6.75 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Texas turnaround improvements work as a system from 22nd Street to 5th Street Recommended improvement type(s) Texas turnaround Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Moderately fits within the community context • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resources; and Cache la Poudre River floodplain, wetlands and TEE species Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 523,500,000 Interim improvements • Safety - install flashing warning signs (W2-1) • Mobility - Adaptive signal control or Michigan U's Evaluated improvements No Action, Texas turnaround, and split diamond Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, split diamond Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need • Split diamond would result in substantial community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial land uses • Hazmat facilities • Cache la Poudre River (floodplain, wetlands, and TEE habitats) • Poudre River Trail (Section 4(f) Resource) see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Adverse impacts to Section 4(f)properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T E E species, and migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed TEE species, and SB 40 resources. Substantial changes in the floodplain of Cache la Poudre River may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 8th Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 5TH STREET GREELEY 3RD ST 5TH ST Hazmat Site © Parks and Trails a Prairie Dog Colony * Noise Receptor ,Vg Riparian Habitat 4 Stream Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches - - - Trails Ftoodplains Vs Wetlands Potential Impact Limits ^. Edge of Road 500 Feel A 10TH ST 1 1 1 1 7 • fj• A A • Sas- VW ttar sat'ate •s *4S ,t. ■I 'cct Re Men COLORADO Department of Transportation f • US 85 and 5th Street US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 2600' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, mobility, access, alternative travel modes Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/C 2035 No -Action LOS C/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 2.5 2.5 1 6 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Texas turnaround improvements work as a system from 22nd Street to 5th Street Recommended improvement type(s) Texas turnaround Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Moderately fits within the community context • Impacts to land uses, Section 4(f) resources; and Cache la Poudre River floodplain, wetlands and T&E species Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 517,700,000 Interim improvements • Safety - install flashing warning signs IW2 1) • Mobility - Adaptive signal control or Michigan U's ppen rx of t e U 85 Evaluated improvements No Action, Texas turnaround, and split diamond Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, split diamond Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts)• No Action does not effectively address Purpose and Need • Split diamond would result in substantial community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include impacts to: • Commercial land uses • Hazmat facilities • Cache la Poudre River (floodplain, wetlands, and TEE habitats) • Poudre River Trail (Section 4(f) resource) Fnr nrlrlitinnni infnrmntinn coo A d' r h S P (annrng and Envrronmeri ai Linkages Repor Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or CDOT Initial Site Assessment would be required, to determine the potential to encounter hazardous materials and to develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. Adverse impacts to Section 4(f) properties may elevate the level of NEPA study. Habitat suitability assessments will be required for special -status species, and migratory bird nests within 0.5 mile. Coordination with the US Fish and wildlife Service may be required for federally listed T & E species, and migratory birds. Coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for State Species may be required for state listed T&E species, and SB 40 resources. Substantial changes in the floodplain of Cache la Poudre River may require consultation with the local agencies, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and 5th Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 0 STREET AA ST Legend • Access Closure 11 Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Potential Impact Limits t% Edge Of Road 580 Feet I t I • I • . • W a W H O ST • • I I I I 1 I I 1 • a z b T 73 1 it 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 a I • WCR 64 US 85 and 0 Street • COLORADO Department of Transportation I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 t 1 1 '—I 1 '01 I I I II 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Greeley County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type 3/4 movement Distance from railroad Approximately 190' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM NB: A/A, SB: A/A 2035 No -Action LOS NB: B/B, SB: A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) NB/SB LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1/1 1.5/2.5 2.5/0 5/3.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Constructed in conjunction with a traffic signal at WCR 66 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure; new frontage road on east side (6th Avenue); realign N. 11th Ave connection to WCR 66 Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves access and safety • Moderately fits within the community context • Impacts to land uses Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $10,900,000 (includes signal at WCR 66) Interim improvements Mobility - Close east leg once parallel connection with WCR 66 is complete Evaluated improvements No Action, overpass, combined overpass with WCR 66, closure Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, overpass, combined overpass with WCR 66 Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need • Overpass and combined overpass with WCR 66 would result in substantial impacts to community land uses, and US Forestry lands Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to: • Commercial, residential, and agricultural land • Potential impacts to a potential historic resource (railroad segment) Fnr nrirlitirinr,l :ra.-,, ,., t:,-..-. ,J« of the S 85 Planning and Environmento! Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Greeley, Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). US 85 and 0 Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 66 COLORADO Department of Transportation AA ST Legend Access Closure * Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Potential Impact Limits 'Ns Edge Of Road N 0 580 Feet J i i I i • I . • . . • . . • O ST . • US 85 and WCR 66 WCR 64 i i I ► I r P ► ► ► • WCR 66 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Enhanced expressway PEL recommended I classification Enhanced expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM A/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1.5 5 7.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Constructed in conjunction with closures at O Street Recommended improvement type(s) Signal Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility, access and safety • Fits within the community context • Avoids impacts Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 510,900,000 (includes closures of O Street) Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action and signal Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include coordination with 0 Street improvements Fnr nrlriihinnn! infnrmnI-inn Q d • see ppen tx of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Greeley and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and WCR 66 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND SH 392 Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing NHD Streams/Ditches 0 300 Feet lei Wetlands Potential Impact Limits '\, Edge Of Road Sit COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 and SH 392 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Lucerne County(ies) Weld County MPOTTPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 100' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Mobility, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS F/F Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 3 5 5 13 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations An interchange is too impactful at this location Recommended improvement type(s) Auxiliary Lane Improvements, as needed Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Would improve mobility and access • Would fit within the community context • Avoids impacts Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 1,400,000 Interim improvements • Safety - Relocate mast arms to shoulders. Install flashing yellow arrows or protected only. Install flashing warning signs. • Mobility - Additional NB left turn lane, additional accepting WB lane on SH 392, and additional WB left turn lane Evaluated improvements No Action, traffic signal, diamond interchange Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action, diamond interchange Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) • No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need • Diamond interchange would result in severe community impacts Environmental considerations Primary considerations include coordination with interim improvements Fnr nrlrfitinnnl in fnrmntinn • see open i� of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. Wetland delineations will be required to determine the scope of possible Section 404 permitting. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Lucerne and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and SH 392 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 70 AND WCR 72 COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 72 Legend it Access Closure 600 Feel v A US 85 and WCR 70 and WCR 72 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Eaton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway WCR 70 WCR 72 Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B A/B 2035 No -Action LOS B/D A/C Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) Location LOS Safety Railroad Overall WCR 70 1.5 1.5 2.5 5.5 WCR 72 1.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Closure at WCR 72 is supported by new improvements in Eaton and full access maintained at WCR 70 Recommended improvement type(s) No change at WCR 70 Closure on the east side at WCR 72 Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor land use impacts Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) S100,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements No Action, full closure, closure on east and west side Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address safety needs Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minor impacts to local agricultural land uses (changes in travel patterns). Fnr nrirlitinnnl infnrmnfinn .1 see ppend,x c of t e US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Eaton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and change in travel patterns. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Eaton, Weld County, CDOT. and UPRR). • Action would require an amendment to the ACP. US 85 and WCR 7O and WCR 72 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND COLORADO PARKWAY COLORADO Department of Transportation 0 X Access Closure ♦ Hazmat Site Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing O Parks and Trails �-- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 0 900 It Feet NCR 76 XX. Existing SE` E T ST rte 3•� Historic Resource Parks Et Open Space Potential Impact Limits 'N.. Edge Of Road Crosswalk Sidewalk PrAll A 1.41 a I J W Pedestrian Only Signal PRAIRIE ct • PL4rrt CTS7- C� 0ADO PY 8 W ' c Za-` " A—• i ter v Rb T4 it RD WCR 74.5 tot -is US 85 and Colorado Parkway US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Eaton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad - Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Main street PEL recommended classification Main street Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 0.5 0 1.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Connects Colorado Parkway east of the highway Recommended improvement type(s) Signal Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $800,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvements Signal Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements N/A Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Environmental considerations Primary considerations are to avoid impacts to local land uses r _ _ _ _ • . • _ , . rmation, see pp r, x Cof the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Town of Eaton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and changes in travel patterns. US 85 and Colorado Parkway US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND 5TH STREET (EATON) COLORADO Department of Transportation X Access Closure A Hazmat Site 4 Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Q Parks and Trails �- NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain US 85 and 5th Street (Eaton) SECOjOND ST_ x� i�l5tr Historic Resource Parks Et Open Space Potential " Impact Limits '-. Edge Of Road Crosswalk Sidewalk Pedestrian Only Signal FOURTH ST RO THIRD ST 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Eaton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 40' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Main street PEL recommended classification Main street Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1 2.5 4.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Pedestrian crossing enhancements for Great Western Trail Recommended improvement type(s) Signal; pedestrian crossing enhancements Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility and access • Fits within community context • Avoids impacts to land uses, hazmat site, and historic resource Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) S600,000 Interim improvements Mobility - Pedestrian improvements and additional WB left turn lane Evaluated improvements No Action, signal Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action does not effectively address access or safety needs Environmental considerations Primary considerations include avoidance of impacts to: • Commercial and residential land uses • Hazmat facilities • NRHP-eligible Great Western Railroad (historic resource) see x et Ap p., , C of the US 85 Piamm�g and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Determining scope of NEPA and permitting process: Potentially eligible historic resources not previously assessed will require surveys to determine their eligibility with NRHP, and Section 106 consultation should impacts be unavoidable. • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Eaton and Weld County to avoid land use conflicts and change in travel patterns. US 85 and 5th Street (Eaton) US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 76 COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend X Access Closure A Hazmat Site Noise Receptor X Railroad Crossing Parks and Trails NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 0 900 it Feet NCP 7i �,, Historic Resource Parks El Open Space Potential Impact Limits '\.. Edge Of Road Crosswalk Sidewalk Pedestrian Only Signal \ tS sr A . . '< 4"'4 i J y 4 9- * lk 4 '4 PRAIRIE CT PLATTE. CT W 4 o C�"IADOPyo • WCR 74 wCR 74.5 N US 85 and WCR 76 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Eaton County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 40' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Safety, railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Main street PEL recommended classification Main street Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B 2035 No -Action LOS A/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1.5 3.5 4 9 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Signal provides a safer crossing of the highway; this is a high priority location for Eaton Recommended improvement type(s) Signal; pedestrian crossing enhancements Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within Community context • Avoids impacts to land use and floodplain Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $400.000 Interim improvements Mobility - Additional EB and WB turn lanes Evaluated improvements No Action and signal Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address safety or access needs Environmental considerations • Primary considerations include avoidance of community and floodplain impacts or additional information, see Appond, x C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Town of Eaton and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and change in travel patterns. US 85 and WCR 76 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 37 COLORADO Department of Transportation *ID TUL RD qv 41%):idicreN4 ",aiwe oR I s cesjb"P PONDEROSA ST JUNIPER ST FIFTH 6I WCR 76 I > SEVENTH ST *3 SUCrHSi ✓ an ac a THIRD ST COTTONWOOD AVE W ft o. FOURTH ST SECOND ST 90+ W J Legend It Access Closure A Hazmat Site * Noise Receptor QParks and Trails 'r NHD Streams/Ditches Floodplain 0 900 Feet Historic Resource Parks & Open Space Potential Impact Limits Edge Of Road Crosswalk Sidewalk N A ri n� 7D D o II 1 * FIRS FT ST - * • itA** ** * * *s PRAIRIE CT #* a PLATTE CT * Cbt ORADO re US 85 and WCR 37 WCR 74.5 FOURTH ST RD US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) - County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR NFRMPO Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) No major issues Existing roadway classification Standard expressway PEL recommended classification Standard expressway Existing LOS, AM/PM - 2035 No -Action LOS - Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Works in coordination with signal at WCR 76 Recommended improvement type(s) Closure, with new parallel connection to WCR 76 Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Minor impacts to land uses and agriculture Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 Interim improvement None Evaluated improvements No Action, closure, closure with parallel road Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations include minimizing and avoiding impacts to: • Residential and agricultural land uses (changes in travel patterns) Fnr nrlriih;nnn/ ;mm�rmnh;nn .-.,1. A. -----n- r ..t •L_ , rr or ni___:__ __ _, r _ ental Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Town of Eaton Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and change in travel patterns. • Closure is dependent upon coordination and consensus between relevant parties (Weld County, CDOT, and UPRR). US 85 and WCR 37 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND SH 14/ 1ST STREET (AULT) COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 and SH 14/1st Street (Ault) US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Ault County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFRTPR Existing facility type Full movement, signalized Distance from railroad Approximately 100' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Main street PEL recommended classification Main street Existing LOS, AM/PM A/B 2035 No -Action LOS B/B Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1.5 5 7.5 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Provides pedestrian connection from east side of town to school Recommended improvement type(s) Pedestrian crossing enhancements; pedestrian, preemption signals Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) Avoids impacts to environmental resources Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $100,000 Interim improvements Evaluated improvements No action, pedestrian crossing enhancements Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) Does not effectively address purpose and need; does not address safety concerns Environmental considerations r _• Iona information, see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Transportation planning coordination: Coordination with Town of Ault and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts. US 85 and SH 14/1st Street (Ault) US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 90 (PIERCE) Legend WCR 90 _77 , ire �1S Floodplains 0 350 it Feet N A - rn fin • w • • ♦ •00411 *PIP a' a OS • t. • I • n • 1 COLORADO Department of Transportation PRIDDY AVE 1 � 7 r •}; • ! r • AVE OE t 4 it aihidiAliti, *a 411 a a a - C. ti A as to tf' rties; I .y a • 0 US 85 and WCR 90 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Pierce County(ies) Weld County MPO/TPR UFRTPR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 50' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Arterial Existing LOS, AM/PM B/B 2035 No -Action LOS B/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 1.5 4.5 7 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations No improvements at Main Avenue Recommended improvement type(s) Traffic signal; pedestrian crossing enhancements; shoulder improvements from Eaton to Nunn Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves mobility and safety • Fits within community context • Avoids impacts to environmental resources including Spring Creek floodplain Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) 5500,000 Interim improvements None Evaluated improvement types No Action and signal Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address safety needs Environmental considerations Primary considerations are to avoid impacts to the community, and Spring Creek floodplain Fnr nrirlihinnni inhnrrrnnlirtn • see Appendix C of the US 85 Planning and Envrronmentai Linkages Repor Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Pierce and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and change in travel patterns. US 85 and WCR 90 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 AND WCR 100 it Access Closure ai Prairie Dog Colony Noise Receptor i 1ST ST Historic Resource Potential ' Impact Limits 'N., Edge of Road z -J 0 _ Z hi WCR 100 US 85 and WCR 100 WCR 98 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview Municipality(ies) Nunn County(ies) Weld County MPOfTPR UFRTPR Existing facility type Full movement, unsignalized Distance from railroad Approximately 130' Known problems (based on PEL purpose and need) Railroad proximity Existing roadway classification Arterial PEL recommended classification Arterial Existing LOS, AM/PM B/A 2035 No -Action LOS A/A Prioritization (1-5 each, 15 total) LOS Safety Railroad Overall 1 5 1 7 PEL Screening Process Recommended Improvement COLORADO Department of Transportation Key observations Recommended improvement type(s) Traffic signal; Closure on east side Recommended improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) • Improves safety • Fits within community context • Avoids impacts to land use and Spring Creek floodplain, and TEE Species Recommended improvement cost estimate (Does not include ROW costs) $400,000 Interim improvements Safety - Install larger stop signs. "Do Not Block Intersection" (R10-7) on west leg. Add beacons if problem persists Evaluated improvements No Action, traffic signal Eliminated improvement types N/A Eliminated improvement evaluation (benefits, impacts) N/A Feasible, not recommended improvements No Action Feasible, not recommended evaluation (benefits, impacts) No Action would not effectively address Purpose and Need Environmental considerations Primary considerations are to avoid impacts to: • Commercial and residential land uses (changes in travel patterns) • Black -tailed prairie dog habitat w/ potential for burrowing owls in SW quadrant, and 500 -year floodplain Rnr nrlciihinnnf infnr..,ni- #-, • see npnna,x of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Report Next Steps • Land use and transportation planning coordination: Coordination with City of Nunn and Weld County to avoid or minimize land use, environmental conflicts, and change in travel patterns. US 85 and WCR 100 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Appendix F. Agency Coordination (CD Only) COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study DRAFT AGENDA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #2 April 8, 2014 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM City of Evans 1100 37th Street, Evans, CO COLORADO Department of Transportation 1. Inventory update ► Traffic counts and traffic operations ► Safety (crash history and trends) 2. No Action projects 3. Travel demand forecasts 4. Summary of Stakeholder Interviews 5. Preliminary discussion on Purpose and Need 6. Upcoming Events ► Visioning Workshop - May 8th at Fort Lupton Recreation Center ► Public Meetings - mid/late June Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study AGENDA Executive Committee (EC) Meeting #5 June 11, 2015 I 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM Weld County Administration Building, Events Center Room 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80631 COLORADO Department of Transportation • Introductions Review agenda, meeting expectations • Review of Last Meeting (Level 2 Screening Results) Roadway classifications • Progress Update TAC meetings summary Railroad coordination One-on-one meetings • Initial Improvement Options Overview (Level 3, 4, and 5 Screening) Options, results by intersection Safety, multi -modal improvements Next step: prioritization, interim improvements • Next Steps Continue one-on-one meetings Coordination with TAC Public meetings US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study co 5W W 0 ra ^7▪ ` W w 6:30 PM - 8:00 P C7) C MT cID^ W " CO c° O .0 C. 0 ^, .Tha 76 O Q) L 'D O Q ^C', W 4 VJ CU 13'0'^ W T O a w Cu 2 Q A U G 1 W U C J 1 . V n II 1 A C il O 1 N Q al C') s C O •Q U7 Q O C0 (ID Q O 3 w C. O z O t t O a g VAEr US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study LC) cn f -cu O m co °ci O 1 oU ID w 2 roa ._ cu p .cn 05 � co C a) E `D -a O L.,Q 4c -c; 0a� • N 1 .? r 0O p c C) a� X w J a F) J C i I I I d O N. w 0 ..0 wN cc D›- O _ QU i° del." don c!4%4 j 1 SC O RS w Q C) C O cts V. Cl V -4 ti r, NN_c J \ l 6 -� t i\\4 IY 4 V ----. \- NJ 1" •C I O r- Q 04 C O 0 a Cr 0 0 V US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study O O GD 2 a - O iri T N a) C Cn CCO _ O Sr; C o o L o .175 C Q) • E(.D D _ > � up C � O U -n W E-MAIL ADDRESS W O a C �V cn a co N C 0 _ ao U D 0; g J¢ t C 7 V 1) (Se a 3 v gi 0 cn C 0 CZ ♦- Q J 1E. C O ra cc COLORAuO US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study to 2 cr • a. o 0 co 41) 2 66 co I o O itu • 2 tad O o. _ a) r2 c a2 o ECG O u Q as U o ≥, ai • N j 65 .� r O O ' r0 0 -0 O O r r w Z 0 a 0 0 ., N a w N cc 0 QU 0 w < U- zQ ®y O 4.- S C 0 O 0 .t = l'1 Q ci 14 +4, Si B ta' tt. skit tKe j\ o ►ti Eia 41 N qt *k 41 f. N Z r c O G3 1773 c o c0 T.,: -- — Q c O cts < -, 1 C O as - r: Q a NIP O o� o 0V ill co cc O a J 2 w z O a 0 Q w < LL ZQ y.. C v J I 3' c a ilo 0 cs Lin J )49 ,4U s... JP, 7-41 Vi; 4., 0 Cu Q C: r) 0 0 a) t Q US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study a, a) W 2 W p E O m z a) w co W 5 O ° O Q) c a) D V Q�) >, Q) c O U O Q) T 0 p w Q U. Z ) J W 4 {is _ b. Affiliation: pi 44p, dt f� i i iN._, cN(\.„ iN eTh, 1 Ii?? 141SIn CkS jj 0 Ot tt (T) `1 l I) t) a ti t ,„ ; , itt, '41E- L\ s. , NIts) \3 4 O 4- as Q � 4- c C O 4- 00 co Q a O 3 Q w O O g O 04 u aH rto n cd w z I E-MAIL ADDRESS 2 0 a. U) Cr) cn CO O a)I oO �a)2c�� o ? To w E. co c 2 0 EthiE� 0 O in < tif ui O. T ` wo cv N ._ 1 0 c } c I� <O w 0 a w Q LL Z < 1 V Srt M, rn C O Ct t ,? J 4 ci 3 G tn t v � r O O t Q COLORAuO w t O O G A c) ta ' fC ri A E"/ US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5 CL O O CO 2 a_ O L) O C E-MAIL ADDRESS Z 0 a Z 0 p W Q LL Za ffiliation: in in C O Co ci3 w ;L1 `1- Vr, Q C 0 :It «s r: Qc. C O .4= as Q C 0 .y co r- Q S US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study MEETING MINUTES Executive Committee (EC) Meeting #3 June 11, 2015 16:30 PM - 8:00 PM Weld County Administration Building, Events Center Room 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80631 COLORADO Department of Transportation The following is a summary of the presentation and discussion at the US 85 PEL Executive Committee meeting held on June 11, 2015, at the Weld County Administration Building. Introduction Chris Fasching (Felsburg Holt and Ullevig) welcomed the group and asked for a round of introductions. He then provided an overview of the meeting's agenda and what the project team has been working on since the last EC meeting, which was held in December. Status Update Chris showed where the project team is in the planning process and summarized the recent Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. The project team recently held four sessions of two meetings each. Chris also mentioned the one-on-one meetings that are currently being scheduled and held with the town boards and councils. Johnny Olson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), described the on -going meetings with the Union Pacific Railroad. Barbara Kirkmeyer, Weld County, asked Johnny if it is an open dialog about roadway closures and if the conversations focus on what works for all parties involved. Johnny and Gloria Hice-Idler (CDOT) confirmed that CDOT is advocating for everyone; CDOT is working towards the best possible solution for the counties, communities, and the railroad. Level 2 Screening Results ► Freeway Section from 1-76 through Fort Lupton ► Expressway (Enhanced and Standard) from Fort Lupton to Eaton ► Main Street, Standard Expressway, Rural Highway from north of Eaton to WCR 100 ► Four lanes from 1-76 to Ault ► Two lanes from north of Ault to WCR 100 Section 1, Freeway Section 1 of US 85 will be classified as a freeway. This means that there will be no at -grade accesses and each intersection will be a grade separated interchange. The project team started with the diamond interchange template as the default. The team is also considered the use of a Single Point Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Urban Interchange (SPUI) for the more constrained locations. The SPUI would likely be a bit more expensive, but could likely require less land. The freeway section ends north of 14`h Street in Fort Lupton. Chris reviewed the Section 1 improvements by intersection, and focused on 104th Avenue. Chris explained the split interchange and clarified the movements at the interchange. There is a still concern from the group regarding the development on the southeast corner. The group feels that that traffic movements and safety is an issue with the development. The group discussed whether eastbound access onto and off of 1-76 was needed. The group agreed that the split configuration makes the most sense. Chris reminded the group that FHWA may be concerned with the split on the interstate. Chris covered all of the intersections in Section 1. Chris reviewed the options for Weld County Road (WCR) 8 and WCR 10 interchanges. There was discussion on whether swapping these locations for interchanges would be possible. WCR 10 was not included in the Access Control Plan (ACP). WCR 8 is the preferred location for CDOT and Weld County because of the regional connectivity (particularly in the westbound direction), and the existing structure over the Platte River. Mayor Tommy Holton (Fort Lupton), would like to have a right -in, right -out access at WCR 8 and an interchange at WCR 10 because of fire department access. Others felt WCR 8 should be the sole interchange in the area due to its continuity and the fact that it already exists. Section 2, Enhanced and Standard Expressway Chris started the Section 2 discussion by explaining the components of a channelized-T intersection. The channelized-T would allow for free -flow movement in one direction, likely in the northbound direction on US 85 (since the railroad would conflict with this on the eastside). There are no structures needed for this type of intersection and therefore, it can be a cheaper alternative. Chris walked through the improvements and addressed a question about parallel road facilities. There was concern that separating US 85 and the parallel roads may negatively impact the farms and businesses. The way in which the eastside parallel roads may impact the railroad crossings will need to be considered as well. Chris responded that the project team will try to utilize the existing roadbed and maintain accesses for all users to the greatest extent possible. The group agreed that a signal at CR 42 was necessary for safety. The possibility of a flyover interchange at WCR 44 was discussed. WCR 44 is currently a busy intersection and an important connection to WCR 49. There is development planned for this area, along with WCR 46. This area presents a design challenge for the project team. Section 3, Enhanced and Standard Expressway Section 3 will be classified as an expressway, both enhanced and standard. Many intersections will be modified and improved, and some may become grade -separated interchanges. Chris explained how a Texas turnaround roadway operates and the benefits of this type of road. In this case, US 85 would be elevated, and access to businesses would be provided and maintained. In this configuration, one-way parallel roads are present and to make a left -turn, travelers go underneath the elevated US 85 without Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation having to cross side -street traffic. This increases mobility and maintains/enhances local accesses along the parallel roads. This type of facility has been identified as a possible solution in Greeley. John Morris, Mayor of Evans, said that the Texas turnaround could work for Evans. Chris then discussed the challenges and possible options for improvements at the US 34/US 85 interchange. The Project Team considered eight different configurations, including a large roundabout; only two configurations still remain as options to move forward into a separate feasibility study for the interchange. An interim improvement focused on enhanced signage was also presented and could increase driver expectancy because of the many new signing guidelines. Section 4 Section 4 will be classified as a mix of standard expressway, main street, rural highway, and arterial. The main street and arterial roadway classification offers the most direct accesses from the highway. Multiple intersections in Section 4 are identified as closures. Chris explained that the improvements in this section are focused on implementing a standard and sometimes wider roadway template and pedestrian improvements. The pedestrian improvements would occur at main cross streets within the towns to improve safety and access of these movements across US 85. Next Steps The group discussed future funding. It is difficult to say when and where the money will come from. CDOT has spent about $50 million over the past five years on US 85. There is a need for a plan to be in place for new funding streams. The following next steps were discussed: ► Chris encouraged the communities and counties to reach out to the project team to schedule a one-on-one meeting and/or a council presentation ► The project team will continue to coordinate with the TAC to develop cost estimates and establish priorities ► A series of public meetings will be held this Autumn after the next EC meeting Attachments: • Presentation • Sign -in sheet Page 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Executive Committee (EC) Meeting #5 June 11, 2015 Agenda .1,344yEgi • Introductions • Review of last meeting • Progress update • Initial improvement options overview • Next steps COLORADO Department of Transportation Previous meeting review EVALUATION CRITERIA EVALUATION CRITERIA Purpose & Need Safety Access Mobility Altemati Modes 7 Railroad, Proxim' Environmental Economic Social Ideas in each screening level to be: • Eliminated • Not Recommended • Retained Alternative screening process • ■ SCREENING LEVELS Fatal Flaw Screening Level 1 1/4 1 Alternative Modes Screening Level 3 4 _ ■ We were here Safety Screening Level 5 a Intersection and Interchange Configuration Screening Level 6 Conceptual Layout & Recommended Plan PRIORITIES • Interchange Configurations • Intersection Configurations ■ IDEAS • Full Range of Ideas • Operational Classification • Managed Lanes • General Purpose Lanes • Alignment • Transit Service • Transit Infrastructure • Bicycle / Pedestrian • Intersection Modifications & Improvements • Safety -Specific Projects Hello