The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20171963.tiffUS 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study MEETING MINUTES Executive Committee (EC) Meeting #4 February 11, 2016 I 6:30pm to 8:30pm Brighton City Council Study Session Room, 6th Floor 500 South 4th Avenue, Brighton, Colorado 80601 COLORADO Department of Transportation The following is a summary of the presentation and discussion at the US 85 PEL Executive Committee meeting held on February 11, 2016. A sign -in sheet is attached. Introductions Chris Fasching (Felsburg Holt and Ullevig) welcomed the group and asked for a round of introductions. Chris provided an overview of the meeting's agenda. He explained that the meeting's focus is on the areas where major differences exist between the Access Control Plan (ACP) recommendations and the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) draft recommendations. Progress Update Alex Pulley (Felsburg Holt and Ullevig) provided a brief update on the project team's progress since the last Executive Committee meeting, which was held in June. At the last meeting, general design concepts were presented at numerous locations. Since then, the project team has refined these concepts to assess feasibility. Tonight's focus is on the draft recommendations that are a result of extensive evaluation. Alex summarized the one-on-one meetings that were held with town boards and councils this past summer and fall. He also summarized the input the project team received during the recent Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. Alex also mentioned the on -going coordination with the Union Pacific Railroad and Gloria reminded the group that CDOT continues to meet with the UPRR on a regular basis to discuss US 85 and other corridors that have right-of-way and operational issues. Recommended Improvements Evaluation Process Chris explained that the evaluation process included the following categories: mobility, access, safety, proximity to the railroad, alternative modes, natural and cultural environment, and community input. These criteria are rooted in the purpose and need, which the Executive Committee helped establish. The evaluation results in three possible dispositions: recommended, feasible, and eliminated, which are outcomes established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and CDOT. The final evaluation will be included in the final report. 2017-1963 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Recommendation Highlights COLORADO Department of Transportation O 104th Avenue: 104th is a very challenging location. Two alternatives have been recommended: a modified SPUI with flyovers to serve the mainline traffic and a split diamond (with 1-76). The group expressed concerns about the costs of each alternative. 120th Avenue: A diamond interchange is recommended, as well as a diverging diamond interchange (DDI). The diamond interchange shown is from the Environmental Assessment (EA) previously completed for this location. These improvements would elevate 120th Avenue over the railroad. O 124th Avenue: 124th Avenue will be closed once there is strong connectivity to 120th Avenue and the 120th Avenue interchange is complete. These improvements work together. 144th Avenue: the ACP shows an interchange at this location. The PEL draft recommendation is a closure. An overpass with no access to US 85 would be feasible, however, may be cost prohibitive to construct. o WCR 8: A junior interchange with hook ramps is proposed for this location; the ACP also shows an interchange but a diamond configuration. O WCR 10: Fort Lupton had previously expressed an interest in having a full movement interchange at this location. However, the draft recommendation of the PEL is to not have any access at this location. Some of the reasons for the recommendation include: Long term plans to do not recognized WCR 10 as being a significant roadway. Fort Lupton's Transportation plan indicates that WCR 10 is planned to be a collector roadway that would extend as far west as Denver Avenue (Business 85). The plan does not show WCR 10 planned at US 85. WCR 8, one mile to the south, is planned to eventually be an interchange. WCR 8 is an arterial roadway per the city's transportation plan, and it currently spans the South Platte River, providing a significant degree of continuity to the region and can serve the surrounding area. The South Platte River is in close proximity to this intersection. A significant amount of flood plain exists around the US 85/WCR 10 area. Flood mitigation to establish an interchange at this location could be significant. o WCR 14.5, WCR 16: The junior interchange at WCR 14.5 and the right -out only recommended at WCR 16 would work together as a system. The Fort Lupton board supports this idea. o The project team recommends a parallel roadway system on either side of the highway from WCR 18 to WCR 28 with future interchanges at WCR 18, WCR 22, and WCR 28. o The group discussed the process by which access is removed from the highway. Gloria explained that CDOT would work with the local land owners and local communities to establish reasonable access to the parallel road system prior to any closure. Gloria reminded the group that the local communities would own and maintain the parallel roads. This system will likely not be built until development happened adjacent to the corridor. The developers and community would work together to determine the best possible alignment of these roads. SH 66: The PEL draft recommendation is a channelized-T. In the interim, this would be an at - grade improvement, but the ultimate could include a grade -separated channelized-T (southbound US 85 being depressed), depending on the groundwater levels. Platteville supports this recommendations, as it would alleviate traffic at the Main Street intersection. Page 2 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation a WCR 34: the recommendation is for an interchange at this location. This would ultimately become the primary east/west truck route. This location would then be grade -separated from the railroad. The alignment and connection of Front Street on the southeast side is flexible. o A signal was initially recommended at Elm Street (in Gilcrest) in the ACP, however, it is recommended that this signal be moved to WCR 40. Restricted movements would be implemented at Elm Street. The signal at WCR 42 will remain, however, a new eastbound right -turn lane will be added, to alleviate the congestion when a train is crossing. Multiple options were evaluated for WCR 33 and WCR 44 in Peckham. Ultimately, a signal is recommended at WCR 44. Chris explained to the group that the predominate crash pattern at this location is broadsides, which a signal would help reduce. This improvement minimizes the impact upon the surrounding community (as compared to a grade -separated interchange). Weld County is currently working on the connection between WCR 33 and WCR 44 on the east side of the railroad tracks. o In LaSalle, every other block will allow full movements. The recommendations for this section of the corridor will allow LaSalle to improve the pedestrian environment through downtown. A couplet intersection is recommended at WCR 394/WCR 52. This would correct the existing intersection skew and reduce crashes. o It is recommended that signals remain at 42" Street, 37th Street, and 31st Street through Evans as Evans has been proactive in implementing these recommendations per the ACP. A Texas -turnaround is recommended along the bypass in Greeley. US 85 would be elevated through this section. Greeley supports this recommended and feels that it is appropriate for the surrounding land use. o O Street: It recommended that access US 85 to/from O Street be closed, with traffic being redirected to a future signal at WCR 66. o A signal is recommended at 5th Street in Eaton. In the interim, improvements should be made to enhance pedestrian crossings. o A signal is recommended at WCR 76, which is consistent with the ACP. o WCR 37: It is recommended that access to US 85 be closed, and the road redirected to WCR 76. This new connection would be developer driven. RoadX Jim Hanson (Atkins), explained some of the applications of CDOT's RoadX initiative, such as adaptive signal timing and truck detection signals. CDOT is actively looking for grant funding for new technologies, and this corridor may be well suited to be a pilot program. The RoadX program will be recognized in the PEL as a possible funding opportunity. Prioritization Process Chris reviewed the prioritization process that the project team used to rank locations. This process is a needs -based approach that does not recommend specific improvements, rather, identifies the locations along the corridor in greatest need of improvement. The three main measures included in the evaluation are: mobility, safety, and railroad interaction. Page 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Preliminary Results The top tier of needs includes: o 104th Avenue o 120th Avenue o Bromley Lane o 124th Avenue o WCR 14.5/14 Street o WCR 32 o 37th Street o 31St Street COLORADO Department of Transportation Improvements have recently been made at numerous locations (such as Bromley Lane and 31St Street), and therefore, these locations may no longer be a top tier need. Chris reminded the group that the process is flexible and can be updated in the future when new information/data becomes available. Next Steps The following next steps were discussed: ► The project team will continue to coordinate with the TAC to develop conceptual level cost estimates ► A series of public meetings will be held this Spring, likely at the end of March ► The project team will continue to finalize the report and fact sheets. ► Amendments to the ACP Open House Attendees were invited to review the base maps of the corridor. Page 4 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Agenda • Introductions Progress update • Recommended improvements • Project prioritization • Next steps • Open house Progress Update • Overview of last Executive Committee meeting • One-on-one meetings • TAC meetings • Railroad coordination • US 85/US 34 Design Charrette Alternative Evaluation Process Mobility V/C ratio Effect upon regional mobility Access Consistency with the Access Control Plan Relationship to local land use • Safety Reduction of the prominent crash type Anticipated crash reduction Alternative Evaluation Process • Railroad Minimize road/railroad operational issues • Alternate mode Enhancements to biking and walking Support for planned regional transit service • Natural and cultural environment Impact upon resources such as historic properties and wetlands • Community Community context Community response Alternative Evaluation Process • Three classifications for future NEPA action: Recommended: Alternative has been selected to move forward for additional evaluation and development as need and resources allow for project implementation. Feasible: Alternative was not selected to move forward for further evaluation based on information available during the study. However, if site conditions or other information arises or changes, this alterative could be reconsidered at a future time. Eliminated: Alternative has been eliminated from consideration for the corridor and does not require additional analysis in NEPA for the improvement implementation. • 3 1� 104t" Avenue 104th Ave. • fllover Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUb as- — n...a- 'd"1 . r '•.tea �` • I.' i`5r-"o l • , • 1201", 124t" Avenue 120th Ave. • Diamond Interchange 12A-th fcve. • Full closure 1 S 1 a' . • WCR 8, WCR 10 (Fort Lupton) wcKs • Junior interchange • hook ramps Close access, provide alternate access WGRb • No access • .ti 4f AtIt WCR 14.5, WCR 16 WGR 14.5 / 14th St. • Junior interchan e (combined wrt h 1NCR ib) Se WGR Ib r • Right out on east side onlj WCR ,B • Sng'e F^rt Vrbar Mintorae (SRA) ant na 227 owe us, • WCR 18 to WCR 28 Cc rstru;t poo'e, rcae system Vccatcr is flexski frcm YV(R .S to WCR 2S WCR £ss • Fui rkswe asst access west side wCR ZO host-n-Roar-cstt east see • Roht-r- Raht.c+ut a:zess Ail taak' fr-non r;-afs cost ord .lest of b'.S S5 pet-Attr wcR 22 ani WO< 2 txoty c AexzF' 1,5 s5 r;;,k 245 • k.fiti 4v ••L rot.... ..c.! ,,.S 15 WGk U w Y'•c stn'att x.1?as WCR n • Danrrd ctn.:Yarn vS '35 WCk 28 - Cis( :^fit opt moan ICPJ, SH 66 (Platteville) US 85 / Sit bb Ghannelized-T • SE' US 85 is grade separated at Stf bb • :, r.i.1 ..4 r I - ICS NM. I Marion five. • 5/4 access on west side • Closure on east side • r d T:n2 ��•,4 r4 •h ,l { I 1- is It) Ir Jki J, y v �•rsi tom`''" '_ r3 •I • I I€ ' kt r•4r 4 r 1 4.' - , S _ ea 1 • • avllit'do . US 85 / VV0R 51 - .1 • Cul-de-sac frontage roads • hdd lanes air S WCR 34 • est :r `-..ii_• US 85 / WO 51 - Dimond rrterchange a "MI 4s. aft WCR 40, Elm Street (Gilcrest) • \A/oR 40 • ReIin frontage road • Signalize SIF en •-- Elm St. • 5/4 bccess 4e. • WCR 33, WCR 44 (Peckham) • closure at Mg 55 • ORSionail 44 • East side connection WOR 55 oR 44 WCR 35, WCR 46 • Glose VVCR 35/46 on east side • Chonnehzed-T on west side • Rectn VVCPN 46 J TM St Avenue to 5t" Avenue (LaSalle Ist Ave. N. • Traffic signal • hold lanes Znd Ave. • K/Ro ..�.:,$� ty ^"er 4•1‘by et?• RIIRO a_ a o 5rd Ave. • No change, maintain full movement 4th flue. 5th Ave. • No change, maintain full movement 22"d Street to 5th Street (Greeley) • Access J CROSS STREET; • Access,/ FRONTAGE ROAD 85 II O Street, WCR 66 "0" St • Close and connect to W CF, New connection from W CR 64 to W GR 66 Close and realign Ith Ave. W GR bb • Traffic, signal 1. '/ 5th Street, WCR 76, WCR 37 (Eaton To Great Western Trail 4 - future Recreation Center 5th St. • Pedestrian crossing enhancements -to improve re9 ionail connections • Signalize when warranted 3 Ti_.,._.,ii • _ ,. . l ._ To Eaton Commons Subdivision NCR 1b (loth St.) • Signalize when warranted IT Pose.,�.�s Close access) new WCR 31 connection to WCR 16 RoadX Opportunity • Vision: Crash -free, injury -free, delay -free and technologically - transformed travel in Colorado. • Focus upon more efficient decision making for vehicles and drivers, such as trucks linking through technology, creating platoons that reduce the cost and time • 85 was identified as a potential RoadX capstone project Technology presents opportunities as we look at immediate and interim improvements Program may help position the corridor for funding for improvements that incorporate technology Prioritization • Needs -based focused on: Mobility Safety Railroad interaction • Rating scale for each category (1 to 5) by location • Affords flexibility Prioritization: Mobility • Level of service (LOS) based • Existing and 2035 • AM and PM peak hours • LOS F = 5, LOS E = 4, LOS D = 3, LOS C = 2, and LOS A and LOS B= 1 Prioritization: Mobility Results Top Needs: c WCR 32 O 31st Street o 104th Avenue o 112th Avenue o Bromley Lane* o 120th Avenue *Was recently approved o 124th Avenue c WCR 2 • SH 66 • WCR 14.5/ 14th Street c 16th Street Prioritization: Safety Crash frequency and rate based • Property damage only equivalence (PDOE) 1 PDO = 1 PDOE crash 1 injury crash = 8.7 PDOE crashes 1 fatal crash = 161.3 PDOE crashes • Score 1 to 5 for frequency, 1 to 5 for rate, and average Prioritization: Safety Results Top Needs: O 104th Avenue o Bromley Lane o WCR 14.5/ 14th Street o 12Oth Avenue • 37th Street o WCR 18 144th Avenue* o WCR 44 WCR 100** *Turn restrictions implemented **Turn lanes recently added Prioritization: Railroad • Highway/railroad interaction: function of cross - street volume and spacing • Volume/distance ratio • Existing, 2035 • Scale 1 to 5 for each and average Prioritization: Railroad Results Top Needs: o Bromley Lane o 120th Avenue o SH 392 o WCR 42 o SH14 o 112th Avenue • WCR 66 124th Avenue 104th Avenue Prioritization Sum of three categories: O 104th Avenue O 12Oth Avenue o Bromley Lane o 124th Avenue ) o WCR 14.5/14th Street o WCR 32 O 37th Street O 31st Street Next Steps • Public meetings Develop cost estimates • Documentation, fact sheets, and final report • Amendments to the ACP Open House • Section 1: 1-76 to WCR 22 Commerce City, Brighton, Fort Lupton, Adams County, Weld County • Section 2: WCR 22 to 1st Street Platteville, Gilcrest, Weld County • Section 3: 1st Street to SH 392 LaSalle, Evans, Garden City, Greeley, Weld County • Section 4: SH 392 to WCR 100 Eaton, Ault, Pierce, Nunn, Weld County I COLORADO Department of Transportation COLORADO 00 d� US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study N Cr) ag g co U co a. ry 00 of E O >R. O N • - •— co u)C7 — C o C (t$ o a¢w'r ca r v a, H E-MAIL ADDRESS z 0 a 0 0 .O N a cn wN cc O/� V Q 0 a W2 EN zQ Ai/ander bidet &04'°•09 % V S,� O K 4- O Q, c's•\ Affiliation: EentI t404,1,/ siN Nl "1 \‘.. N O AZ ci bR J 0 d � \) , 0 ,,,, a -,14N\ki (,1 's ,, N- V i d i D,f4 te4 a c 0 a -r v i Q_J_i J V ./\ (3O 610 &) NiN n\ r t ii J cj 'vi\ t O ce o rat O g fm P'n y4 'e co W (--: se eci COLORADO 0 0 it US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study N i _ aat 8 as 2 o Oa co d O E U .w- . . U Cm i CZ.- OCJbN CO mo <<UJr o3 V v H U HI 4ps T N t r m 4 4 la% 3 -- _, `4 2Q� N 1 el O ;co 1- w Q CI; Z O 0 Z O itt W LL < ZQ SM i'TLC�I kl 4 'A 0 v -2 ii — el C 2 k M EE V Li U 0 ;-- Affiliation: I ctot>M� C Z 1 I Go N5 N v) on 7; 1 Ct / S VC `S eb o es a .323/4 s, c., L_ h a M 3 ---I- d Qn, ) g Q A , 1 r I^ r csA l F I d &, UI /1) * 61 pei � Q At la -A4 Pit ,p) 40 N , COLORADO US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study N E/2 C Q o di co U o2 co oC O U a� O Ctw ONUi, CO ao a>,-- a<w v t v 0 H co cc C Q 2 w Z or a. 0 O w w N C } F <0 O z w ZQ -ci t I I j I tr Cl � r �oo a O C N "V --cyt i Lc:" c Q &))- - C7 v S. To clTh Q3) M O � N. )--N, -.. Q.) \2 -tom.....y, ,„ K. . %) C v 5 2 FOc -t ct Q I i si -A- s ?,) V v s C 0 00 C A �� M O Oa v � ,_44- , ) �1 ,-.1 V Q) v 1- rd 61) Q c) o t.- Q `b :n -f- 0'/ O V' 03) Lr I O LW cSC ©LL5 MI 1 A r J le cit5 0 as D C I r 3 C r N ‘ Z ?Q, i tcz vole �r d'01 -NS x;1 8 hof c O co Q c: u :,AN V -‘,. Affiliation: Corm YIGerC.e 1, diz. ci t; iNz) 1 U 4 \A \, nQ m O 0 Q O J O V w C O O d a US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study N i CI)2 fl c :..0 CU w9 CD 2 i� = o 2 co a_ C) O V/ p p U c •E cis 4?'. E W U o' Tow ca; N NU` h • CO M ▪ >a > C O O <<WY-- . (,) s a) I - E-MAIL ADDRESS ;lei O a 0 p a 6.4 1 L e Ar et - 4 7 c7 H c p Co Q E O Co .= Q N w C O ..--: ' N E < E O ca Q COLORADO o4. St g US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study N p_ pDgn C w on O cu � 'c o d • d r 0vi oU cc o E; -:>•w Ua; T O c\I at, cn • co co Q¢w'T c� . 2 c s C, O F- N CC C -J 2 I W W 0 a 0 W J < U. ZQ V v IAffiliation: C Y N c Cf; in N 3 0 J a -1- 6 't - C d C c V 1. c c s 6- s r 1 LN c o u o �t VNw c) c cam' C cs E J�0 CN C s cs 0 N Q C 0 .4- CO .. N Q C 0 Y as � Q C 0 N a 0 4— as o Q 0 0 it ono o 11,4 u US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study E-MAIL ADDRESS z 0 a C cS� ts O fn 5 S L 3l tb Sraevr 8 2 a °v tr T 2 0 gick v vi 2 tr u C C 0 Ca Y)Q C 0 Ct C!) Qr, 7,-) C O 0 < C 0 4- 0 ^7Q US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study MEETING MINUTES Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #2 April 8, 2014 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM City of Evans (1100 37th Street) COLORADO Department of Transportation Introductions Alex Pulley (FHU) introduced himself as the Consultant Deputy Project Manager. Alex asked everyone to introduce themselves and the community they represent, then provided a brief overview of the afternoon's agenda and the project schedule. Inventory Update Traffic Counts and Traffic Operations Jamie Archambeau (Atkins) provided an overview of the traffic counts that have been completed to date. The traffic counts are almost finished and the Synchro model is now being built; the project team expects to have the remaining daily traffic counts and vehicle classification counts within the next week. Existing traffic counts show the PM peak has a more even directional split than in the AM peak. • There was a suggestion to add stop sign vs. signal to the turning movement count graphics • There was a request to conduct traffic counts at the CR 8 intersection • There was a question about the possibility of reflecting the operations of the UPRR - the project team will look into this and will discuss operations with the UPRR Safety Dave Hattan (FHU) provided a summary of the safety analysis to date. In the five year period between the beginning of 2008 through the end of 2012, there were 2,370 crashes, of those, 23 were fatal, 675 resulted in injury, and the rest included property damage. There were slightly more crashes at intersections than non -intersections. Weather and road conditions were relatively minor factors as about 15 percent of the crashes occurred under these adverse conditions. Further detail showed accidents at non -intersections were mostly with fixed objects, rear ends, overturning and running off the road, and side swipes (same direction). Accidents occurring at intersections were mostly with rear ends, broadsides, side swipes (same direction), fixed objects, and turning in intersections. To date, the project team has evaluated the crash patterns along the corridor segments (between intersections) using safety performance function (SPF) graphs, which have been developed by CDOT. The SPF graphs can be used to identify road segments that have a higher than expected crash frequency and/or severity based on the performance of roads with similar characteristics (urban vs. rural, functional classification, number of lanes, traffic volumes). The analysis identified a few Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation segments of the corridor where the number of number of crashes was higher than expected - indicating the potential for measures to improve safety. When the project team has the remaining traffic count data, a similar analysis will be completed for the intersection crashes. • There was a suggestion to look specifically at the effect the cable rail in the median has had on the corridor crash rates. The cable rail was installed within the last 2 years. It would be helpful to understand how beneficial the cable rail has been and how much it has reduced cars from going into on -coming traffic. • It was also suggested that truck involvement in crashes be analyzed. No Action Alternative Alex Pulley (FHU) explained how a No Action Alternative will be used in the PEL process. It is a NEPA requirement used as a point of comparison for other alternatives. The No Action alternative includes those projects with committed funding that are slated to occur, regardless of the outcome of the PEL. The project team has referenced the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to identify projects to include in the No Action Alternative. Alex presented a draft list of the projects. • The Evans park and ride (US 85/42nd Avenue) is a joint project with the Fort Lupton park and ride (US 85/SH 52) - both should be referred to as carpool lots since no transit service is currently provided. • The 13th Street project in Greeley is complete • The US 85 adaptive signal system project does not yet have a defined funding stream - refer to funding as RAMP • There are several projects that are under construction (Nunn bridge, Bromley Lane project) and will impact the operation of the corridor. These (and any other projects that are under construction during or after the data collection phase) should be included in the No Action. • Find out if there are any UPRR projects that should be included in the No Action Travel Demand Forecasts Jenny Young (FHU) described the process that will be used to forecast travel demand along US 85. Two models (DRCOG and NFRMPO 2035 Regional model) are being used, but are in the process of being updated to 2040. The plan is to use the DRCOG and NFRMPO 2035 model, refine to land use forecasts along the US 85 corridor, but keep the refinements within 10% (based on guidance from FHWA). There is a model overlap area in the Platteville area where the project team will need to reconcile differences between the NFRMPO and DRCOG models. When the 2040 models are available, we will use them as a check against the 2035 model results. We will account for heavy vehicle traffic using field observations and a post -processing methodology. The preliminary travel demand forecasts (using the raw results from the regional models) show the highest growth rates in the section of US 85 between Brighton and Platteville (90 - 100% growth). Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Remaining sections of the corridor are forecast to experience traffic growth in the range of 40 to 60 percent. • One TAC member indicated that the forecasts seem high, given the fact that VMT nationwide has been decreasing; the project team will look into the historic traffic growth on US 85 as a point of comparison. • Other TAC members indicated that the general patterns shown on the preliminary forecasts seem to make sense. • It would be helpful to have the existing and forecasted numbers alongside the percentages for perspective. Stakeholder Involvement Plan Jenny Young (FHU) provided the status of the stakeholder interviews (one-on-one discussions with each community/agency). As of the TAC meeting, the team had conducted most of the interviews. Jenny presented an overview of the trends heard during the stakeholder interviews related to: • The role of the corridor today • Corridor problems • Potential solutions • Desired outcomes Purpose and Need The Purpose and Need statement provides the underlying purpose and need for preparing the action. It needs to be specific, but balanced. It is the foundation of the NEPA process and the decision making process and should state the transportation problem. Alternatives that are developed will be eliminated if they don't meet the Purpose and Need. It could reflect the characteristics of the area (i.e. environmental resources, land use, growth, and economic development). PEL Questionnaire FHWA guidance on the PEL process with 13 questions on methodology, purpose and need, coordination, alternative development, environmental resources and impact, and any assumptions. It identifies components of the PEL and the questions to guide the project team. It is used throughout the PEL process and is in fact already in use. It will be in the appendix of the PEL document Upcoming Events Vision Workshop-TAC and elected officials May 8, 6:30 to 8:30 PM Fort Lupton Recreation Center (203 S. Harrison Ave., Fort Lupton) Page 3 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Public Meetings -3 meeting with all showing the same material ► June 17, 4:00 to 7:00 PM Brighton Armory at Brighton Cultural Center (300 Strong St., Brighton, CO) ► June 18, 4:00 to 7:00 PM Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 (601 2hd St. Pierce, CO) ► June 24, 4:00 to 7:00 PM Greeley Ice Haus (900 8th Ave., Greeley, CO) Next TAC Meetings ► Tuesday, May 20th at 1:00 PM at the Gilcrest Fire Station (14679 CR 42) Attachments: US 85 PEL TAC powerpoint presentation Meeting handouts Sign -in sheets COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 4 i COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study April 8, 2014 Technical Advisory (TAC) Meeting #2 • Agenda • Inventory update • Traffic counts and traffic operations • Safety (crash history and trends) • No Action projects • Travel demand forecasts o Summary of Stakeholder Interviews e Preliminary discussion on Purpose and Need U Upcoming Events • Visioning Workshop - May 8th at Fort Lupton Recreation Center Public Meetings - mid/late June Project Schedule 2014 2015 J FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ Stakeholder Kick -Off Meeting Corridor Conditions Assessment Stakeholder Interviews Visioning Workshop Purpose and Need Alternatives Development and Screening PEL Report Stakeholder Involvement • TAC • EC • Small Group Meetings Public Meeting Public Meeting COLORADO Department of Transportation Inventory Update .J1L Existing Traffic Counts 4-1.140711 i-41ra -411 01:4 C Olt ER CITY 4-11111/411. fleets Wei 11.171) 1IULn-, LAVA 1M DAs NA11141141-4 .} l LI.1::1L. r11.lfl L..'„ 1, . MEND XMOXIal• ANIMA Tin r.nq Muvrrret timmtt NORTN► LAM, 17I I,) in SS L»" rho OAT ►L M t Lwow rS61E1 M EX` E .14L S RL 1171131j 1441 424 -.0 t P .. adsl 1. 1: ft MA 1 +L114111 r.a eamrsle ine cc J1 1141 LAID rpN1 i 4 -uta • fin t sI.MS .111.4soon plc LASALLE EVANS J1L uaw► e can • Existing Traffic Counts J1L +:. aalti f1 • I*SA • • s nigh 11..• • •-•-• 0••Ak'. cap to I EIEY • LtivA rim 31r CAI! >; 6 14. • • IOTA • MUM petit. 3 PIERCE C11 AVL EATON c+,a E • arta .-Si1ND mist I a1111tq= 14Si^• ♦ t!a • Ia Se • wDi•iy r•+ 2!r J1L tv, MIS 7411 5 an c = X37 .114 L4 • .-1:14 r• i-,.. 10601 I.Jt!. u1AN Neu j f t C 6$ •UL } .1CA (1.i. 1q Ian 11f1 —t y A4 3 CA13 La. •r Hul-I; LEGEND ncoont AdIPMI iionnj Mowntent Ccwus NORTH' • Safety Summary 2370 Total Crashes in 5 years (2008 - 2012) Crashes involving Fatalities - 23 (1%) Injury Crashes - 675 (28%) 0 Property Damage Only Crashes - 1672 (71%) • Intersection Crashes - 1233 (52%) • Non -Intersection Crashes - 1137 (48%) • Adverse Road /Weather Conditions (15%) Summary of Crash Types Other (155) 14% Sideswipe (Same) (200)18% Overturning (141) 12% Crash Type Distribution Non Intersection Crashes Rear End f(308) 27% Fixed Objects (333)29% Crash Type Distrbution Intersection Crashes Sideswipe (Same) (90) 7% Approach Turn 0158)13% Fixed Object (121)10% Safety Performance Segment Map Urban Segments 0 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 4 Segment 5 Rural Segments Segment 3 0 Segment 6 Segment 7 RCA TOO MG M SEGMENT 7 M ' 28028 - 290 00 SEGMENT 6 M'273.01 - 280.27 - MC* $4 265.85 - 273.00 SEGMENT 4 MP262.01 - 265.76 SEGMENT 3 MP243.01 - 262.00 MLRli# SEGMENT 2 MP238.33 - 243.00 SEGMENT 1 MP226.80 - 238.32 ♦ 25 20 5 0 • Safety Performance - Segment 1 Lower Limit (20%) Total — Upper Limit (80%) • Observed (EB) 0 10,000 20.000 30,000 AADT 40,000 Urban Flat Rolling Mountainous 4 -Lane Divided Freeway 50,000 60,000 Safety Performance - Segment 2 16 14 11 10 8 6 4 2 0 —Lower Lamrt(1090 — o .:_Pp.._. Segment 2A MP 2318 33 - MP 241 53 SPE-528 0 5.000 10,000 15,00"1 10 m)0 '5 gin'.:I f,,11 JO 35.000 40 rpy Rural Flat and Rolling 4 -Lane Divided Highway ACCidentS/MIIe/YOY 14 12 10 8 —Lowwumtt(20%1 —Total — ripper Lint gin) • Observed(ES) Segment 19 MP24159-MP 24300 SPF-539 `,.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.00•. 40,000 45.000 AADT Urban Flat Rolling Mountainous 4 -Lane Divided Freeway Accidents/MIIe/Year 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 • Safety Performance Segment 3 LowerLimit(20%) Total — Upper Limit (80%) • Observed(EB) 0 Expected 0 5,000 10.000 ,5,000 20,000 25,000 AADT Rural Flat and Rolling 4 -Lane Divided Highway 30,000 35,000 Safety Performance - Segment 4 Accidents/Mile/Year 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 0 LowerLimit(20%) —Total — Upper Limit (80%) • Observed(EB) 0 Expected 5,000 10,000 AADT Urban Flat Rolling Mountainous 4 -Lane Divided Freeway 40,000 Accidents/Mile/Year • Safety Performance Segment 5 — Lower Limit (20%) Total Upper Limit (80%) • Oaserved(EB) O Expected 5 id Il_I 10,000 '15. 000 20,000 AADT 25,000 30,000 Urban Flat Rolling Mountainous 4 -Lane Divided Freeway 35,000 40,000 3 25 05 • Safety Performance - Segment 6 LowerLimit(20%) Total UpperLimit(80%) • Observed(EB) O Expected Segment 6D MP 279 27 - MP 280.27 SPF - 1 01 Segment 6B MP 275.01 - MP 276.10 SPF - 2.25 Segment 6C MP 276 11 - MP 279.26 SPF - 1.03 Segment 6A MP 273.01 - MP 275 00 SPF - 1 99 2,01:0 4,000 6.000 AADT 8,000 10,000 Rural Flat and Rolling 4 -Lane Divided Highway 12,000 14,000 U) U Q • Safety Performance - Segment 7 Lower Limit (20%) Total - Upper Limit (80%) • Observed (ES) O Expected 0 1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 AADT 6,000 Rural Flat and Rolling 2 -Lane Highway 7,000 8,000 9,000 COLORADO Department of Transportation No Action Projects No Action Alternative / Projects ® Used as a comparison to proposed improvements e Projects with committed funding that are slated to occur, regardless of outcome of PEL • No Action Alternative includes projects with dedicated funding on US 85: • TIPsEtSTIP ® NFRMPO; DRCOG; UFR; CDOT • Other projects on US 85, evaluated in PEL • Modeling will account for all Fiscally Constrained projects off US 85 Draft No Action Projects ID SR45218 SST6803.073 SR46601 SNF5788.030 SNF5788.031 5R45218.124 5R45218.105 5R45218.148 SR45001.009 5R46606.021 SR47005.004 Project Name US 85 MP 236-242 Commerce City to Denver CBD Regional Bus Service US 85 and WCR 6 US 85 Access Control at 37th St (Evans) US 85 Access Control at 31st St (Evans) US85 Bypass >:t 13th St (Greeley) US 85: Ault to Wyo state line US 85 Nunn to Carr 288-300 US 85 Bypass Signals 22nd St - 5th St (Greeley)(4-13) MP 266-268.5 US 85, URF Intersection Improvements Various Locations Ft Lupton Park 8 Ride US 85 - WCR 14.5 Project Description Surface Treatment Pool Regional Bus Service Region 4 Bridge Off -System Pool Implementation of Access Control at the 37th Street Implementation of Access Control at the 31st Street Surface treatment of the intersection of US Hwy 85 Bypass and 13th NFRMPO Street in Greeley Bridge On-System-TC Directed; FASTER -Safety Projects; Surface Treatment; Surface Treatment Pool Staging Program Surface Treatment; Surface Treatment Pool Staging Program Regional Priority Program FASTER Safety Allocation Staging Program; FASTER- Safety Projects Source intersection of US 85 and intersection of US 85 and DRCOG / CDOT DRCOG DRCOG NFRMPO NFRMPO CDOT CDOT CDOT CDOT FASTER Transit Staging Program; Transit and Rail Statewide Grants CDOT COLORADO Department of Transportation Travel Demand Forecasts Travel Demand Forecasting Process • DRCOG and NFRMPO 2035 Regional models • Some refinements to land use forecasts (within 10%) • Reconcile two models in overlap area • Use 2040 models as a check • Calibrate forecasts based on current counts Account for oil and gas traffic • Develop turning movement counts for operational analysis VPRELIMINARY Traffic Forecasts • Mn la war WI Si a. .--.-- Zit hew I f0.10 4, j WS 44 tt�a' :neat 3YAlrar/ ` i Melt N u f - 1 43 1 0 rrtwl�u WM Ill wn a tan Ti.. vat iv Ian [s1 Mbwna• 7jT —� � aorLtS u e. ..... .. �....� J/• err. wM Exntng and 2O35 tanw •n.e. -.-- annvm..i.. '' i Caws.+•., Tragic Volumes rill has. VW-... MUW �v Las. 'ism SE A'Jm. 404 K0.1 Co.' W1, CO- COLORADO Department of Transportation Summary of Stakeholder Interviews Status of Stakeholder Interviews: Local Agencies Completed: a Adams County • Ault • Brighton • Commerce City o Eaton Fort Lupton • Gilcrest • Greeley LaSalle • Milliken • Nunn • Pierce • Platteville • Weld County To be Completed: • Evans Garden City • Kersey Status of Stakeholder Interviews: State, Regional, Federal Agencies Completed: • CDOT Region 1 • CDOT EPB • DRCOG o FHWA O NFRMPO To be Completed: • CDOT Region 4 • RTD Status of Stakeholder Interviews: Other Stakeholders Completed: • Brighton Chamber of Commerce • Evans Chamber of Commerce • Michael Bennett's office • Mark Udall's office To be Completed: O Union Pacific Railroad Northern CO Health Alliance • Cory Gardner's office • Kathy Gilliland Heather Barry Access and Ability • NFR Mobility Council o Adams County Human Services • Colorado Motor Carriers Association Weld County Natural Gas Coalition • Other Chambers of Commerce study SCG �orr�mcr-c�•71 rouloft te n an intersection traffic throughta8 s etcmControd t'ch GrooIo'corridor tost ��st t,etLee„ voter signal interchange south «,n, r-uc humaV r ��.,�� tad Ev school Countynew now lanes priority cross clock -Joni a eiynols pp yon along cundl.,yconsidcr uod many onto Iane some fl more moo- Plottevire prof art tot) Pork about speed mo%Soi Cat Iooh issue high other umport'^t lot eocct I rnn,Jratim orco rood W(J l ti fe coti?coolo street all north oil WICturn growth want umprovcmcn t: land development town access use because It Out Interview Themes: Corridor's Role Today • Main Street • Regional Highway • Farm to Market • Alternative route to 1-25 (incident/emergency management) • Opportunity for economic development Interview Themes: Corridor Problems O Safety - intersection configurations, inadequate turn lanes, lack of shoulders • Maintenance O Congestion/congested intersections - southern portion of corridor and through Evans/Greeley • Increased heavy truck activity on highway and on cross - streets accessing US 85 (most notably oil and gas) $ Concern about speeds through Town G Unattractive entrance to community • Trains block crossings Concern about too many amendments to Access Control Plan Interview Themes: Potential Solutions • Parallel routes and supporting local street system to provide travel options; local street system that complements US 85 O Specific intersection improvements - predominately related to improving safety • Interchanges • Define ROW footprint/parameters for implementation Improve mobility and provide reliable travel times O Transit - Greeley to Denver and Human Services • Managed Lanes - consider various options Interview Themes: Potential Solutions • Safer pedestrian crossings to better connect community • Aesthetics - beautify the street with parkway, lighting, signing • Signing guidelines that allow for community identity • Consider high tech solutions (e.g., ITS, fiber optics, adaptive signal timing) Consider unique configurations (e.g., CFI, DDI, SPUI) COLORADO Department of Transportation Preliminary Discussion of Purpose & Need Purpose & Need Statement Specifies the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is preparing an action Developing a purpose and need statement is essentially the foundation of NEPA and the decision -making process Used in the PEL to screen alternatives for addressing the needs 0 Allows for screening to be utilized in NEPA Purpose & Need Statement Guidance • Should be a statement of the transportation problem (not a statement of a solution); • Should be based on articulated transportation planning factors; Should be specific enough so range of alternatives developed will offer real potential solutions; • Must not be so specific as to "reverse engineer" a solution ® May reflect other priorities and limitations in the area, such as environmental resources, growth management, land use planning, and economic development PEL Questionnaire O 13 questions about methodology, coordination, purpose and need, alternatives, environmental resources/impacts, assumptions O Identifies key components of a successful PEL • Asks questions to guide project team s Is a deliverable at the end of the PEL (attachment to PEL Document) • Completed / Visited throughout PEL Process COLORADO Department of Transportation Upcoming Events Visioning Workshop • Thursday, May 8t" 6:30 - 8:30 PM Fort Lupton Recreation Center 203 S. Harrison Avenue in Fort Lupton • Please RSVP (and encourage your elected officials)! Visioning Workshop: Preliminary Agenda • Presentation (1/2 hour) O Project Overview ® Corridor Conditions • Desired Outcomes of Visioning Workshop • Visioning Session (1 hour) • Small groups (6-8 people, randomly grouped) • Build off what we learned through stakeholder interviews O Individual visioning exercise, followed by small group discussion and collaboration on: G Vision 4 Problems Solutions • Report Back (1 /2 hour) O Each small group describes their agreed upon vision, critical problems and highest priority solutions 9 Possible individual follow-up/priorities Public Meetings COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study PUBLIC MEETINGS The Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) is conducting a study to establish a vision for the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to the Town of Nunn Please join us at our upcoming meetings to provide input on the transportation problems and potential solutions for this corridor Save the Dates! -� June 17, 2014 Tuesday 4:00 - 7:00pm The Armory at Brighton Cultural Center 300 Strong St. Brighton, CO 80601 —p June 18, 2014 Wednesday 4:00 - 7:00pm Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2nd St. Pierce. CO 80648 -0 June 24, 2014 Tuesday 4:00 - 7:00pm Greeley Ice Haus 900 8th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Public Meeting Format: The public meetings will be an open house format where you can drop by anytime to discuss the study with the COOT Project Team. learn about the US 85 corridors current conditions and provide input for creating a vision for the future. To learn more about the US 85 PEL Study. ptease visit the project website at www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel or call the US 85 Public Involvement Team at 470.350.2148. Papuans fee communication ',nuance or restorable accommodation, for Tem! needs :an be made by contecting die h.lk in.thwnent Team pnot to the metro. 970 350 2148 Se aic* hexer tas;envtucks dr troa ccon a or atraa necradodn rpectatri aor>Dr:I n r wntocto con rt eouryo de to perucipactor p•birca 970 ISO V48 Next TAC Meeting After Visioning Workshop and before Public Meetings May 20th - 1:00 to 3:00 pm 9 Need volunteer for location US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study AGENDA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #7 - Section 3 December 10, 2015 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM Riverside Library and Cultural Center 3700 Golden Street, Evans, CO 80620 COLORADO Department of Transportation 1. Introductions 2. Status Update • FHWA UPRR Alternatives Evaluation 3. Section Recommendations r Process . Ultimate Recommendation Interim Recommendation 4. Prioritization Process . Results 5. Next Steps Ar Documentation . US 85 / US 34 Interchange Design Charrette • EC Meeting • Public Meetings COLORADO US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study O 42 o a)co OO U -ca U > W G^)` 17.) E(1) c J O .,0 a)o E c7 E-MAIL ADDRESS Z O a O 0 n V cn a_ w N cc r O >- 0 H < O C 0 Ca j ,_-_Z C- a: N Q 1 k aCii �0 C44 co lO Q C 2 -J h g ffi n Q S 1 E j ‘ \C.\ T t!) Q Affiliation: lve..s _ Nti N. co COLORADO 4.4 C 00 E O -'o. AH US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study U) U) cc O a a 2 O C w z tai) 0 su V) I 0 - L 65 SO d Nco lc 2 To O yoo W- 0 =TU> O E - _ O Lo E T ^ n C.) �o Lc w N L+ cc ri < awo Q 2 5o O10) € r t.) H Z 0 a w 2 it Z d J 2 S cti 10 U e - Q --r a) CO re, c .22 v \P iv, ).,.. •d .775 Q de cr) 1 0 9) 4 o , t- t, C 0 'sr. T w C a tsa- i d C zR 4 N N C) oc ea a COLORADO US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study M O v t I • O tip- rj d Isv (j o O 0 1 s T gT O N Oo T O fcc -_ C (n 13 U ao� Ci U d E-MAIL ADDRESS . . W Z 0 a N 0 c0 O v) as W W O n U °' Ua EL) w N W Q CI 0 < 0 c'7 KELLY LEADBETTER I lu C O ctY C O "al • Q r a as r Q C O ca Q (O '— L O C', '4- Q r T h_ C O .4= as — Q r M a, tit US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study - Agency Correspondence Record for PEL and Corridor Conditions Report Agency Name I" Outreach: Letter Notification of PEL Agency Comments 2"d Outreach: Letter Requesting Comment on CCR Agency Comments 3rd Outreach: Email Reminder of CCR Agency Comments CDPHE — Air Pollution Control Division 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 Look forward to reviewing air quality impacts during NEPA process. 1 1 / 1 1 /2015 Any future requests related to transportation can go to Paul Lee (paul.lee@state.co.us). CDPHE— Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments I I/1 1/2015 No Comments CDPHE — Water Quality Control Division 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments I 1 /1 I /2015 No Comments CPW — Northwest Region Denver 05/20/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 CCR has been forwarded to District Wildlife and Area Managers 11/I 1/2015 No Comments US EPA Region 8 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments 1 1 / 1 1 /2015 Pg 5-20, I 54: It should read Quantity not Quality. Pg 5-20, I 86: Suggest adding water quality to this list. (Comments addressed in final CCR.) Colorado Historical Society — SHPO 05/19/2014 No Comments "07/22/2015 No Comments I I/1 1/2015 No Comments USACE - Denver Regulatory Office 05/20/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments I I/11/2015 Notify this office (Corps of Engineers. Omaha District) if the project proposed falls within Section 404 of The Clean Water Act regulated activities because the project may require a Department of Army Section 404 Permit. USFWS — Colorado Ecological Services Office 05/19/2014 No Comments *07/22/201 S No Comments 11/11/2015 No Comments «- - Date submttted to COOT for resew and submittal to agency. CCR = Corridor Conditions Report CDOT = Department of Transportation CDPHE — Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CPW = Colorado Parks and Wildlife EPA = Environmental Protection Agency PEL = Planning and Environmental Linkages SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer USAGE = United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service Section 1A 1-76 to North of 120th Avenue FREEWAY US85rio4thAve Possible Configurations • Cto^'ord Options • 5R4 • Rase g S 135 • ParCo • Rase n)hth Aire • at -grad rath roirmd • Optio (Jose Longs Peak Drive access • (k+M emergency guess Option LS S5 r ulth five • Slancrd hterrhange fmust rase 11th Ave • Grade -separated tin rit,errchange7 rase v5 35 tat -grade ratra_•+Jf rase 111th .Ave. befalls future ntcrrmrtie ?SJticY, Section 1 A 1-76 to North of 120th Avenue US 415 / Roth Ave • Nvnrrd Viten/Ian* FREEWAY Section 1 B 124th Avenue to North of 144th Avenue FREEWAY US 85 ; 14th Ave_ • (Arade-separated N5 85 • vPRR) • Vase guess - Poterrate routing f1. access to vS ' y Ne change at None St (bse 1524,4 Avenue access • Opbars emeraerty guess US 85 1156th Ave. • Dons?rd nterctwnge rnth erode sesoated RR • I xp ramp n ncethwest twdra t to avr i development Section 1 B 124th Avenue to North of 144th Avenue FREEWAY US 85 111th Ave. • Dotiuvd nteract, with grade.separated RR • Grade separated 4 • Brcvrdcy ire • I mf north • Otrth IFe Hint rot south • Chase *o Section 1C South of Bromley Lane to North of CR 2.5 FREEWAY US 85 r Prom!em Lane • aanond menthe?' ge .;a • r Elea ail ais Opthns • Roue v S5 tat-grock raboadl • Rase er:mey I tine business auess ssues US 85 r Srt 1 • kpovement alternatives try be cCnsdered • Peiocate out. stop here • 9ufrooki sic ram's •, extend frrntair rood tccRz No ratoad issue rye MS ilea Close Denver writ hform drivers yawn *ran access bbckrtb 9rdgt St Section 1C South of Bromley Lane to North of CR 2.5 Opt -ors • Raise iJ S5 rased cR 1 rased VS85rcRz • tkunord nterd a+qe • :3F50 FREEWAY Goss cR Z1 guess r Section 1 D South of CR 4 to CR 10 FREEWAY v.) uRernatw_ antes& u5ss!at4 • Lbse access h+,rvid refire new a4,ess routing to west] • Grade -separate! • Lbse access rr Lose LR 615 VV J.. ,nR b acceSS • Dranord intatrarge Options • Rase u5 85 • Rase LR b Exterd auess to LIZ U585/s • Ovbens •Rase if; 85 • Rabe L.R Lose access. prow* alternate ants Section 1 D South of CR 4 to CR 10 FREEWAY v5ss/LK: • No mess - Danord mterchar4e eel by Ft I upt.^n, Section 1 E North ofCR10toCR16 FREEWAY r se a:..ess t • r ' `alk :F` No thancie Section 1 E North ofCR10toCR16 VS t5I cR ;45 , ;4th St • • Raise VS 85 • (onbruous zcel : del tares ui s FREEWAY (bsecRl6 access ,Z O rz S Section 1 F North of CR 16 to CR 22 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY USs51GR65 Rght-m-Right-out access • Gondrbonar- connectons to GR us 2.5 GRs • Diamond interchange - GR I rased • Traffic s,ynd - U -tans *wed usssGR (i5 • Rio,ht-m-light-out access • Closure • Gonnecton to GR B Improve cress uS ss / GR 2-a Right -m - Rot -out access - Case Close access to west Section 1 F North of CR 16 to CR 22 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY • F I • Improve Access to GR it Gbse sass USss/GRaz • Diamond rnterchary Section 2A South of WCR 22.5 to South of CR 30 in Platteville ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Ghat WCR 215 *cuss ,2 O 2 Go► tua I rovenvAtD 7t;oKS AN :wall frcrtagc rota east rd west of uS t9 aetw.er WCR 11 rd WCR 18 'mace tc cc ietamrea) Gose 1atbS JS 85 , WcR 145 9it.r.R4ht. ut. aletss • Arst sde u rdtxfrd Joan cast bdc vs 85 a WGR Zb • gert-r WgM-nut suss Lobe Xbes& nrfhe rare, laths Section 2A South of WCR 22.5 to South of CR 30 in Platteville ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY f _.r (ACS uS i5 'N&R 18 OJtiens k4t.r..Eghtaat oa s% .''tst sde • :ordhcrd cbstn • cast se 'raff& sgrr • Recant 'NGR :5; tAar •St away frani US 85 Section 2B WCR 30 in Platteville to SH 60 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Oben a.ac WGR comet to SH re eater coi VS35:.Stttb Oyhots. Watt tc east! • Rothe tJS 93 • KW Sel •Rase .58 JS Is rtvtha 35 Stt bb • Charretal tieVS Ctarnond O f•Set SFV Depress US US 35 % WCR 52 Oybons Gime frcrtayt •:ala • Crode•snwate dS 125 • at W4Vrr. roth iuth uurater tc WCR ±4 :Er it if. ar rWthr ei F•j ,;._wry_ 6t a'«see` t44 9usttia '33 to WCR 255 > { roves &t D�tion� Section 2B WCR 30 in Platteville to SH 60 VS35/WGR54 Dcm rd htachm+ae Uscusscn Tow ittY ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY US s5Sits: Damord kerchcrge aase Access z Section2C North of SH 60 to North of WCR 42 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY rovewert ()rims Section 2C North of SH 60 to North of WCR 42 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Section 2D South of WCR 33 to North of WCR 48 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY 0 • JS S. • wGR 44 uofrad &etcher* • WGR 55 Ufa# wanton Options • VS 45 WCR '•5 Ourrrrd rtm/arge 'rvi,fr= ♦4 V Rif '.avrflrY'r Options * u585 fa 55 tco? glow nt0tt roe • wGR 44 sarahcn CD► - QI Giese Ucse 'WAS Access Optons ; WGR 55 Rgxr tt-cut • wGR 44 a* watts" rove,i\t Dptohs Optons t14 %cw%ttt wrist WGR 55t Section 2D South of WCR 33 to North of WCR 48 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY US s5 / wca 4s options aubae.c 47Rgnte xAJ ack Section 3A UPRR Bridge South of LaSalle to North of 37th Street in Evans STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Possu0. Traffc .a a Options • Or+e:way owlet • Traffic s.ra at tst rive • wt 5t • 1st Ave grade separator, of u.S V ColeNuftuzq l kit rovekvktht °Mims Pcssiat Traffic wad Traffic ulna e/tiarcervient Section 3A UPRR Bridge South of LaSalle to North of 37th Street in Evans STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Close frontage road at Pith .-5t Options • 99th Ave closure • Optional ra'oad tinsel clone Close frontage roads * rea an access Section 36 Goal 31st Street to North of 5th Street in Greeley Cbse f ontage roods * realc access rovewLext D gtiohc Ci•rtcns 22nd St to Myth St • Lorwert frontage rvd to nre-eww • or ,rran n'twr-mv real to Amok icvre Poric Section 3B 31st Street to North of 5th Street in Greeley vYtS 4 wry rwt knht-npRMht-out Icv OtArns 5hSt•iihSt Scdt D cord ntccraae r • •• ,. __.-•ter.- Section 3C North of CR 41 to North of SH 392 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Extend a St over US 35 and ra&oad M1 COhtertlutf I rovefrektpribms, Ctse and realrf nth liv'C Ovtons SH troves -eft itaffr. sand Section 3C North of CR 41 to North of SH 392 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Options - US 35 I ai 9l - traffic, sand • extend y9 to WB tun lane ••; 121 Section 4A South of WCR 70 to North of WCR 76 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY CDnceytUaf � htrDVemev't D ?t1Dhs, °661 coat ra MAIN STREET Corr fate " `Linn vosnn ✓: mt Section 4A South of WCR 70 to North of WCR 76 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY ,ji Section 4B WCR 78 to North of WCR 84 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY coi Lose access rwens.t Drtior`s MAIN STREET Section 4B WCR 78 to North of WCR 84 RURAL HIGHWAY_ Option -. • LAN'. N WY. . n•2n';ufd Unvckn ..-_..-__..-._._... Section 4C South of WCR 86 to North of WCR 92 RURAL HIGHWAY Oy on • incr. to Ver. n:arlvSJ c1& &14 • Eat r. to stt.. atr'vtd s`,utk,:. CDpv,ertuaft vesatOrtiDnc ARTERIAL Section 4C South of WCR 86 to North of WCR 92 RURAL HIGHWAY Section 4D South of CR 94 to CR 100 RURAL HIGHWAY Uvban • CAbr. •D Wr ....... re:Rhtd shat rS ----. , k 444,3 Conc;ertua f wtrovewrent Drool Section 4D South of CR 94 to CR 100 ARTERIAL Robyn Kullas From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Robyn, Hewitson - CDPHE, Ingrid <ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us> Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:21 PM Robyn Kullas Re: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Follow up Completed Thank you for forwarding this study information to me. As air quality and related issues are not discussed in this study the Division does not have any comments except to say that we look forward to reviewing the air quality impacts of these projects through the NEPA process once they have been identified and funded. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything else I can assist you with . Thank you, Ingrid Hewitson, MPH Air Quality Planner State of Colorado, Air Pollution Control Division COLORADO Air Pollution Control Division P: 303.692.6331 I C: 303.868.7317 I F: 303.782-0278 4300 Cherry Creek S. Dr., Denver, CO 80246 email: ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Robyn Kullas <Kullas@pinyon-env.com> wrote: Hi Ingrid, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! 1 Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist y Follow �PrnyonCrrtter Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas(c�pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Pinyon Corporate Headquarters 9100 West jewel! Avenue Lakewood. CC 80232 TEL 303 9'80 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon env,coral 2 Robyn Kullas From: Hewitson - CDPHE, Ingrid <ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:30 AM To: Robyn Kullas Subject: Re: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Ok sounds good. Any future requests related to transportation can go to Paul. Thanks! Ingrid Hewitson, MPH Air Quality Planner State of Colorado, Air Pollution Control Division COLORADO Air Pollution Control Division P: 303.692.6331 I F: 303.782-0278 4300 Cherry Creek S. Dr., Denver, CO 80246 email: ingrid.hewitson®state.co.us On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Robyn Kullas <Kullas@pinyon-env.com> wrote: Hi Ingrid, I just realized I did receive a response from you regarding this report. I apologize for the repetition. No need to respond. Thank you, Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. 1 Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:18 AM To: 'ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us' <ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us> Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Ingrid, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct (720) 536-4I70 Cell: (303) 601-6131 3 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:53 AM To: 'ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us' <ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <Alex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Ingrid, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist V Follow �P,nyonCr,tter Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas@pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-613 I Direct (720) 536-4170 Pmyon Corporate Headquarters 9100 West JeweN Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 990 0089 www.pinyon►.envtont► 5 Robyn Kullas From: Sent: To: Subject: Schieffelin - CDPHE, Joe <joe.schieffelin@state.co.us> Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:31 AM Robyn Kullas Re: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request I have no comments. Thanks and sorry for not responding. Joe On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Robyn Kullas <Kullas@pinyon-env.com> wrote: Hi Joe, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: {303) 980-5200 Direct (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Robyn Kullas 1 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:07 AM To: Joe Schieffelin (joe.schieffelin@state.co.us) <joe.schieffelin@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <Alex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Joe, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Follow cipcnyonCntter Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kul las(o)pi nyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-613 I Direct (720) 536-4I70 Pmyon Corporate Headquarters 9100 West JevS Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www,p nyon-envcocn 3 Robyn Kullas From: Icenogle - CDPHE, Bret <bret.icenogle@state.co.us> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:56 AM To: Robyn Kullas Subject: Re: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Robyn, The division has a single person that we now route all special comment requests through so I thought this was addressed. I don't know if other programs within CDPHE had reservations, but the Engineering Section within the Water Quality Control Division did not have any comments. Bret Bret Icenogle, P.E. Engineering Section Manager COLORADO Water Quality Control Division Department of Public Health & Environment P 303.692.3278 I F 303.782.0390 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246 bret.icenogle©state.co.us I www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd 24 -hr Environmental Release/Incident Report Line: 1.877.518.5608 On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Robyn Kullas <Kullas@pinyon-env.com> wrote: Hi Bret, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn 1 ii a Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 2 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:12 AM To: Bret Icenogle (bret.icenogle@state.co.us) <bret.icenogle@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <A1ex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Bret, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist follow aatnyoncriner Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas@pinyon-env.com Office: O03) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-613 I Direct (720) 536-4170 Pinyon I Corporate Head:starters 9100 West jewel{ Avenue ! ak0woad. CO 80232 TEi. 30? 990 32010 FAX 303 980 0089 www,pe►yon-env,cront RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2015 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOU L'1-i WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 RE: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Initial Comments To whom it concerns: In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material, and any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent, into waters of the United States (WOUS). You should notify this office if the project proposed falls within these regulated activities because the project may require a Department of the Army Section 404 permit. A WOUS may include ephemeral and/or perennial streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, drainage ditches and irrigation ditches. A wetland delineation must be conducted, and verified by the Corps of Engineers, using the methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: (using applicable Regional Supplement) to determine wetlands based on the presence of three wetland indicators: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Wetland delineations must be conducted in the field by a qualified environmental consultant and any aquatic resource boundaries must be identified accordingly. Once the aquatic resources have been identified, only this office can determine if they are WOUS. Please note that development of the upland areas, avoiding stream and wetland resources, does not require authorization from this office. Nationwide Permits (NWP) authorize common types of fill activities in WOUS that will result in a minimal adverse effect to the environment. Descriptions of the 52 types of nationwide permit activities and their general conditions can be found on our website: http://www.nwo.usace.armv.mi I/Missions/RegulatorvProgram/Colorado.aspx. Some fill activities require notifying the Corps before starting work. Also, some types/sizes of work may require additional information or mitigation. Regional General Permits (RGP) authorize specific types of fill activities in WOUS that will result in a minimal adverse effect to the environment. Descriptions of the 4 types of regional general permit activities and their general conditions can be found on our website: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryProgram/Colorado/RegionalGeneralPermits .aspx. These fill activities require notifying the Corps before starting work, and possibly other local or state agencies. Also, some types/sizes of work may require additional information or mitigation. Please note several of the RGP's are applicant and location specific. Individual permits may authorize fill activities that are not covered under the NWP or Regional General Permits (RGP's). This permit will be processed through the public interest review procedures, including public notice and receipt of comments. An alternative analysis (AA) must be provided with this permit action. The AA must contain an evaluation of environmental impacts for a range of alternatives. These alternatives should include the preferred action, no action alternative, and other action alternatives that would be the identified project purpose. Other action alternatives should include other practicable (with regards to cost, logistics, and technology) that meet the overall project purpose. The alternatives could include offsite alternatives and alternative designs. When evaluating individual permit applications, the Corps can only issue a permit for the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). In some cases, the LEDPA may not be the applicant's preferred action. The individual permit application form and form instructions can be found on our website: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil Works/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/ObtainaPermit. asms. If the activity requires a Department of the Army permit as a result of any impacts to WOUS or any earth disturbances within that resource, a federal action will occur. For the Corps to make a permit decision, the applicant must provide enough information to demonstrate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to WOUS to the maximum extent practicable at the project site. Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Any loss of an aquatic site may require mitigation. Mitigation requirements will be determined during the Department of the Army permitting review. If the information that was submitted could impact WOUS, which are jurisdictional resources, this office should be notified. If a section 404 permit is required, work in an aquatic site should be identified by the proponent of the project and be shown on a map identifying the Quarter Section, Township, Range and County, Latitude and Longitude, Decimal Degrees (example 39.55555; -104.55555) and the dimensions of work in each aquatic site. If there are any questions, please call the Denver Regulatory Office at 303-979-4120. Sincerely, (-Xtate Kiel Downing Chief, Denver Regulatory Office Enclosures: -PCN requirements -How to request a NWP verification letter Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Requirements (Nationwide Permit General Condition No. 31 from the February 21, 2012 Federal Register) US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office 9307 South Wadsworth Blvd, Littleton, CO 80128 Phone: (303) 979-4120 Website: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/RequlatorvProqram/Colorado.aspx Contents of Pre -Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project; (3) A description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause, including the anticipated amount of loss of water of the United States expected to result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other appropriate unit of measure; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but do not need to be detailed engineering plans); (4) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many waters of the United States. Furthermore, the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps, as appropriate; (5) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10 -acre of wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or explaining why the adverse effects are minimal and why compensatory mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (6) If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, for non -Federal applicants the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and (7) For an activity that may affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, for non -Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. How to Request a Nationwide Permit Verification Letter US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office 9307 South Wadsworth Blvd, Littleton, CO 80128 Phone: (303) 979-4120 Website: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/RedulatoryProgram/Colorado.aspx Nationwide permits authorize common types of fill activities in Waters of the US that will result in minimal adverse effects to the environment. Descriptions of the 52 types of Nationwide Permit activities and their general conditions can be found on our website. Some fill activities require notifying the Corps before starting work. Also. some types/sizes of work may require additional information or mitigation. Please call the Corps Denver Regulatory Office (303-979-4120) if you have questions. Upon receipt of your information, we may contact you with questions. Please provide the following to the Corps: 1. Applicant's name, address, phone, email. 2. Agent or Contractor name, address, phone, e-mail (if applicable). 3. Describe your project and its purpose (describe what you are trying to accomplish or what you plan to do to address the problem). 4. Location of work -- Section, Township, Range, County and/or Latitude/Longitude coordinates. 5. River, stream, lake, or pond name and footprint of impact (length x width). 6. Describe any wetlands on the site, and describe footprint of impact (if applicable). If no wetlands present, or no wetlands impacted, please state this. 7. Describe the volume (cubic yards) of fill material or excavated material. 8. Attach map and sketches — examples shown here. Location Map: Photocopy from road or topo map; indicate site location, any landmarks, etc. Yo•mt Olivet • Northglenn • Mermen • Si -roper . • Leyden . Westminster •Arvada kr:la • Dupont • Commerce City . Wheat Ridge • Sao level DENVER Project Location r . Lakewood • 'amo Pt kite • Glendale • Aurora Littleton Plan View Sketch: "Bird's-eye view"; include all features- distances, length and width; dimensions of features and stream/wetlands. Plan va. r SMett Exar `ale Cross Section Sketch: "Cut away vieW'; include heights, widths of structures, channel, wetland, bank slopes, etc. • ,.,as Seal: t S c:.. Ext~+ple nein 1. wine 1: s•f+C'r+‘twr et Ss r �—mINIMMO - h 4 . •t •r... 'r i . se • AV\CAksek Piny ronmental, Inc. July 22, 2015 .n Corpoi ate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www pinyon -env corn US Army Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory Office 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Attn: Mr. Kid Downing Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Mr. Downing: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RID), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodotinfo/projects/us85pe1. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report, specifically regarding wetlands and waters of the U.S. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: https://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d-sec5e9508I d94 I a4b Please email your comments to kullas(4inyon- env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ' I r {, .- I obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: v\projects120I 411 1435401 us 85 pellresource agencieslccr agency correspondence\usace_ccr letter_22july I S us 85 pel.docx Robyn Kullas From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Churchill - DNR, Jennifer <jennifer.churchill@state.co.us> Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:29 AM Robyn Kullas Alex.Pulley Re: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Thanks, Robyn --I forwarded to the district wildlife managers and area managers that work this corridor. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know! Kind regards, Jennifer Jennifer Churchill Public Information Officer Northeast Region 1 P 303.291.7234 I F 303-291.7114 I C 303.829.7143 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216 jennifer.churchill@state.co.us I www.cpw.state.co.us On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Robyn Kullas <Kullas@pinyon-env.com> wrote: Hi Jennifer, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn KuIIaJ } 1 Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas@pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Direct: (720) 536-4170 P myon Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue lakewcood, CO 80232 1L 303 980 5200 FAX 303 990 0089 www.pinyoa esw, cow y follow gPrnyoncritter 2 Robyn Kullas From: Anderson, Carol <Anderson.Carol@epa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:54 PM To: Robyn Kullas Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Robyn, Thanks for letting me have a few days to look at this PEL report. This is the first time that I have had the time to look at one. I reviewed the report, but did not look closely at the maps. My comments are minor. 1. Pg 5-20,154: There is a typo. It should read Quantity not Quality. 2. Pg 5-20, I 86: Suggest adding water quality to this list. Please say hello to Lauren. Thanks, Carol Carol M. Anderson NEPA Compliance and Review Program US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 EPR/N 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 303-312-6058 anderson.carol@ena.gov 1 inyon ;r,nil 4ni.;l. lnt July 22, 2015 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Attn: Ms. Ingrid Hewitson Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 wwwpinyon-env.com Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Ms. Hewitson: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodotinfo/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report, specifically regarding air quality. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: https://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d-sec5e9508I d94 I a4b. Please email your comments to kullas@pinyon- env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receiving this letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 5/141 obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects1201411 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\ccr agency correspondence\cdphe_aq_ccr letter_22july 15 us 85 pel.docx Pmyon File Name: z:\projects120I4\II43540I us 85 pel\resource agencies\report agency correspondence\cdphe_aq_ccr letter_ I7july15 us 85 pel.docx Date: 7/22/20 15 Author. rak Reviewer: ALK Review Date: Pmyn rhr. July 22, 2015 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Attn: Mr. Joe Schieffelin Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Mr. Schieffelin: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I , 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodotinfo/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report, specifically regarding hazardous materials. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: https://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d-secSe9508 I d94 I a4b Please email your comments to kullaainyon- env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\20I 4\ I 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\ccr agency correspondence\cdphe_hazmat_ccr Ietter_22july 15 us 85 pel.docx inycn mnmental, Inc. July 22, 2015 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Attn: Mr. Bret lcenogle Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Mr. Icenogle: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June 1 I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodotinfo/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report, specifically regarding water quality. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: https://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d-sec5e9508 I d94 I a4b Please email your comments to kullas(d pinyon- env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receipt of the letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. kriti( obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\20I41I 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencieslccr agency correspondencelcdphe_wq_ccr Ietter_17july15 us 85 pel.docx inycn ronmental, Inc. July 22, 2015 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Northeast Region - Denver 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Attn: Ms. Jennifer Churchill Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.corn Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Ms. Churchill: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report, specifically regarding USFWS threatened, endangered, and candidate species. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: https://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d-sec5e95081 d941 a4b Please email your comments to kullas(a�pinyon-env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 57141 obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects1201411 1 43540 1 us 85 pel\resource agencies\ccr agency correspondence\cpw_ccr letter_22july 15 us 85 pel.docx Pmyon mnmental, Inc. July 22, 2015 U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-N) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 Attn: Ms. Carol Anderson Corporate Headquarters ail 00 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Ms. Anderson: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June II, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: hups://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d- sec5e95081d941a4b Please email your comments to kullas(@pinyon-env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. /i d obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projetts\20 I 4\ 1 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencieskcr agency correspondence\cpw_ccr letter_ 17july 15 us 85 pel.docx Pinyin July 22, 2015 US Army Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory Office 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Attn: Mr. Kiel Downing Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Corridor Conditions Report, US Highway 85, Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado Dear Mr. Downing: As referenced in a notification letter sent to you May 19, 2014, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I , 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements are being prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) has been prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR is the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. We ask for your review and any comments you may have of the report, specifically regarding wetlands and waters of the U.S. The CCR can be downloaded at the following link: https://pinyonenvironmental.sharefile.com/d-sec5e9508 I d94 I a4b Please email your comments to kullas(a�pinyon- env.com or mail your comments to the address identified at the top of this letter within three weeks of receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for your time and participation. Your input early in the transportation planning process is critical for the successful screening of potential improvement projects, and will allow for expedited project clearance when funding becomes available. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. obyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\2014\ 1 I435401 us 85 peRresource agencies\ccr agency correspondence\usace_ccr letter_22july 15 us 85 pel.docx Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:29 AM To: ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Ingrid, I just realized I did receive a response from you regarding this report. I apologize for the repetition. No need to respond. Thank you, Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:18 AM To: 'ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us' <ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us> Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Ingrid, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:53 AM To: 'ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us' <ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Ingrid, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Direct: (720) 536-4170 P myon Corporate Headt>Mrartors 9100 West *swell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 91X15200 FAX 303 990 04389 www.pertyon-er v.com if Follow aPrnyonCr,tter 2 Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:26 AM To: Joe Schieffelin (joe.schieffelin@state.co.us) Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Joe, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:07 AM To: Joe Schieffelin (joe.schieffelin@state.co.us) <joe.schieffelin@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Joe, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas@pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-613 I Direct: (720) 536-4170 V Follow gPrnyonCniter 1 Pinyon Corporate Headquarters 9 (00 West jewel Avenue I.akewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 990 0089 www,pinyor►eeny. corn 2 Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:26 AM To: Bret Icenogle (bret.icenogle@state.co.us) Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Bret, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:12 AM To: Bret Icenogle (bret.icenogle@state.co.us) <bret.icenogle@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Bret, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas u(�pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Direct: (720) 536-4170 y Follow gPrnyonC ratter 1 Corporate Hndquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www,pinyorrew. corn 2 Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:20 AM To: Kiel Downing (kiel.g.downing@usace.army.mil) Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Kiel, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:37 AM To: Kiel Downing (kiel.g.downing@usace.army.mil) <kiel.g.downing@usace.army.mil> Cc: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Kiel, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist y Follow PinybnCotter Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas a(�pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-613 I Direct (720) 536-4170 1 P inyon Corporate Headquarters 9 100 Vlkrst )ewd Avenue Lakewood, CC 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 990 0089 www:p4rwan-env.com 2 Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:25 AM To: Jennifer Churchill (jennifer.churchill@state.co.us) Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Jennifer, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:17 AM To: Jennifer Churchill (jennifer.churchill@state.co.us) <jennifer.churchill@state.co.us> Cc: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Jennifer, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas(o_pinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Direct: (720) 536-4170 y Follow gPrnyonC niter 1 Pinyon Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue t akewwood. CO 80232 TEl. 303 980 5200 FAX 303 990 0089 www.pifIyon-env cor. 2 Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:24 AM To: Carol Anderson (anderson.carol@epamail.epa.gov) Subject: RE: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Carol, I just wanted to touch base regarding the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report and confirm you did not have any comments regarding the report. See email below referencing the report and cover letter. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:21 AM To: Carol Anderson(anderson.carol@epamail.epa.gov)<anderson.carol@epamail.epa.gov> Cc: Alex.Pulley <AIex.Pulley@FHUENG.COM> Subject: US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report - Review Request Hi Carol, Attached is a letter requesting your review and any comments you may have of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Conditions Report. The letter includes a link where you can download the report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas(apinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-613 I Direct: (720) 536-4170 If Follow aPsnyonC ratter 1 P n ++w'nt rS tar Corporate Headquarters 9100 West jewel, Avenue I akFwvood, CC 80232 ra 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com 2 Robyn Kullas From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:23 AM To: Troy Halouska (troy.halouska@state.co.us) Subject: RE: US 85 PEL - SHPO and USFWS correspondence Hi Troy, Just checking to see if you got any responses back from SHPO or USFWS regarding the July notification of the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report. Hope all is well. Thanks, Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Office: (303) 980-5200 Direct: (720) 536-4170 Cell: (303) 601-6131 From: Robyn Kullas Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:33 AM To: Troy Halouska (troy.halouska@state.co.us) <troy.halouska@state.co.us> Subject: US 85 PEL - SHPO and USFWS correspondence Hi Troy, Attached are draft correspondence letters for SHPO and USFWS from CDOT requesting review of the US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report. There's a link in the letters where the report can be downloaded. Can you let me know if you have any revisions to these letters before sending them on? Thanks! Robyn Robyn Kullas Environmental Scientist 1/ Follow gPtnyonCrntter Pinyon Environmental, Inc. kullas clpinyon-env.com Office: (303) 980-5200 Cell: (303) 601-6131 Direct: (720) 536-4170 1 P myon Corporate Hsadouarters 9100 Wes Jrwee(} Avenue L akewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www p.riyon-env,corn 2 Commerce CITY December 19, 2016 Mr. Mike Lewis Deputy Executive Director Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO 80222 RE: FASTLANE Grant Application - US 85 & 104th Avenue Interchange Dear Mr. Lewis, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss CDOT's FASTLANE grant application with City staff on December 1. We understand that the application has been submitted and includes a funding request for an interchange at the existing intersection of US 85 and 104th Avenue. The City Council discussed your request for a letter of support and, after much discussion, decided that we cannot support the grant application. The primary objective for the City continues to be an area -wide solution that prioritizes an interchange at the intersection of 120th Avenue & US 85. This includes evaluating the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to 124th Avenue to determine a "system" approach that evaluates & prioritizes improvements as a whole — not piecemeal. The City appreciates CDOT's efforts to date to undertake a 30% design effort and NEPA analysis of this segment of the corridor. The City believes stronly that evaluating all area alternatives, through an objective approach, could lead to a systematic solution that aids CDOT in prioritizing improvements in the corridor for future grant applications and, ultimately, results in a solution that works for the adjacent communities and the county as well as CDOT and Union Pacific. Commerce City is committed to partnering with CDOT, Adams County, and its neighboring communities to find solutions that balance critical regional mobility needs while minimizing impacts of the roadway on adjacent neighborhoods. On -going discussion of these critical issues is needed. Therefore, we would request that CDOT participate in a follow up discussion with the City Council, at the appropriate time, to further clarify our desired outcomes and areas of mutual purpose. Meanwhile, staff will continue to actively participate in the corridor design & environmental clearance efforts. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mayor Sean Ford c: City Council of Commerce City Board of County Commissioners, Adams County Colorado Transportation Commissioner Heather Barry Mayor, City of Brighton Mayor, City of Thornton Paul Jesaitis, Region 1 Transportation Director 7887 East 60th Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022 Commerce CITY November 21, 2016 Ms. Gloria Hice-Idler Project Manager Colorado Department of Transportation 10601 Hwy 34 Greeley, CO 80634 RE: City of Commerce City's Comments on the draft US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkage Study Dear Ms. Hice-Idler, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) Study. US 85 is a major thoroughfare in our community. The City of Commerce City is committed to participating in the planning study in an effort to collaborate with CDOT, other communities along the corridor, and all stakeholders to find solutions that balance critical regional mobility needs while minimizing impacts of the roadway on adjacent neighborhoods. While the City supports the need for improvements to address safety, we are concerned that the analysis does not adequately address the access needs of Commerce City residents. Instead, it is our opinion that the study places too high of an emphasis on mobility along the corridor, at the expense of mobility across US 85 and within Commerce City. The City acknowledges that moving vehicles and freight in an efficient manner along US 85 is a key priority for CDOT and even for communities to the north; however, the impacts of that goal negatively burden Commerce City by: • Limiting access choices for businesses and residents ■ Increasing noise • Increasing delay on side streets Comments on each Commerce City -impacted access point and the study's overall goals are detailed below. 104th Avenue & US 85 intersection - the City does not Support the Recommendations within the PEL Commerce City concurs with the PEL analysis that an interchange is ultimately needed and desired at this location. Further refinement of the alternatives, to best meet the needs of the City, the County, surrounding property owners, and other stakeholders, is needed before prioritizing this interchange for construction. This includes evaluating the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to 124`h Avenue to determine a "system" approach that evaluates & prioritizes improvements as a whole — not piecemeal. The City appreciates CDOT's efforts to date to undertake a 30% design effort and NEPA analysis of this segment of the corridor. Until further analysis is completed, the City will refrain from supporting the recommendations in the draft PEL. 7887 East 60th Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022 CITY Longs Peak Drive Access - the City does not Support the Recommendations within the PEL While Commerce City understands the safety issues related to this access onto US 85, there has been no analysis of the impacts this closure could have on the adjacent neighborhood, including: • Increased, out -of -direction travel • Increased traffic through residential areas ■ Increased traffic volumes at remaining access points to US 85 The City requests these impacts be appropriately documented & evaluated in the study before a final recommendation is made. The City believes that some form of mitigation will be needed before we can support a recommendation for closure. 112th Avenue & US 85 intersection - the City is Neutral on the Recommendations within the PEL Commerce City concurs with the PEL analysis that an interchange is ultimately desired at this location. However, further refinement of the alternatives to best meet the needs of the City and the surrounding property owners is needed before prioritizing this interchange for construction. This includes evaluating the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to 124th Avenue to determine a "system" approach that evaluates & prioritizes improvements as a whole — not piecemeal. The City appreciates CDOT's efforts to date to undertake a 30% design effort and NEPA analysis of this segment of the corridor. Until further analysis is completed, the City will refrain from support of the recommendations in the draft PEL. 120th Avenue & US 85 intersection - the City Supports the Recommendations within the PEL Commerce City concurs with the PEL analysis that an interchange is needed and desired at this location. In fact, constructing this intersection is City Council's top priority project. The City supports the alternative that will provide the best access while limiting impacts on neighboring properties. At this time, it appears that that Tight Diamond alternative, which was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the 1999 Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), best meets the needs of the County, the City, the City of Brighton and surrounding property owners & stakeholders. However, the City is supportive of further refinement & analysis of the alternatives to verify this conclusion. 124th Avenue & US 85 intersection - the City does not Support the Recommendations within the PEL Commerce City does not concur with the PEL analysis that closure of this intersection is the best alternative. The PEL contains no analysis of the impacts of this closure on adjacent neighborhoods. The City requests that these impacts be appropriately documented & evaluated before a final recommendation is made. The City believes that some form of mitigation will be needed before we can support a recommendation for closure. 78S7 East 60th Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022 Comniercc CITY The City requests analysis of an additional alternative between 115th Avenue and I-76 The City has identified a potential alternative that would take US 85 "off line" from north of 112th Avenue to 1-76 and thus might relieve congestion on US 85, south of 112th Avenue. The attached schematic gives a rough approximation of the alignment with new interchanges to provide access to the new alignment. This could potentially reduce existing US 85, south of 112th Avenue, to a more local roadway and, possibly eliminate the need for interchanges on that portion of US 85 due to the lower traffic volumes. The City requests CDOT evaluate this alternative in the PEL to determine its viability and merits. The City requests that any future Environmental Analyses acknowledge Commerce City impacts within the Project Area While the City recognizes the PEL provides a high-level overview of potential transportation solutions and associated impacts, future environmental analyses must take a closer look at the significant impacts any proposed alternative would have on Commerce City. Specifically, any future environmental analyses and documents need to discuss social, economic, environmental justice, air quality and noise impacts along with associated mitigation for all Commerce City areas. Thank you to CDOT for a robust process to work with affected communities to find the right solutions for US 85. The PEL is a critical step to reaching a thoughtful conclusion in order to move forward with further analysis and, ultimately, construction. Commerce City is committed to partnering with CDOT, Adams County, and its neighboring communities to ensure this regional transportation project finds an appropriate balance that benefits both the system users and adjacent property owners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sean Ford Mayor cc: City Council of Commerce City Board of County Commissioners, Adams County Colorado Transportation Commissioner Heather Barry Mayor, City of Brighton Mayor, City of Thornton Paul Jesaitis, Region 1 Transportation Director 7887 East 60th Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022 i Pmyn ronmental, Inc. May 19, 2014 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Attn: Mr. Jim Dileo Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-envcom Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Mr. Dileo: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding air quality. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\ projects\ 2014\11435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\initial agency correspondence\cdphe_aq_initial notification letter_ 19may 14 us 85 pel.docx Pinycn ronmental. rrx•. May 19, 2014 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Attn: Mr. Joe Schieffelin Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Mr. Schieffelin: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding hazardous materials. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects120141I1435401 us 85 peRresource agencieslinitial agency correspondence\cdphe_hazmat_initial notification letter_ 19may 14 us 85 pel.docx inyon ronmcntal, Inc. May 19, 2014 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Attn: Mr. Bret Icenogle Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Mr. Icenogle: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding water quality. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist Cc: Jean Cordova, CDOT File Location: z:lprojects12014\11435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\initial agency correspondencelcdphe_wq_initial notification letter_ 19may 14 us 85 pel.docx Pinyon .,,ur,,,n;.,; Ink - May 20, 2014 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Northeast Region - Denver 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Attn: Ms. Jennifer Churchill Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Ms. Churchill: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding USFWS threatened, endangered, and candidate species. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\2014\I 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\initial agency correspondence\cpw initial notification letter_20may14 us 85 pel.docx Pmyn ronmental, Inc. May 19, 2014 U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-N) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 Attn: Ms. Carol Anderson Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Ms. Anderson: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (firvulba' Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\20141I 1435401 us 85 pellresourceagencieslinitial agency correspondence\epa initial notification Ietter_19may14 us 85 pel.docx Pmyn r ilnt'I11Il.ln< May 19, 2014 Colorado Historical Society 1200 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Attn: Mr. Edward C. Nichols, SHPO Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.corn Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Mr. Nichols: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I , 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding cultural resources. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. CDOT will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects12014\11435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\initial agency correspondence\shpo initial notification letter_19may14 us 85 pel.docx Pmy.n File Name: z:\projects\2014\I 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\initial agency correspondence\shpo initial notification letter_19may14 us 85 pel.docx Date: 5/19/2014 Author: rak Reviewer: ALK Review Date: May 6 2014 Pmyn Inc. May 20, 2014 Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood, CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com US Army Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory Office 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Attn: Mr. Kiel Downing Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Mr. Downing: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I, 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding wetlands and waters of the U.S. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (itriba' Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\20I4\I 1435401 us 85 pellresource agencies\initial agency correspondence\usace initial notification Ietter_20may14 us 85 pel.docx Pinyon May 19, 2014 US Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Denver Federal Center (MS 65412) P.O Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225 Attn: Ms. Susan Linner Corporate Headquarters 9100 West Jewell Avenue Lakewood. CO 80232 TEL 303 980 5200 FAX 303 980 0089 www.pinyon-env.com Subject: Notification of the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, Adams and Weld County, US Highway 85, Colorado Dear Ms. Linner: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study referred to as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL). The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between Interstate 76 and the Town of Nunn, a corridor approximately 60 miles long. The purpose is to identify the safety and operational needs along US 85 and determine short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. The study will encourage collaboration between Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC) members including CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other federal, state and local agencies as outlined in the PEL Partnering Agreement dated June I I , 2009. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with a prioritization/implementation plan that will help to obtain funding for improvements along corridor. Additional information regarding the US 85 PEL Study can be found at: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel. As part of the US 85 PEL Study, a Corridor Conditions Report (CCR) is being prepared to document current conditions of the corridor with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information presented in the CCR will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements within the corridor. Upon completion of the CCR, the report will be forwarded to your agency for your comment, specifically regarding USFWS threatened, endangered, and candidate species. The anticipated distribution date of the CCR is Late Summer 2014. We will send the CCR to your attention unless contact information is provided regarding a different recipient. This letter is to notify your agency of the study and comment is not requested at this time; however, if you know of particular area or resource of interest, please bring it to my attention. Page 2 Sincerely, PINYON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Robyn A. Kullas Environmental Scientist File Location: z:\projects\20I4\I 1435401 us 85 pel\resource agencies\initial agency correspondence\usfws initial notification letter_I6mayI4 us 85 pel.docx • Intersection Modification Closure — Project Alignment ._ 168TH AVE ti 100TH AVE 88TH AVE InterchangerGrade Separation — Railroad Rivers/Streams LAKES Study Area O DKAf T 112TH A 104TH AVE 96TH AVE roar LUPTON CR 14 BROMLEY LN 144Th AVE Note: These recommendations must be discussed with the local municipalities before they can be considered final. 120TH AVE DENVER Potential Intersection Improvements Sheet I US 85 PEL Adams and Weld Counties CO InterchangeiGrade Separation • Intersection Modification ® Closure Project Alignment 371H Sl �Lhe 4a Poore RI rot F ST X 20TH ST PdL'd _H31 lY.li1 ILORES CR30 PLA IL.L.E_ Railroad Rivers/Streams LAKES Study Area LA SALLE Note: These recommendations must be discussed with the local municipalities before they can be considered final. 16TH ST 18Th ST CR 50 Lower Latham Reservoir Potential Intersection Improvements Sheet 2 US 85 PEL Adams and Weld Counties CO 1 DKAt7 Interchange/Grade Separation • Intersection Modification Closure Project Alignment O Railroad Rivers/Streams LAKES Study Area /ERCE Auc_T trri EA TON Note: These recommendations must be discussed with the local municipalities before they can be considered final. Potential Intersection Improvements Sheet 3 US 85 PEL Adams and Weld Counties CO 5/18/2015 CDOT CO COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study April 20, 22, Et 23 Technical Advisory (TAC) Meeting Brighton, Gilcrest, LaSalle, & Ault, CO Agenda • Introductions • Activities Summary Et Meeting Goal • Overall Screening Process Level 2A Et 2B Screening Review and Discussion • Discussion of Potential Improvements • Next TAC and EC meetings 1 5/18/2015 COLORADO Department of Transportation Activities Summary & Meeting Goals Activity Summary & Meeting Goals Since last TAC meeting • Executive Committee Meeting • Contract Delays • Project Team Improvement Identification Er initial evaluation • CDOT Meetings with Union Pacific Railroad Screening • Level 1 - Assessed all improvement alternatives. • Level 2a - Evaluated all operational classifications by section • Level 2b Further evaluated short-list of classifications. Coupled lane widening with classifications. • Received Feedback on Level 2 2 5/18/2015 Overview of Executive Committee Meeting • Reviewed Screening • Expressed Concerns • Six -Lane Section through Platteville • Impacts to Communities • Managed Lanes Detrimental to Economy • Don't allow travelers to move too quick through towns • Discussion • Desire of bicycle mobility through LaSalle, Evans, Et Greeley • Focus on safety at WCR 22 • Difference between ACP a PEL Meeting Goals This meeting - HEAR FROM YOU on Potential Improvements • First cut of improvements by section • Each section needs TAC input/reaction Meeting Goals • Provide initial set of improvements • Feedback on implications of improvements • Additional/Alternation of improvements • US 85 elevated or cross street elevated? Meeting Goals for Next Meeting • Specific Interchange configurations • Minimization of physical impacts 3 5/18/2015 COLORADO Department of Transportation Overall Screening Process EVALUATION CRITERIA Alternatives Screening Process SCREENING WflNG LEVELS IDEAS - EVALUATION CRITERIA sakq Maas Ig:SOY RIONNI Ideas an evict sprang kiwi to Oc • an inased • Not Asx _.. ad • Ramat • Full Ranged Was • Operational C asdeptan • Ytuged Laney • General Repose Lams • Airmen( • Tram! Service • TrseWt Infrastructure • aecyde / Podetstesn • E'er; rc!tr M(x!,'tatt • .«chn.Con' • ,i.secionCon' 4 5/18/2015 COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 2A & 2B Screening Review 5 5/18/2015 4K CDOT 141k • Co f Level 2A Operational Not directly related to CDOT Classifications Access Categories ��CO L - oa ea Plana' and ta.�zoaMalaal LinkagesLinkagesesir ... SSW Y ala.aaaaaanon•Par tTe" 'Stele rl an an lille 44, venni at paaawasa • ar____ I a •r••en aawO.lilSt araala ra►aq•swept .. - - - .. - - a war gain Se OaMaaarlbMb MaanwaM. *Maltalinalon elnaleilla I - - iiiSkilrr�i lIS flrai4n lat K a In_t s saaaa a Walla arwwar In•a s a M a. Man aar____ ^lmansaaMar.sat .aMaaaaaa aaaaMaaa a Oa ea aaonle Ina n, ea w am OasamelM SS — MSS MaMaa• .a aaa sweeps aanaaaaba leSing Nola. ��. _ y Oulra.�ra�twaa.ts.rrs Aaaar♦ *al aural lea anal- .n as aaaaa aaialwa� tail iylia sIS •a�f/aMaa• - Mlaaa Meal•. ass a haunt i as aWawM— wlaalaaaa *rSIBISSI MbYM�eaq tar aj sateasasmilir ses 14 a VI nalt MIN ~ imilli la. ass, Ma Sat en *I ONImaiillet Vs llen wia.a as MaM.aaS aatMa — saa a•aaraaa o wage ea 11 7 O rarraM awanaara Tans .S - - again b. ass sininnao Ialabaaaa '711.2 ML_s natal aaMYaa— an in 7i -n Illin .ra alaMrra a.r r�arr. raww•..� St ell Minn walaalen SUMP& need r Level 2A Screening Criteria Mobility • Travel Time Index (TTI) • Ratio of the time spent in traffic during peak traffic times as compared to travel times in light traffic. • TTI value of 1.25 is goal Safety • Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) • LOSS I = Retain the existing operational classification and the next classification down • LOSS II = Retain the existing operational classification • LOSS III = Retain the existing operational classification and the next classification up • LOSS IV = Retain the next classification up Access • Classification consistent with the intent of the ACP = Retained • Classification not consistent with the intent of the ACP = Eliminated 6 5/18/2015 COLORADO Department of Transportation AMMO Level 2B Screening Methodology & Results 7 5/18/2015 Level 2B Screening Criteria • Mobility • Access Pure f ---� • Safety Need • Railroad • Alternative Modes • Natural Et Cultural Environment • Community 8 5/18/2015 COLORADO Department of Transportation Improvement Walk -Through Information Available Today • Mobility information • Travel Time Index AM/PM • Intersection Levels of Service AM /PM • Roll Plots • VERY Conceptual Improvements • Options available 9 5/18/2015 Meeting Goals Meeting Goats • Provide initial set of improvements • Feedback on implications of improvements • Additional/Alternation of improvements • US 85 elevated or cross street elevated? Other Improvement Options? Goats for Next Meeting • Specific Interchange configurations • Minimization of physical impacts COLORADO Department of Transportation Next TAC and EC Meeting 10 5/18/2015 Upcoming Meetings • EC Meeting; June 11th, 6:30 PM • Next TAC meeting - • Section -specific meetings (4) • Late May 2015 COLORADO Department of Transportation 11 Existing Level 2B Results WCR 100 WCR 90 GREELEY MILLIKEN BRIGHTON 104th AVE i 96th A ON WCR 74 BROMLEY LN DENVER Legend WCR 100 Freeway Enhanced Expressway Standard Expressway Rural Highway Arterial Main Stree WCR 54; GREELEY 96th AVE ON WCR 74 ALLE Further Discussion Required WCR 14 hisam WCR32 rt. BROMLEY LN 120th AV Recommended Operational Classifications US 86 PF1'2-1964rty15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table of Contents COLORADO Department of Transportation Introduction 1 Purpose and Intent of Outreach Plan 1 Guiding Principles 2 Desired Outcomes 2 Roles and Responsibilities 2 Project Management Team (PMT) 2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 3 Executive Committee (EC) 3 Decision Making and Consensus Building 3 Decision Making 3 Consensus Building 4 Public Outreach Activities 4 Stakeholder Interviews 4 Visioning Workshop 5 One on One Resource Agency Meetings 5 Corridor -wide Public Meetings 5 Ongoing Public Outreach 5 Project Web Page 5 Media Outreach and Advisories 5 Social Media Outreach 6 Points of Contact 6 E-mail, Mailing List and Contact Database 6 Use of Existing Communication Channels, Meetings and Small Group Outreach 6 Issue Tracking 6 List of Tables Table 1 Stakeholder Interviews Error! Bookmark not defined. US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study INTRODUCTION COLORADO Department of Transportation This document shall serve as the Agency Coordination and Public Outreach Plan for the US 85 Planning Environmental Linkage (PEL) study from 1-76 to Nunn, which CDOT is managing. This document describes the agency coordination and public outreach intent, initiatives, responsibilities and tasks that will be carried out as part of the study. It defines the various roles, responsibilities, issues and guidelines for the inclusion of a successful outreach effort. This outreach plan will be a living document for the duration of the planning process. Revisions to this document or to the coordination and outreach strategy may be required as the project progresses. As needed, revisions will be made and distributed to all project team members. Changes in the coordination and outreach plan will also be directly communicated to the involved parties. Purpose and Intent of Outreach Plan The intent of this PEL study is to define a vision for the future of the US 85 corridor, identify environmental and resource concerns and opportunities in the corridor, and use this information to develop alternatives to address the vision. The goal is to determine the safety and operational needs along US 85 and identify the long-term and short-term transportation needs of the corridor. The study will prioritize short-term and long-term improvements through a collaborative process with stakeholders along the corridor. Understanding the ideas, perspectives and needs of the stakeholders in the corridor is critical for making broadly supported decisions in the PEL study. The overall goal of agency coordination and public outreach is to provide ongoing, accessible, and distinct opportunities for participating local agencies and the general public to become engaged and inform the study. With this goal serving as the foundation, this Agency Coordination and Public Outreach Plan describe how CDOT will provide multiple opportunities for involvement during the PEL to inform its decision making. It identifies specific public involvement activities and establishes time frames for them to be carried out. The objective of this plan is to work with and gain support of stakeholders in understanding current corridor conditions and identifying a range of improvements for the corridor. The public involvement approach connects stakeholder input to the study's decision -making process by facilitating communication between stakeholders and project decision -makers. The corridor stakeholders include but are not limited to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region (UFR TPR), the Union Pacific Railroad, the corridor's local government agencies and the general public. The local government agencies involved in the study include: ► Adams County ► Weld County ► Town of Ault ► City of Brighton ► City of Commerce City ► Town of Eaton ► City of Evans ► City of Fort Lupton ► Town of Garden City ► Town of Gilcrest ► City of Greeley ► Town of LaSalle ► Town of Nunn ► Town of Pierce ► Town of Platteville This plan was developed with input from the stakeholder kickoff meeting and will be refined in response to input from the stakeholder interviews on how to work and communicate effectively with the corridor stakeholders. By implementing the methods described in this plan, stakeholders will be engaged throughout the study. Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Guiding Principles Several principles will guide how coordination and outreach for the PEL will occur. The Project Team will: ► Establish expectations for the level of participation throughout the PEL ► Provide multiple ways of participating in the study process that are accessible to different stakeholders or segments of the public ► Identify and confirm issues that need to be addressed through analysis and discussion with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Executive Committee (EC) and public ► Link input received during the study to the decision -making process and document/record how that was accomplished ► Provide accessible information and address questions about the study in a timely manner ► Work with key community members to facilitate outreach to their respective agencies, local jurisdictions, organizations, associations, constituents and the public ► Maintain ongoing open two-way communication channels with stakeholders and the public ► Provide flexibility to be responsive to the corridor stakeholders and change or adapt the public involvement approach as needed within the scope of the project and resource constraints Desired Outcomes The desired outcome of the coordination and outreach effort is: (a) stakeholder input contributing to the study's information base, findings, and recommendations; (b) stakeholders that are well-informed about the study; (c) meaningful input by the TAC, EC, and the public that helps CDOT make sound and publicly supported decisions; (d) an understanding and documentation about what decisions were made during the study and the rationale for them; and (e) an understanding about how the PEL study will move forward and how stakeholders will be involved. Roles and Responsibilities Project Management Team (PMT) The PMT will develop, review, and distribute information that will serve as a basis for TAC, EC, and public input on key decisions that will be made by CDOT. The PMT will meet or converse via conference call with computer screen -sharing on a bi-weekly to monthly basis to discuss project management, project progress, and to prepare for meetings with the local agencies and the public. At a minimum, the PMT will hold a conference call on the Friday prior to TAC meetings in preparation for the TAC meetings. FHU will schedule PMT meetings, distribute the agenda and provide meeting minutes for PMT meetings. The Project Management Team includes: Myron Flora Gloria Hice-Idler Troy Haluska Aaron Greco Chris Fasching Alex Pulley CDOT Region 4 Acting RTD CDOT Region 4 Project Manager CDOT EPB PEL Manager CDOT Office of Government Relations FHU Project Manager FHU Deputy Project Manager/Environmental Task Lead Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Jenny Young Jim Hanson Andrew Holton FHU Public Involvement Task Lead Atkins Traffic Engineering Task Lead Atkins Design Task Lead COLORADO Department of Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) CDOT will work closely with other agencies and the corridor's local communities. Coordination will largely occur through the TAC which is made up of staff from the corridor's local agencies, FHWA, NFRMPO, UFR TPR, and DRCOG. The TAC will guide the PEL study process and serve as a sounding board for the technical aspects of the project. All project analyses, evaluations, and recommendations will be vetted through the TAC prior to being presented to the public, elected officials, or posted on the project website. The TAC will meet approximately monthly with the Project Team to provide technical input. FHU will develop a TAC Work Plan which outlines when the TAC will meet and what will be addressed at each meeting. TAC meetings will be scheduled at different locations along the corridor; a standing TAC meeting will be scheduled for 1:00 PM on the Tuesday preceding the second Thursday of the month; the PMT may choose to cancel a monthly TAC meeting the week in advance. TAC members will serve as the primary point of communication and provider of information to their respective communities or organizations and will communicate to the PMT when and how to involve their respective elected officials in the study for recommendation making purposes. Understanding that some of the smaller communities along the corridor do not have the technical staff to serve on the TAC, the project team will coordinate with each community individually to plan for how best to communicate with and regularly involve them in the planning process. Executive Committee (EC) The Executive Committee (EC) is composed of one elected official from each of the communities and counties along the corridor. The EC will provide policy -level guidance on the study process and the EC members will represent the interests of their communities. This group will meet at key milestones and decision points in the project (approximately once per quarter) when the project team needs the input and support of the elected officials to proceed. EC meetings will be held during the existing time slot for the US 85 Coalition meetings - the second Thursday of the month at 6:30 PM, with the inclusion of Adams County and Commerce City. These meetings will rotate locations along the corridor, including in Adams County, and will focus solely on the US 85 PEL. Since the US 85 Coalition meets monthly and includes many of the EC members, the project team (either the CDOT Project Manager or members of the consultant team) will provide regular updates at the US 85 Coalition meetings. The information discussed at the preceding TAC meeting will be presented for informational purposes only; no decisions regarding the PEL study will be made at these meetings. Decision Making and Consensus Building Decision Making The TAC and EC will participate in issue identification and collaborative problem solving during regularly scheduled meetings and throughout the study. Neither the TAC nor the EC will have a decision -making role beyond their jurisdictional authorities; participation in issue identification and collaborative problem solving during TAC and EC meetings does not transfer authority in decision making. The primary function of the TAC and EC is to collaborate with CDOT and FHWA on the decision Page 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation making process. CDOT and FHWA will make final decisions in all aspects of the study after listening to and considering the TAC and EC recommendations. Consensus Building A consensus -building process will be used for key decisions or addressing disagreements that may arise. Consensus is an agreement built by identifying and exploring all parties' interests and satisfying these interests to the greatest extent possible. Consensus is reached when all parties agree that major interests have been taken into consideration and addressed in a satisfactory manner. Consensus is a process where a group makes a decision (without voting) that parties can support or accept. Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity and does not mean that all parties will be equally supportive of decisions. Consensus means that all parties accept that "this is the best decision that can be made at the time." Consensus is built by identifying and exploring the goals, interests and needs of parties, then putting together a package of options which satisfies these interests and leads to developing agreements to the greatest extent possible. Public Outreach Activities This section describes the various outreach activities their frequency. Stakeholder Interviews At the start of the project, individual interviews will be conducted with all stakeholders to understand the interests, goals and desired outcomes for the US 85 PEL. An interview template will be prepared prior to conducting interviews and results will inform both this Public Outreach Plan and the agenda for the Visioning Workshop. Individual reports as well as an overall summary will be developed to document the interviews. The following table identifies the stakeholders who will be interviewed. The questions that will be posed at the stakeholder interviews follow. This list of questions will be distributed to the stakeholders prior to the meetings. ► What words would you use to describe US 85 today? ► How would you categorize the role of US 85 through your community? ► What are your top concerns regarding travel on US 85? ► What immediate and future transportation needs should be addressed through this study? ► What specific alternatives, options or solutions need to be considered or studied and why? ► What criteria would you use to compare alternatives or actions? ► What do you think the priority projects should be? ► What are the most important outcomes of the PEL study? ► What plans or studies have been done in or around your community that pertain to US 85? ► Do you have any recent data, such as traffic counts that might be useful in the study? ► What is the best way for the project team to communicate with you? Do you have a staff member or other representative who can attend TAC meetings? ► Do you have suggestions on ways to reach your community members? Do you have an email distribution list that you would like to share with us? Page 4 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Visioning Workshop A Visioning Workshop will take place in Spring 2014 with TAC and EC members to define a vision for the corridor and confirm the goals and desired outcomes of the study. The agenda of the Visioning Workshop will be informed from information gathered during the Stakeholder Interviews and will be reviewed with the TAC prior the workshop. One on One Resource Agency Meetings CDOT, FHU, and Pinion Environmental will hold three individual resource agency scoping meetings with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the US Army corps of Engineers (USACE) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) for the development of the Corridor Conditions Assessment Report. The Project Team will contact the following Resource Agencies to determine if a specific meeting is desired: US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). These meetings are expected to occur in Spring 2014. FHU will produce and distribute meeting summaries (reviewed by CDOT) to TAC members and provide the opportunity to offer corrections to the minutes. Corridor -wide Public Meetings Two rounds of corridor -wide public meetings will occur. Each round will include a meeting in the south, central, and northern sections of the corridor. One round will be held at the beginning of the study to educate the public on the PEL process and to collect input on corridor conditions and the alternatives to be considered. The second round of public meetings will be held toward the end of the study to provide input on the draft recommendations and prioritization of improvements. Before each public meeting, FHU will coordinate with CDOT to notify the public of the workshops; this will include media outreach, e-mail, mail notifications such as a flyer or postcard, and announcements at pre-existing meetings with project partners. FHU will produce and distribute meeting summaries (reviewed by CDOT and FHU) to the TAC members and provide the opportunity to offer corrections to the summaries. Ongoing Public Outreach Ongoing public outreach will consist of the following activities that are intended to provide multiple ways of participating in the study process and provide access to it by different segments of the public. They are also intended to link public involvement to study decision making and to focus outreach on the issues. FHU will document the public outreach tools utilized over the course of the project with the specific -information distributed and dates distributed. Project Web Page A dedicated web page will be hosted on the CDOT website to provide updated information about the study and enable ongoing communication. The web page will include study information, presentation materials and summaries from the TAC, EC, and public meetings, summaries of public input, and meeting announcements. The web page will also enable the public to sign up for the project's mailing list and submit comments. The Project Team will develop content for the web page which will be managed by CDOT's Office of Public Information. Media Outreach and Advisories The Project Team will support CDOT's Office of Public Information in the development of project - related media outreach and advisories. This will be done to publicize public meetings, inform the Page 5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation public or address issues. The content will be supplied (upon request) by the Project Team (pending Project Manager review) and will be distributed by CDOT's Office of Public Information. Social Media Outreach Social media specific to this study will be developed consistent with CDOT's outreach efforts. This may include the Project Team providing content for the social media channels in use by CDOT's Office of Public Information. Points of Contact In an effort to maintain open communication channels between the study and all stakeholders, the project will have several points of contact for the TAC members, elected officials of cooperating agencies and the general public. Stakeholders can contact the following individuals with comments or questions. ► Gloria Hice-Idler CDOT Project Manager 970-350-2148 gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us ► Chris Fasching FHU Project Manager 303-721-1440 chris.fasching@fhueng.com ► Alex Pulley FHU Deputy Project Manager 303-721-1440 alex.pulley@fhueng.com ► Jenny Young FHU Public Involvement Task Leader 303-721-1440 jenny.young@fhueng.com E-mail, Mailing List and Contact Database The project will use a contact database to communicate directly with the public throughout the study. The contact lists used for previous studies or provided by local agencies will be incorporated into a database, updated and managed by FHU. FHU will continually update this database with contacts that request to be put on the mailing list through the web page, that attend public meetings, that contact Project Team members or that are forwarded by other means. FHU will send direct communications through this database to provide notification of all public meetings and update the public on important study developments. Direct communication will be conducted electronically by e-mail to be efficient and cost effective; otherwise, communications will be sent by US mail where necessary. At the conclusion of the study, FHU will turn over the database contact records and information to the CDOT Project Manager. Use of Existing Communication Channels, Meetings and Small Group Outreach The Project Team members will conduct briefings of elected officials or meet with key stakeholder groups in smaller settings to update them on the PEL and address issues when necessary. This includes examples such as presenting to city councils during their regularly scheduled meetings or meeting with impacted property owners to address a segment issues. The PMT will be available to meet with key stakeholder groups as budgetary resources allow. Issue Tracking The Project Team will track issues and compile public input from several sources: public meetings, project website, letters, e-mail correspondence, and telephone conversations. FHU will monitor public comments submitted through the web page, respond or coordinate the project team around a response if needed. FHU will log comments into its database. There will be a tracking form that monitors top Page 6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation issues of the stakeholders submitting comments. All comments will be turned over to the CDOT Project Manager at the conclusion of the project with the records from the contact database. Page 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Appendix G. Public Involvement (CD Only) COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SUMMARY OF 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS Dates and Locations Three public meetings were held in March and April 2016: • Tuesday, March 29, 2016 Riverside Library and Cultural Center 3700 Golden Street, Evans, CO • Wednesday, March 30, 2016 Adams County Conference Center 4430 S. Adams County Parkway, Brighton, CO 80601 • Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Eaton Town Hall 223 1st St., Eaton, CO 80615 All meetings were held from 4pm to 7 pm. Advertisement The public meetings were advertised via CDOT's website, a press release from CDOT, posting of flyers in local communities (at the local agencies' discretion), email distribution to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Executive Committee (EC), and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization's newsletter. Overview COLORADO Department of Transportation MrCOLORADO US QS Mannsn; and Ennlonn nMa) L.nkagss Study PUBLIC MEETINGS ••. ta•ral•• •••.•••.• 0 '•s••w.. Fes•. • .••.••q • *Sew ar f•.••••••••. lrq•• •el. <M IV ...•a • ~ea N a• u• a .r.. , M• h.•.• rat semen% Sane the Dees Pis ale Seel Iv •r+•me• J.r. imp.rt .-Q 71•a•--_ Ord N. IOt. •a.. taws • sib .e.. at Mee* Are. p -C) wew*/. aye l0. 2Ot • Li j •d *Cwt Vr• G tae a as Cwe M5% Ian Caro •.. • eta .••• tat • rwa•o...».. DOt. S. law. :Js t••. .r. W d a [/•n WRa 1 • !• Y.. --- j••.._ -.•.. n�. . v -.r a -e. ... . ate. /e.•. . s• . Ms r -. e r .- W ac _.•.<. .--.-.••• .. ....a• as Man/ w CS Vaal. :In ■ ..�� .r• .e .• ..•— ••.••..•••••+_._-- S S —.. -am. `mss w+....w .+ .w •aw•—� ...�..ra•s..�..•a• The public meetings were open house format where the public could drop by anytime to discuss the study with the project team, learn about the corridor's current conditions, provide input on the transportation problems and potential solutions, as well as learn about the interim improvements, prioritization process, and next steps. The same information was provided at each meeting. A total of 24 people attended the public meetings. Sign -in sheets from each public meeting are included as an attachment. The public meetings included the following stations (the boards are provided as an attachment to this summary): • Sign -in • Welcome and introductory information • Base maps • Interim improvements, prioritization, and next steps • Comment cards Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Input from the public was obtained through discussions with the project team, sticky notes on the community boards, and comment sheets. Overview of Public Comments The input received from the public during the open house meetings ranges from general comments on the existing problems along the corridor (e.g. potholes and pavement condition) to travel pattern observations and location -specific problems (e.g. like the inability to cross 112th Avenue when a train is passing). Attachments • Save the Date Flyer • Sign -in Sheets • Public Meeting Boards • Corridor Maps with Comments Page 2 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study PUBLIC MEETINGS The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study to create a vision for the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to the Town of Nunn. Save the Dates! Please consider attending an upcoming public meeting: -O Tuesday, March 29, 2016 4:00 - 7:00pm Riverside Library and Cultural Center 3700 Golden St., Evans, CO --O Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:00 - 7:00pm Adams County Conference Center 4430 S. Adams County Pkwy., Brighton, CO 80601 -O Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:00 - 7:00pm Eaton Town Hall 223 1st St., Eaton, CO 80615 The project team will be presenting potential solutions (short-term and long-term) and are seeking your input. The meetings will be open houses where attendees can drop by anytime to learn about the US 85 corridor, discuss the study, and provide input on the potential solutions. Unable to Attend? Meeting materials and additional information can be found on the study's website: www.codot.gov/projects/us85pel Thank you for taking the time to get involved in the future of the US 85 corridor! Dribki I E \ a4 th AVE MEM WCR 100 WCR 90 PIERCE T April 6 Eaton Town Hall Eaton, CO ATOM `----ir GARDEN c: March 29 Riverside Library and Cultural Center Evans, CO I r LCREST PLATTEVILLE FORT I LIPTON 96th AVE ELINE RD EVA/it WCR61 WCR 44 WCR 32 11011 WCR 22 Weld Count Adams County BROMLEYLN 120th AVE�T rO,mnver GToonr�_ n E}r ER r F Requests for communication assistance or reasonable accommodations for special needs can be made by contacting the Public Involvement Team prior to the meeting: 970.350.2148. Se puede hacer (as solicitudes de traduccion o de otras necesidades especiales por poniendose en contacto con el equipo de la participation publ ica: 970.350.2148. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ WELCOME to the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Open House Thank you for attending! This is an open house format. There will be no formal presentation. Please visit the project information boards and maps around the room to review the proposed solution. Project team members ' are available to discuss your questions and comments COLORADO Department of Transportation COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study What is a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study? PEL is a study process that is typically used to identify transportation issues and environmental concerns. It can be applied to make planning decisions and for planning analysis. These decisions and analyses, for example, can be used to identify and prioritize future projects, develop the purpose and need for a project, determine project size or length, and/or develop and refine a range of alternatives. PEL studies should be able to link planning to environmental issues and result in useful information that can be carried forward into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The adoption and use of a PEL study in the NEPA process is subject to a determination by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Systen Planning (MPO / TPR Regional Plans) IDefine/Refine Travel Corridor (Logical Terminal) I♦ Identify Transportation Needs Determine Reason for PEL Study and Desired Outcome FHWA Concurrence Point Develop Purpose & Need, Goals, and Objectives FHWA Concurrence Point Evaluate and Screen Alternatives and Identify Impact and Potential Mitigation (Eliminate Unreasonable Alternatives) FHWA Concurrence Point Identify Stakeholders Develop Performance Measures (Evaluation Cnteria) Document Evaluation Process (What/VVhy Alternative Strategies were Screened Out') c NEPA Define Roles/ Responsibilities (Charter Agreement) Develop Alternatives and Define Travel Modes Finalize Planning and Environmental Linkages Document 1 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Stakeholder 2 Interviews Data Collection 3 a Roadway Classification 3b Roadway Capacity PEL PEL Process Flow Chart 4 Intersection Alternatives 6 Prioritization Screen Alternatives ACP Amendments NEPA/Design :Implementation. Subsequent Steps WE ARE HERE Documentation 10 tr.'` Preserve Right -of -Way Identify Funding, Conduct NEPA Analysis I 0Design, Construction COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Purpose and Need Summary Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of transportation improvements along the US 85 corridor is to improve safety, reduce existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, and improve mobility and connectivity for all modes of transportation that match the context of the adjacent communities. Need for Proposed Action Safety Problems: Several intersection and mainline locations along the US 85 corridor have a higher than expected number of crashes. Mobility Problems: Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections impact the ability of people to move across and along the corridor. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future. Railroad Proximity Problems: The close proximity of the railroad (UPRR) negatively affects US 85. Passing or standing trains restrict travel to and from the east of US 85 Access Problems: The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses have contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. Alternative Travel Modes Problems: The traveling public has limited or no access to public transportation for essential human services, commuting, recreational, and other travel needs along the corridor. COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Roadway Classification Recommendations Existing Recommended Legend Freeway Enhanced Expressway Standard Expressway Rural Highway Arterial Main Street COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Operational Classifications Description Access Spacing Treatment Options Multi -modal Treatments Freeway High speed and high 3 mile • desirable. 1 Grade Separation, Grade 3 mile 18lSl- 75 traffic volumes with no direct access mile - allowable directional access separated pedestrian/bike crossings. transit slops tied into on- - -? - = and off- ramps, managed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> .a lanes _: Enhanced Expressway High speed and 1 mile • for Grade separation. Grade 3 mile separated 1 mu. t mue _moderately high traffic interchan interchanges. 3 [�"-'~I' a?1 8J volumes with limited and es. mile - for controlled junior interchange. q signalization, partial pedestrian/bike crossings. transit stops bed into on - possible direct access. intersections. with closure (turn restrictions). and off- ramps, managed -- - multiple lanes in each possible RIRO at halt mile Continuous Green -T, MU lanes. pedestrian/bike direction and separated Turn CA, intersections. crossings at signalized - l; directional travel one-way quad intersections, transit pull outs Standard Expressway 1 Moderately high speeds I mile - for full Grade separation. Grade mile Z. I4 r� slim" and traffic volumes with limited access, lanes movement. with possible RIRO al half mile junior interchange. signabzation. partial separated pedestrianibike crossings. transit slops bed into on- multiple in each closure (turn restrictions), and off- ramps. managed direction and separated Continuous Green -I, ThrU lanes, directional travel pedestriambtke Turn intersections. CA, one-way quad crossings at signalized intersections. transit pull outs 1 Moderate to high speeds moderate to low 112 mile - Ior full movement intersections Signabzation, two-way slop control Pedestrianrbike crossings • •' milewith • 1 „„ 1. -6� �maximum traffic volumes with public roadways. of one access at signals. pedestrian/bike crossings at signalized intersections, transit pull per parcel idepending outs • _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - ..— - ' on other roadways that j'• ' could preclude access) with shared access preferable Arterial Roadway 1 mils Moderate to low travel 1/2 mile for full Sgnanzation. partial Pedestrian/bike • I 114-4i speeds and traffic volumes with moderate movement intersections, with possible 3/4 closure (turn restrictions). Continuous Green -T. ThrU crossing signals, pedestrian/bike crossings at signalized - access movement al quarter Turn intersections, CA. intersections, transit pull • '�� { - --.--z. miles, and RIRO access two-way stop control outs _ - • ..Ter - _ _ -.- .--. _ tor each parcel (should share access it possible) Main Street t mue Low travel speeds and One access per parcel Signalization. partial Pedestriarvbike crossing • • ,..1_ "zr 25 35 traffic volumes with significantsignificantyp cant roadside (should share access it possible) closure (turn restrictions). two-wa sto control signals. marked Q tpedesanibike crossing. _ - development and access needs HAWK. trian/bike crossings al signalized intersections transit pull • O nuts COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Ultimate Intersection Type Recommendations -76 - WCR 24 imercharge Q Intersection Impeonmem Closure — Project Ahpnmant Lskn -- Railroad O Study Area Rtvori'Stroam s ,Orr L UPTON CR 14 144TH AVE 104TH AVE NTH AVE Note Those racommondatlons must be discussed wan the local mur. c paIlUW befOre they Can be cOnatdered final BROMLEY IN , 101 CZ O I — 128TH AVE 120TH AVE DENVER L•terelp?n Imprcvrmcnh COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Ultimate Intersection Type Recommendations WCR 24.5 - WCR 68 44, ) Int•rt hang. Q Intersection Improvement Clow+• Project Alignment Lases Rsllroad O Study Area Rlvertu5treams CR66 OST ✓lr FST' SALE f Note These recwnmondations must be tliscussatl with the local muntclpalnret before they can be COnpdered final w ct CR54 Intersection Improvement: COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Ultimate Intersection Type Recommendations WCR 70 - WCR 100 CR108 (y N CC CC U U CR 104 e, 5 N N Cr Cr U U CR90 CR 106 CR88 cc U CR88 CRs. cc V CR 102 CR 100 CR 98 CR 98 CR 94 U cc U CR92 cc U . Q U CR 70 B5 JOi 5 Pedestrian Improvements CR 78 Pedestrian CR 76 Improvements CR 74 t -' Interchange Intersection Improvement Closure — Protect Alignment Lakes Railroad O Study Area Rivers/Skea n % Note Thine rtc*mmondau0ns must be discussed wroth the local mumapautIes before they can be considered bnal intrnr rime' Improvements COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Interim Improvements The proposed ultimate improvements are longer -term and consider future needs in 2035. Interim improvements may be completed in the near -term to address safety, mobility, proximity to the railroad and/or alternate modes. For example, at WCR 34 the ultimate proposed improvement is an interchange. In the interim, a traffic signal and turn lanes may be added to address safety and mobility issues. ,z 0 I. Add southbound right turn lane Realign Front Street i .,r va v. I Ultimate improvement Add traffic signal Interim Improvements Ultimate improvement Please see a project team member if you have questions on interim improvements at specific locations! COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Prioritization Process ■ Each intersection along the corridor was evaluated based on its need, relative to the following criteria: - Mobility - Safety - Proximity to the railroad ■ Analysis yielded a `score' at every intersection for each of the criteria above. This approach allows updating as new data becomes available. ■ Locations can be sorted by the different criteria scores to seek specific funding sources. Preliminary Results The following locations are in greatest need of improvement based on the three criteria above: ■ 104th Avenue ■ WCR 14.5 / 14th Street ■ 120th Avenue WCR 32 ■ 124th Avenue u 37th Street ■ Bromley Lane ■ 31st Street (These locations are in order from south to north) COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Next Steps The project team will complete the PEL project by: ■ Finalizing interim and ultimate improvement recommendations. • Developing cost estimates. ■ Documenting recommendations in a final report. Local agencies, CDOT and FHWA, will use the guidance from this PEL to: ■ Reserve right-of-way. ▪ Seek funding opportunities. ▪ Conduct NEPA analysis. ■ Move into design and construction. COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study PUBLIC MEETINGS The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study to create a vision for the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to the Town of Nunn. Save the Dates! Please consider attending an upcoming public meeting: -O Tuesday, March 29, 2016 4:00 - 7:00pm Riverside Library and Cultural Center 3700 Golden St., Evans, CO -O Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:00 - 7:00pm Adams County Conference Center 4430 5. Adams County Pkwy., Brighton, CO 80601 —p Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:00 - 7:00pm Eaton Town Hall 223 1st St., Eaton, CO 80615 The project team will be presenting potential solutions (short-term and long-term) and are seeking your input. The meetings will be open houses where attendees can drop by anytime to learn about the US 85 corridor, discuss the study, and provide input on the potential solutions. Unable to Attend? Meeting materials and additional information can be found on the study's website: www.codot.gov/projects/us85pel Thank you for taking the time to get involved in the future of the US 85 corridor! WCR 100 PIERCE ULT April 6 Eaton Town Hall Eaton, CO v1R 64 ATQN GREELEY March 29 Riverside Library and Cultural Center Evans, CO GARDEN C11t EVAUS ILCREST PLATTEVILLE FORT WCR 84 rAr SALLE WCR 32 0 WCR 22 WCR 6 March 30 Adams County Conference Center Brighton, CO r5 _104th WCR ASELJNE RO TON Lea COMMERCE CITY -' 96th AVE (\ WCR 44 Weld County Adams County BROMLEY LN 120th AY roonvir County__ DENVER Requests for communication assistance or reasonable accommodations for special needs can be made by contacting the Public Involvement Team prior to the meeting: 970.350.2148. Se puede hacer las solicitudes de traduccion o de otras necesidades especiales por poniendose en contacto con el equipo de la participacion p u b l i ca : 970.350.2148. Section 1A 1-76 to North of 120th Avenue FREEWAY c4th Ave • Fxne, Sale Port vloan nu:ravinge tSR1l KEY Ginmetuaf I &lose Longs Pe*. i7nve au'“. • fiew aeraenw ittess rovewrent�econi afic,hs, 3?Lijn''.�?: lath Ave - Sri a Pnvt r,Ear ntv' ha ae :SRA Section 1 A 1-76 to North of 124th Avenue 2oeh Ave (Amara COY „ro ntar}anr TO) OP ripe 20th Ave • Ra+end much:rx FREEWAY 24th Ave • Fut cbsvre Ci 0 (-4 -20 • i J rr. t S ..i. c tee,,- , >� . i .4 • ` t. I • r J -i.1 i ;. �L "7 ii, ' 1 �► je'' • r� t . 4 4 ■ 1 r -, •3 117 i TII �' t• • i ei • i 1 -'1i'. lo4th Ave. OPTION • Split Diamond 1 I ,- .•4 As; le �ee�.sf •�_ 'A It. / . : fry141• 1 -7,74S -44.t 't l 4* 1 3$1 i�I ,,S._a 4 a 444 ♦ ;i� . v • �YG- 1 1 •1D Section 1 B Nome Street to North of 144th Avenue FREEWAY No charge at E-410 CD 13Znd Ave_ • Ful ;1mre • Mow emergence Mc^SS rovt Patofr‘S Section 1 B Nome Street to North of 144th Avenue ;%th Ave • Shfted SinglePoint Urban Interthanr (SPUI) Dose access 114th Ave • Full desire *FREEWAY Section 1C South of Bromley Lane to North of CR 2.5 FREEWAY iiromiey Lane • Stag Pcirt Urbcr k-teicher5e ISPVI7 • Ekvatcd US 85 111 Covv,erttiA4 Ikit roven t-1?-uo►wmeaottions Stt1 • rrarsit Mprovenerts • Relcatt bus stop tore • Sus-orit sip rarps Denver a Fitdesire Section 1C South of Bromley Lane to North of CR 2.5 Extt d frontage road to wc.R I • f I le wGR Z • Sit Port Valor ktros'x (SRN Ekvatti :IS 85 FREEWAY Ocae wck 15 guess rz Section 1 D South of CR 4 to CR 10 FREEWAY 111 �,- 94PrrttNV• WGR 4 • ful douse ■ Lose aaeas coi rovem rrt i -e&or eartims- rt; WGR ar oro htacFarge t0Pv WGR 6 • Pardo &sckwge j A , .,Ii , _ • Wck 625 • fiI dcsve fxtero auess to WGk s wGR • Juno. rferdmge • tm rates core aunt. pro'.* alternate aueas Section 1 D South of CR 4 to CR 10 FREEWAY wGRo • Nc accts rz Section 1 E North of CR 10 to CR 16 FREEWAY GD►VAlot 4 1 wrrvve ort--eaact.-borksi 5N 52. • Paiesvian enharcements through Tterchonae Cbse access Section 1 E North of CR 10 to CR 16 FREEWAY KEY VI/CAZ 14.5 / 14th a • Junzir nttrcti nae Iranbned nith WGR 41) WOK 6 • R„aht out yn z east sde ordu'0-4 x Section 1 F North of CR 16 to CR 22 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY WGR 65 • R,t-rr-Rrojpt-acct access CDhLeft1A44 iitrovahortecolohliAtaatior‘s, Mg a • Snak Pock Urban intaro x rye (SR A Construct yabkii road system ibcation s flare) from WLR B to WLR 29 WGR B.5 • fid cbsure wGR zo Right -acct access Gast access west sae (Lghtn-Rkyhtout east sae Section 1 F North of CR 16 to CR 22 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY MR 11 • Damond eterOan9e Section 2A South of WCR 22 to South of CR 30 in Platteville ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY vsv'WCRu Dress tannin* (zae NOt 115 suss Golpa.Q I ►+triAnt iKezeonoactitms, frid par* f rota a twirls. cost and west cif uS 83 arcrun 'Kg 11 and WGR I ,Lvabon .a &kale) Kilt; suss va&�.5� Weft 145 koht.nKd`t•Nt x:ens rRat aJr .rimftmy _cut tact at vS 45 wCR 16 Gcu tau • trt.M1RRs•c1t s..,c wf c t *Stott suaa Section 2A South of WCR 22.5 to South of CR 30 in Platteville vSS5 •Iva 1S • qt Ira! sni nhVJvrt ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Section 2B WCR 30 in Platteville to SH 60 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY US 85 ' SH bb Cto re9ud- r 58 £ 15 tore intotai at 5_4( Manor Ave • t14 xuss re.. Mcct uk Win t en eat foie US 85 r Wri 32 C4&. La frc.ita rends Aa torts Go► e tu4 I n+provewwt Reartottelatims,. Rebwte ewdei& Ron R k US 85 / WGk 54 Darrcrd F+teethanie Wok% Section 26 WCR 30 in Platteville to North of SH 60 US 85 : SH 60 Reword kttrrctwxae Section2C North of SH 60 to North of WCR 42 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY xse us rose wcR zgthw coi rovef?.rt ofseacctlohS wcR m; Rasp fp-Pt:eft foal Efrn St - kast mom • UWrtizsi. I ant Veal t herta* to'At Ash St • ,+ Acct Section 2C North of SH 60 to North of WCR 42 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY wcR 42. cy'd aan?sl • SAWS atat Ire Section 2D South of WCR 33 to North of WCR 48 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY • Cbsve at WCR )5 • 5upncd at WGR 44 • cast sde comecton wGR 55 to wGR 44 GDSWeectql Giese Case nvenwtRecafr v atiD6 Close WCR :Mb on east sde • Unrneized-T on rest sde • Rea5n wGR 46 Section 2D South of WCR 33 to North of WCR 48 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY • Cebu wGR *1r48 on east sde • UYwie&zed-T on wtst sde Section 3A UPRR Bridge South of LaSalle to North of 31st Street in Evans STANDARD EXPRESSWAY coi There wi be opportunities to enhance the pelestran envronment abn9 GM across US 85 as $ntersecton woven -efts are node (avian refuses, crosswdlcs, etc) 1st Ave • rraffic said •Mdlies 7.M flue 4th Ave • RyRn 5rd Ave • 10 JmAe NWntan tu! N tst5t • 5t9 access 5th five No Jame, rrantdn fut rooverent rovefext wommea,tionS Mg 57.;5'14 • (audit ntwsecbon •No stied 41M St • t are ail:kens Section 3A UPRR Bridge South of LaSalle to North of 31st Street in Evans STANDARD EXPRESSWAY rth St • .bsc frontage read ctr ALP • ore orations lst St • Gbse frntcaje roads and resign per NY • I one uoloittrns. Section 3B 31st Street to North of 5th Street in Greeley STANDARD EXPRESSWAY 5tst St Goa hcntaF rcaic art "lo naIjfqrr ;If NP • 1st adit r.s 1 'A Go South f nrd St, alternative mass dor - : ; • nhrrovenlerke othth attions Section 3B 31st Street to North of 5th Street in Greeley STANDARD EXPRESSWAY land Stto5th St • row. u-EIr. rtdOat es • contort f ee:tan rood fa orl.way • Umttnrc home road or. out 'We ?Rat. wcR 41 to 5th St Section 3C North of 5th Street to North of SH 392 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY '0• St • Gbse and connect to wCR 66 coi ry vnt l?-etovomeati ons rose and realnn Ave New connection from wcR 64 to WGR 66 •)tip. :.q/'JI Section 3C North of 5th Street to North of SH 392 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY SN • I.:rift ram • Lore erharees'trt E %n2rovements b wGR Y wcR 66 to wcg '1b 111 Section 4A South of WCR 70 to North of WCR 76 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY ter 11N wGR TI - 4tu tree tat Govvsptu4 I n+proven+ent n adios Cobra[. PKw,t • fa 'overeat rrgrnorv.ts ta �wt(R r Werth to Da 16 wM w kdt-n Rihtdt ut4.4 MAIN STREET To Great Western Trai . &Se Renton Center NE St - Ftltctrtn arcs arartarints to inn, necni amamrs - Srist Mtn intro -kW To Eaten Gwrnrrt Sttodasev. Ooten _ 1 • &tn tt tv. - "Inn Urwt •--_ — __ ...__._...— Section 4A South of WCR 70 to North of WCR 76 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY wcR 76 :OW St) •Srate Mtn tanned Section 4B WCR 78 to North of WCR 84 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY cow cbse oasts wcR ac • Ouse tact Se rovethekttlZecoiscwteaatims, MAIN STREET Si, rt /1st St • Pdectran uncurl erhmcemtrts Section 4B WCR 78 to North of WCR 84 RURAL HIGHWAY Option • catcr to Wr nwrovei s o"Mac ------------------------------- 1� Section 4C South of WCR 86 to North of WCR 92 RURAL HIGHWAY Option .. . Mar to Newt nitratedsiuuNsa--•—_.._ . • Co►t to f II ►0vlecolsqQatiolls ARTERIAL Section 4C South of WCR 86 to North of WCR 92 RURAL HIGHWAY Upton ........ • [.ally, to an' m:.ovS shou*,s Section 4D South of CR 94 to CR 100 RURAL HIGHWAY Opton '+ • Eatr to \um orrowd shaAivs - , (VW!)tor` to Veer 9'aVHVs--•............. Ea • CONL,rethZ4 IteDVewerct--eXADA dar iDKcs W&R • Ant mat sat F Section 4D South of CR 94 to CR 100 e :AF ARTERIAL wcR o0 vnm entirts [ eke earrortd US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COMMENT FORM COLORADO Department of Transportation What comments do you have regarding the proposed recommended improvements for the US 85 corridor? Contact Information (Optional; to be kept informed of future events) Your name: Contact information: Thank you for your input! US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COMMENT FORM COLORADO Department of Transportation What comments do you have regarding the proposed recommended improvements for the US 85 corridor? Contact Information (Optional; to be kept informed of future events) Your name: Contact information: Thank you for your input! 0 0 Ix 0 O V ZS CD co Eis- O o 0 m c r 0 o o m O) 2 V z a. >, V 0, W r rli w z O isic .b b tn 0 o `mm o E o 0 0 - CO >, >, O c c N = 0 O 600 n E E i m al ceQQ 0 CO a) c . 0 E U E z L UQ tr: o Uls-co •'�°`� a—) a 2 0Ki ► Cri z 0 is Did-- -ti 9 a Starks @ aol IS 37 vi;alv;,�} •-f last --1-) J t Q) I S -I-5 J -! 1 / ,Sw Aei / .5 3 Z. i � a, -Sc �_ So mil Y _Ad V QO r oz sf c N N► rJ I + .- Qo 9 tr S44 (s0 I M cA (N M C Z ..--1-- j v n Q.� ✓' 4-.. s '" .- s- --� o I CP a) v .,, .\,, , , . ,4,-, , 5. M4CL gO& W' e.•<:, -n U/ t S __C. 3 09- d a t 4-. s S aa) 2 a ro a. US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study T O co O co E1-O a? O o c o a)c r:cO o o o -5 E a t- o 0 5., o c .s o_ — 0 0 - co >, a o c c N D o U 6OO = E E E as co VJ MO `'J — cts w C) O a E E 0 a) E Z E. D Na S 3 3/43 0 O --3 ti O O 44 48 O it ti '� OG p a t O az uaF US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study a o co R o c o 76 O a) E=O as 8- = 3 O v ~w in (O O �4/'� V J a N W W C) 7. nJ a N Q sci E w r a E E Z V S O L Z a O Q.' e o 4,1 U '1 IN k is (,1M r\ I rld te i So S Z w 2 J7 -Ni -, ,\1 i= /Po N 3 Soj Qh<ew. ♦3 , Els . , O �w� 0 0 fit US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 0 0 CO 0 vi 4-7 C w CO C C) 0 0 C) E w 0 a E E z c 87 J cit cre le`r?1) .9 J -S I) C. Z cs t O _ v 1 v g- s vc ` wisi 1 4 ' 1 A 4.'5 - I b-- S C 970 673 ZZ UZ N (i) c ri to in 3 . P-1 _ 1 (4 -a qj % ets: V) a ic5 a cr u Q) '-• 1 >‘ •W c r OJ ft, 1/49;---c (\�l\J PCI a y It 4 v O en csi a cocn T co W E 2 O oaci c r O o fluE goo V -UCL fl 0 Et 3 N O o O C.. coinco rEE asas CO 0 a E Z . MQD'I9bni ta ci n k ‘e 3Cait.CD,t/,$ 0-1 3 O Y V o o Ld o v,c3 d7 --a C J 1 'a slif .1 cia i C. nJ--1 _ S 1 t 3 -r- . --a4 1 i'es 2 ‘t t ._ 1 b V) a .4 so 3034.55- 2037 tio d kA Qo ri -/ \ O 0 ) r N ' nn a la _ I 9 Cn A Co N O N I a— M C 0d 1 - rr.._. +--sty) D iQi..):4 0 t aL s ,.. ‘ft -o tal) 4 Hi 4 ----I i .\IN - \ `4 " 5 soCZI 4- ---74 A. ..c( ...0 e 1 d ^ � a Q n C.J s jja S I i O d ' s N' .) i , S '� 4,_ O O Q r,0 c ce 0 o t y u 8? a) 4' a) 2 V a. US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study E a O O N- O E a O ci r O N 0 Ct) U O OD it y) c CD C- C) o a)L ,a) c a2 m L C C O �C U a- c c O U UU E E co a7 D Q Q (I) O Cr) a) c O .c a 4' E E 0 O a) E Z D v i\ 3 . 5rti9h4o) . 0 O A Q O a O V US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 0 TT 0 V/ 1 C 0 _ • E O a c 2 o v H ._c fl42 rc^_, w W Q MW W O O c 0 cu w 4-. U) T CO N E w C 0 a A z E 0 U E ea Z 'N te) r" r. izr, Do 3ti-O 9G 7 1 ni P.) c° „ , , , , , i � cz' ,„ I h COLORADO OO 4 E o to tif of US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study E w 0 a E U E co c a E ?I() J -5 4 ) a Z _z cxs lc Y;I 5 , 1 I c - a ,o (y--, �. 0 NQ� d" 9 0 97a 673 zz �Z rf- ii 1 11 r% o i .9 P.; In Z- r. o' c/ d 1 09_ d la -t‘ % 7A1 ci g 0 `5 a cr C o uc,) 1-:2_, 4 -. 1... v`� N 4 -ST (�. So _, ,,,, 2 k 4 '/) tizi 5 � ,R,.7s- ,---s- (*, `� d w Q) d ,� 11 Welcome to the Planning and Environmental Linkages Study OPEN HOUSE Thank you for attending! This is an Open House format, �] there will be no formal presentation. Please visit the projeci information boards around the room. Project team members are available to discuss your questions and comments. COttORADO Department of Transportation MSS COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study What is a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study? PEL is a study process that is typically used to identify transportation issues and environmental concerns. It can be applied to make planning decisions and for planning analysis. These decisions and analyses, for example, can be used to identify and prioritize future projects, develop the purpose and need for a project, determine project size or length, and/or develop and refine a range of alternatives. PEL studies should be able to link planning to environmental issues and result in useful information that can be carried forward into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The adoption and use of a PEL study in the NEPA process is subject to a determination by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). • Agency / Stakeholder / Public Input • Collect Baseline Traffic and Environmental Data c 0 to: c: 0 E. U O O a, 0 0 0 • r sp I _ System Planning (MPO / TPR Regional Plans) Define/Refine .1( Travel Corridor (Logical Termini) Identify Transportation Needs Determine Reason for PEL Study and Desired Outcome FHWA Concurrence Point Develop • Purpose & Need, Goals, and Objectives FHWA Concurrence Point Evaluate and Screen Alternatives and Identify Environmental Impacts and Potential Mitigation (Eliminate Unreasonable Alternatives) FHWA Concurrence Point Identify Stakeholders Develop Performance Measures (Evaluation Criteria) Document Evaluation Process (What/VVhy Alternative Strategies were Screened Out?) Define Roles/ Responsibilities (Charter Agreement) Develop Alternatives and Define Travel Modes Finalize Planning and Environmental, Linkages Document FHWA Concurrence Point US 85 PEL 12-196 07/09/14 llc COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Study Process and Schedule The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between 1-76 and the Town of Nunn. The goal of the study is to identify safety, operational and other transportation needs along US 85 and determine the short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with an implementation plan that will help CDOT and local communities to position the corridor for funding. 2014 2015 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M_ J,...., 4 - Stakeholder Meeting Kick -Off 4.) 7..... , Corridor Conditions Assessment I Stakeholder Interviews MI , Visioning Workshop • Purpose and Need I i . Public Meeting f Alternatives and Development Screening 1 1 i 1 Public Meeting ,� PEL Report Stakeholder • TAC • EC • Small Involvement Group Meetings i US 85 PEL 12-196 06/16/14 pc COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Purpose and Need Summary Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of transportation improvements along the US 85 corridor is to improve safety, reduce existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, and improve multimodal mobility and connectivity. Need for Proposed Action These transportation improvements are needed to address: Safety Problem: There are a higher than expected number of crashes at several intersections and along the US 85 corridor. Mobility Problem: The ability for people to move across and along the corridor is substantially impacted by traffic congestion, inadequate intersections that fail to accommodate users' needs, and unreliable travel times. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future as the region grows. Access Problem: The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses has contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. This is exacerbated by the proximity of the highway and railroad tracks in several locations, which further contributes to operational and safety deficiencies, especially for large commercial vehicles. Alternative Travel Modes Problem: Infrastructure for alternative travel modes (transit, pedestrian, and bicycle) along and across US 85 do not sufficiently serve the existing or future needs of populations and travel patterns along the corridor. Transit dependent residents along the corridor have limited or no access to public transportation for essential services, such as medical appointments. US 85 PEL 12-196 06/10/14 Jic COLORADO Department of Transportation 2,600(14%) NB Z800(12%) SB J _ 6,600(15%) NB 6,700(13%) SB 5.500(18%) NB 5.300(30%) SB 12,500(13%) NB 12,200(13%) SB 11,200(20%) NB 10,200(12%) SB 10,500(20%) NB 11,000(12%) SB 12,300(17%) NB 12,900(13%) SB 11,100(23%) NB 11,200(11%) SB 14,400(18%) NB 14,800(19%) SB 17,300(15%) NB 15.700(11%) SB 18,600(14%) NB 17,200(14%) SB N WCR 100 1,300 (8%) / 300 (9%) NUNN WCR 90 900 (7%) PIER AU 6,300 (13%) 1,250 (16%) 6,250 (6%) EATON 3,500 (15%) 6,300 (8%) WCR 74 ,850 (13%) _ 5,400 (18%) 5,250 (5%) 34 - — GREELEY 3,350 (6%) 34 GARDEN CITY WCR 54 EVANS 1,250 (12%) WCR 6 1,200 (17%) MIL LIKEN 850(8%) L -I. 16,350 (10% GIL�CRE': ,t 850 (4%) f 4,950 (8%) 85 1,250 (24%) 2,900 (30%) 2,100 (10%) 3,450 (21%) 5,150 (12%) _BASELINE RD 8,750 (9%) PLATTEVILLE 1,050 (8%) 1,950 (32%) WCR 44 500 (13%) 750 (15%) 2,600 (19%) 1,650 (12%) FORT LUPTON 7,300 (12%) 10,450 (6%) WCR 8 17 .a - E42n----` 1,500 (12%) 1,250 (4%) 6,200 (2%) Legend XX,)00( (XX%)NB )00,)000 QO(%)SB US 85 ADT (% Trucks) x,XXx (XX%) Cross Street Bidirectional ADT (% Trucks) I1S45 PR 12-1449931,14 15,850 (8%) 1041h.a 13,700 (4%) 1,800 (12%) ='I HTON 17,250 (8%) l/ 1,350 (5%) s 850 (16%) 4,300 (4%) 96th AVE Main WCR 32 Pcxers+' WCR 22 BROMLEY LN DENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental linkages Study Northbound Hourly Traffic Southbound Hourly Traffic Hourly Truck Traffic North of WCR 92 North of 5th St North of WCR 18 North of 120th Ave NORTH 2 4 1 Miles Average Daily Traffic COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 WCR 90 MILLIKEN PLATTEVIL NUNN PIERCE AULT EATON ILCREST feFtT LUPTON BRIGHTON WCR 74 WCR 64 - o tom, LA SALLE WCR 22 BA§gLI!WM Weld Count A?amsCounwy BROMLEY LN 120th I AVE,_, _ _ L. jv' ` J, Denver County 1 / COMMERCE E f _.� l CITY i DENVER 96th AVE \ 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 2 4 1 Miles Legend < 100 100-250 250-500 500-1,000 1,000-2.000 >2,000 Daily Truck Volumes Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation Intersections Identified with Safety Concerns Intersections Adjacent to Railroad Truck Related Safety Concerns Signalized Intersection Side -Street Stop Controlled Urban Segment Rural Segment PDO = Personal Damage Only INJ = Injury FAT = Fatality WCR 14.5/14th in No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 26 1 FAT Approach Turn :.. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 6 Rear End No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 12 Fixed Object Bromley Lane No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 91 1 FAT Rear End 136th Ave. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 35 Rear End rirrirligire No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 40 Rear End 120A . a No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 67 Rear End SH 44/104th Av No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 115 1 FAT Rear End Dark -Lighted U a 04 - 01 a 1-76 (mp North of 226.8) to SH 44 (mp 227.47) No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 53 Sideswipe (same direction) Rear End o c o WCR 100 WCR 90 Res .o,, 3s GREELEY US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study YEARS: JAN. 2008 - DEC. 2012 TOTAL CRASHES: 2.186 NON -INTERSECTION CRASHES: 1,137 PDO: 789 INJ: 333 FAT 15 INTERSECTION CRASHES: 1,049 PDO: 752 INJ: 292 FAT: 7 WCR 32 WCR 64 WCR 44 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 128 5 FAT Sideswipe (same direction) Wild Animal Embankment Overturning Fixed Object NERD j. BRIGHTON Weld Couribt —7557.51i Sur BROMLEY LN 120th AVE., rw roenver County L DENVER • 63.11 Miles • 112 Intersections • 24 Signalized • 57 Adjacent to Railroad Crossing • Urban Intersections 20 Signalized 16 Unsignalized • Rural Intersections 4 Signalized 72 Unsignalized 5th St. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 15 Rear End No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 12 Broadside 6 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 41 Approach Turn bath St./US 34 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 36 Fixed Object 22nd St. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 49 Rear End 42nd St. i✓ No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 32 Rear End No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 8 Broadside No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 28 Broadside WCR 28 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 10 Broadside MSC No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 23 Approach Turn 0 NORTH 2 4 a a f�. .....di+ 1'P ••'••• '•Y .•.•- Miles High Crash Locations COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend Railroad Crossing Distance • 0' - 200' from US 85 O 201' - 800' from US 85 • >800'from US85 US 85 Roads Railroad ��• - Rivers/Streams Lakes L. J County Boundary O Study Area WCR 100 1,1 WCR 90 OPT Res,:wr WCR r G WCR B 104th AVF CE LT 14 MILUKEN J TTEVILLE Tti IMMUNERD ?BRIGHTON ON WCR 74 WCR 32 WCR 64 WCR 44 WCR22 Weld Count 716:3 -ms County BROMLEY LN 120th AV r.__ Deaver County l_ f DENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study A 1 0 2 4 Miles US SS Pit 17 :ON OMIG'14, c Railroad Crossing Distance from US 85 COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 90 MILLIKEN Legend WCR 8 .l- 35-40 MPH 45-50-55 MPH 60-65 MPH US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes j County Boundary O Study Area GREELEY BRIGHTON US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ON WCR 74 WCR 32 120thAl. j Denver County L NORTH DENVER Posted Speed Limits COLORADO Department of Transportation No Growth 0.0 - 0 01 Households per acre 0 01 - 0 5 Households per acre 0 5 - 1 0 Households per acre > 1.0 Households per acre US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Area WCR 100 WCR 90 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NFR MODEL AREA DRCOG MODEL AREA TOTAL ON WCR 74 BROMLEY LN 120th AV. DENVER 33,401 49,432 53,614 Percent Growth DRCOG & NFR MPO Estimated Models (2009-2035) NORTH US 8$ PEL 12-1%O&10/k pc Estimated Household Density Growth COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend No Growth 00-001 Jobs per acre 0.01 -05 Jobs per acre 05- 1.0 Jobs per acre > 1 0 Jobs per acre US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Area WCR 100 WCR 90 .1 r.i WCR6 TTEVILLE ILx ttr AVE CE EST LT US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NFR MODEL AREA DRCOG MODEL AREA Existing Jobs 2035 Jobs 41,972 77,634 Percent Growth 85% 25,924 37,839 46% TOTAL 67,896 115,473 70% ON WCR 74 WCR32 WCR 44 WCR 22 BROMLEY LN Denver County DENVER DRCOG & NFR MPO Estimated Models (2009-2035) 1 NFR MODEL AREA 4rDRCOG MODEL AREA 0 A NORTH 2 4 Miles 'JS SSPEL t2-:'hi(Wna': �Ic Estimated Employment Density Growth Legend COLORADO Department of Transportatwn 30% d,uuu Growth 7,700 60'-0 Growth Growth 60% Growth 40% Growth 95°,0 Growth 135% Growth 135% Growth 45% Growth 40% Growth 1990 Daily Traffic Volumes 2035 Daily Traffic Projections WCR 100 WCR 90 L� C.r.ne, s >M R MILLIKEN GREELEY P TTEVILLE OMMERCE CITY A 96th AVE US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 15% Growth 60% Growth 95% Growth 33,700 Growth 60% Growth 40% Growth 95% Growth 50,900 Growth Growth A NORTH ON WCR74 BROMLEY LN DENVER Historic, Existing, and Future Traffic Volumes WCR 100 WCR 90 ieo MILLIKEN PIERCE, EATON F. c/c �dn R LATTEVILLE FORT LUPTON BASELINE RD (OHIO' E/E EVANS Existing WCR 100 Legend X/X AM/PM Level of Service Signalized Intersection • LOS A/B LOS C/D El LOS E/F WCR 74 WCR 64 cip ego:: d# tjy =LA SALLLLE WCR 44 Wan WCR 32 92-" "c' BROMLEY LN WCR 22 MILLIKEN No Action 2035 PIERCE 34 GREELEY 34' EATON c/c _ E/F F/F GARDEN CITY F/F EVANS GIUCRF .r C/C LATTEVILLE FORT LUPTON WCR 6 F/F WCR 74 WCR 32� BROMLEY LN F/F \: - 120th AVE // 96th AVE WCR 22 Existing and 2035 No Action Level of Service Northern Area Access Category: Expressway GARDEN CITY EVANS 60... 39.. 15-25.. WCR 64 .01TEC 50... 32... Southern Area Access Category: Expressway NORTH 2 4 1 Miles Legend RIGHTON 65. 51 15-25.. :OMMERCE CITY Barr Lake Northern Area Access Category: Expressway GARDEN CITY EVANS .v{no 60. EIRTS' 20-25.. WCR 64 Lower _athat» Reservoir Southern Area Access Category: Expressway .osr[C 65... EXISTS' 60... 15-25... BASELINE RD BROMELY BR HTON DMMERCE CITY Barr Lake US 85 Existing and Projected Vehicle Speeds Existing Speed as a Percent of Posted Speed Limit 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100% x' Average Posted Speed Limit Average Existing Speed Average No Action Speed (Year 2035)' 'Future traffic with signal timing optimization Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation Existing Corridor Alignment 1 9 9 9 Envisioned Corridor Alignment Poudre River Trail III Pawnee Pioneer Trail Great Western In n South Platte / Amencan Discovery Trail / Colorado Front Range Trail Greeley / LaSalle WCR 90 Pawnee National Grasslands CE BRIGHTON WCR 32 BROMLEY LN DENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study A 'NORTH 2 4 &39581 l?-t9606r+0114jr Regional Bicycle and Trail Corridors COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend Existing l Existing Bus Station Greeley -Evans Transit Fixed Bus Routes - RTD Fixed Bus Routes Proposed O N 1-25 EIS ROD Phase 1 Commuter Bus Stations MealExpress Bus (20 minute peak headway) Inter -Regional Express/Commuter Bus (60 minute peak and off-peak headway) Essential Service Denver to Mn Greeley (- 3 times per week) US 85 Roads Railroad -- Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Q Study Area WCR 100 MILLIKEN ON WCR 74 BROMLEY IN WCR 22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NORTH 2 4 Existing and Proposed Transit Service COLORADO Department of rs. tnew, f t,/,n US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 54f/33 Btu St kas RDW VB5 kas to jot mew 'h. skou &r LAltraffic Pets et( in. eater s� h -th t R-� Payee ev nTer . Peft t • _ . _ 61t3 _ • /ST t 5 V • • 3$Th ST Leoen1 cots", G riaery Schad It Fee Station Town Hal Park Roads A Polok Station Railroad PDu ofk. _ City Boundary 0 4,.293 �Toll a l I tITN 3 (n I • A 411. 4TH-. Greeley at MN ST C S »ro ST 4Th IT • AST ,ITN ST • 30Th ST - TSTN St • NTH ST t r-� 1 • SWIM ST • • _ )TThSt 1 4 6a 1, li l r1 t PRAMS new OR L Evans At a as r / ••''`► e s—ni co L_- La ,Salle I —T 1 53 r 5 i • R r L T PH ST 4 z ITN ST S 22*) ST Hnt sT Evans CST • • Mir, :T a 24Th Si ---�� On 53 Evans, Garden City, Greeley, & La Salle rinTvtafl COLORADO Department of Transportation Cemetery School • For Station Raley t Pant Railroad • Ponce Slabcn City Boundary • Poyi Office *MOrr.,rrleg - rr r —>1 ?a) intersection - +fiPP & Pow visibif it trait track tarns are short kfl n. 5 iC.,URTH 5, US 85 Planning and Envuvnmentat Lrnxages sway et 3 la WCR 72 $ r Town Of Eaton COLORADO Department of Trencnttrtatinn US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study VICKI rnot l 3+/85 .t 2 r I Traffic noise �� I IS a concern e,e pp ,�p&it{tan.W4e1'� �o pttperh, , ,atts a r. • • w wppt ft lout's, it • T 144TH Me J O • VCR 4 %VCR i n 5 1 *=M? ! 1 Y 5 3 Vial,n City Of Brighton COLORADO Department of Transportation airOieurrst l.eaend • fire Sutton Park • Peace Siam Post Office Town Hal Roads Railroad City Boundary A 'CO t�r•w 1 yititm fi er-I resurface wits+ cowerif we are alOtsi traffic - ?ierce. 4uft "CP 101 Keep }}t/ 35 in fa repair. To In . ,fir fpi• ,r_ .....• %lore, Jet %ri. to ?ierje kilts r 31.•.0 Solov farriers at Potations L4ere &85 is close to resjents .h.,,,,,br &Cal Sown k`°'" GW"'e C � f ,V "More State ttrof to W` , ee /y" on JS 85 troy ihlrrn to -Pierce r W boubQe stripe /lo passi at IS 94 ti g5�1b Wiles intersection ofIOD&BS -t+as hn t ka.ve roots to twn 2t irnocJ Sus Stop sign WMG+ i%p oturtia; feat s1 r Notice two fares so S?ow tracks tar be Fussed WIIhere it is ore fast rection) • • US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 4 7 Corners are too sLarp for truck, to turn. Fix turn off at 731 0 1?osts Qir�tt sirs cooper, so )rivers Imo& w'nre bre- to 5Qow shwr. Town Of Nunn Welcome to the Planning and Environmental Linkages Study OPEN HOUSE . yank you for attending! This is an Open House format, there will be no formal presentation. Please visit the project information boards around the room. Project team members are available to discuss your questions and comments. rOLdltAuu epartment ofansnortat onepartment ofa nsp�ortat icon w ass COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study What is a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study? PEL is a study process that is typically used to identify transportation issues and environmental concerns. It can be applied to make planning decisions and for planning analysis. These decisions and analyses, for example, can be used to identify and prioritize future projects, develop the purpose and need for a project, determine project size or length, and/or develop and refine a range of alternatives. PEL studies should be able to link planning to environmental issues and result in useful information that can be carried forward into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The adoption and use of a PEL study in the NEPA process is subject to a determination by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). ca ca 0 to c 0 L. CLti a c - a) U)) 0 CD a m o a'. 0 System Planning (MPO 1 TPR Regional Plans) Define/Refine Travel Corrido (Logical Termini) Identify Transportation Needs Determine Reason for PEL Study and Desired Outcome FHWA Concurrence Point Develop Purpose & Need, Goals. and Objectives FHWA Concurrence Point Evaluate and Screen Alternatives and Identify 1 Environmental Impacts and Potential Mitigation (Eliminate Unreasonable Alternatives) FHWA Concurrence Point Identify Stakeholders Develop Performance Measures (Evaluation Criteria) Document Evaluation Process (VVhat/VVhy Alternative Strategies were Screened Out?) Define Roles/ Responsibilities (Charter Agreement) Develop Alternatives and Define Travel Modes Finalize Planning and Environmental Linkages Document FHWA Concurrence Point US 85 PEL 12-196 07/09/14 'lc COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Study Process and Schedule The objective of the US 85 PEL Study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 between 1-76 and the Town of Nunn. The goal of the study is to identify safety, operational and other transportation needs along US 85 and determine the short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The study will consider the US 85 Access Control Plan and determine if aspects of that plan need to be refreshed. Short-term and long-term improvements will be prioritized through a collaborative process with stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The final product will include a series of projects with an implementation plan that will help CDOT and local communities to position the corridor for funding. Stakeholder Kick -Off Meeting 2014 2015 M A M J J A S O N D 1 J F M A M J Corridor Conditions Assessment Stakeholder Interviews Visioning Workshop Purpose and Need Alternatives Development and Screening PEL Report Stakeholder Involvement • TAC • EC • Small Group Meetings Public Meeting Public Meeting i US 85 PEL 12-196 06/16/14 pc COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Purpose and Need Summary Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of transportation improvements along the US 85 corridor is to improve safety, reduce existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, and improve multimodal mobility and connectivity. Need for Proposed Action These transportation improvements are needed to address: Safety Problem: There are a higher than expected number of crashes at several intersections and along the US 85 corridor. Mobility Problem: The ability for people to move across and along the corridor is substantially impacted by traffic congestion, inadequate intersections that fail to accommodate users' needs, and unreliable travel times. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future as the region grows. Access Problem: The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses has contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. This is exacerbated by the proximity of the highway and railroad tracks in several locations, which further contributes to operational and safety deficiencies, especially for large commercial vehicles. Alternative Travel Modes Problem: Infrastructure for alternative travel modes (transit, pedestrian, and bicycle) along and across US 85 do not sufficiently serve the existing or future needs of populations and travel patterns along the corridor. Transit dependent residents along the corridor have limited or no access to public transportation for essential services, such as medical appointments. US 85 PEL 12-196 06/10/14Ilc 4 CO COOT 1 4 COLORADO Department of Transportation 2,600(14%) NB 2,800(12%) SB 6,600(15%) NB 6,700(13%) SB 5,500(18%) NB 5,300(30%) SB 12,500(13%) NB 12,200(13%) SB 11,200(20%) NB 10,200(12%) SB 10,500(20%) NB 11,000(12%) SB 12,300(17%) NB 12,900(13%) SB 11,100(23%) NB 11,200(11%) SB 14,400(18%) NB 14,800(19%) SB 17,300(15%) NB 15,700(11%) SB 18,600(14%) NB 17,200(14%) SB i un m z. O ',rat WCR 100 c0 O 1,300 (8%) WCR 90 v Res Ir 300 (9%) NUNN 900 (7%) _, PIERCE AU 6,300 (13%) 1,250 (16%) 7 6,250 (6%) EATON' .ndsor [fie 3,500 (15%) 6,300 (8%) WCR 74 WCR 54 4 Cach. 34 GREELEY ?,850 13%) 5,250 (5%) 3,350 (6%) GARDEN CITY EVANS 1,250 (12%) llol _ 1,200 (17"/0) MILLIKEN 850`(8%) .4f I 16,350 (10% GI14C 850 (4%) et 4,950 8% o -a G 1,250 (24%) ?85 PLATTEVILLE 5,400 (18%) WCR 64 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Northbound Hourly Traffic Southbound Hourly Traffic Hourly Truck Traffic 1,600 1.400 200 a 1 000 X y v O E z 800 600 400' 200 0 North of WCR 92 8,550 (12%) 5,750 (10%) _ 800 (7%) Das LA SALLE qex ; r 1,050 (8%) 1,950 (32%) WCR 44 500 (13%) 750 (15%) 2,600 (19%) 2,900 (30%) 2,100 (10%) 1,650 (12%) FORT LUPTON WCR 32Ft `- WCR 22 WCR 6 3,450 (21%) 5,150 (12%) F _ Legend XX,XXX ()CX%)NB XX,XX( (XX%)SB US 85 ADT (% Trucks) 1,500 (12%) 1,250 (4%) 6,200 (2%) 7,300 (12%) 10,450 (6%) WCR 8 1,800 (12%) �ASEUNE RD 8,750 (9%) BRIGHTON 17,250 (8%)' is ` 1,350 (5%) . a' 850 (16%) 4,300 (4%) N. 10,450 (6%)) 7/COMMERCE CITY 15,850 (8%) 104th.A 13,700 (4%)/ " 96th AVE We14! Count Adams ounWy BROMLEY LN 120th AVE Denver County I_ ( DENVER r4 rJ 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 aa 800 600 400 200 0 North of 5th St North of WCR 18 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.006 800 0 c z' 600 400 200 0 North of 120th An I. 0 2 4 I Mies X,XXX (XX%) Cross Street Bidirectional ADT (% Trucks) Average Daily Traffic US 86 PH 12.186061104 A COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 ;:rtro(h WCR 90 Pczat ndsor • WCR 54 NUNN PIERC AULT EATON t.,. • ware Fir A- ,_ ; I 00J MILLIKEN PLATTEVIL M WCR 6 2 34, GREELEY F _ LUPTON GARDEN CITY EVANS ILCREST WCR 8 WCR 74 WCR 64 L LA SALLE r WCR 32 WCR 44 WCR 22 BASELI I RD Weld Gout _ Mamstrnty l BRIGHTON? COMMERCE CITY 96th AVE LAkt E470 BROMLEY LN 120th AVE, L JDenver Countv j_T DENVER rJ US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 0 2 4 Miles Legend 250-500 500-1.000 1,000-2,000 >2,000 < 100 100-250 Daily Truck Volumes Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation I Intersections Identified with Safety Concerns Intersections Adjacent to Railroad Truck Related Safety Concerns Signalized Intersection Side -Street Stop Controlled Urban Segment Rural Segment PDO = Personal Damage Only INJ = Injury FAT = Fatality 4 WCR 14.5/14th St. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 26 1 FAT Approach Turn No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 6 Rear End Den/err . ►i No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 12 Fixed Object Bromley Lane No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 91 1 FAT Rear End No. of Crashes 35 Predominant CrashTypes Rear End SH 22/120th Ave. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 40 Rear End 120th Ave. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 67 Rear End 1 SH 441104th Ave. No. of Crashes 115 1 FAT Predominant CrashTypes Rear End Dark -Lighted 09• D 4 1-76 (mp North of 226.8) to SH 44 (mp 227.47) No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 53 Sideswipe (same direction) Rear End WCR 100 m n O 14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study YEARS: JAN. 2008 - DEC. 2012 TOTAL CRASHES: NON -INTERSECTION CRASHES: PDO: 789 INJ 333 FAT 15 INTERSECTION CRASHES: PDO; 752 INJ 292 FAT: 7 WCR 74 WCR 64 WCR 44 Aeon WCR 32 a. "° No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 128 5 FAT Sideswipe (same direction) Wild Animal Embankment Overturning Fixed Object Weld Cou ams C3u>n 120th Al, Pienve.r CountyL DENVER 2.186 1.137 1,049 • 63.11 Miles • 112 Intersections • 24 Signalized • 57 Adjacent to Railroad Crossing • Urban Intersections 20 Signalized 16 Unsignalized • Rural Intersections 4 Signalized 72 Unsignalized No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 15 Rear End 13th St. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 12 Broadside • No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 41 Approach Turn 18th St./US 34 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 36 Fixed Object 22nd St. No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 49 Rear End 42nd St. iait No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 32 Rear End WCR 52 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 8 Broadside WCR 44� No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 28 Broadside WCR 28 mama No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 10 Broadside WCR 18 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 23 Approach Turn 9;OR T H 0 kElt _ y.• we. ••• el* 4 epoih 4 I Miles us as Pr412-196 0&11116 High Crash Locations COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 90 Legend Railroad Crossing Distance • 0' - 200' from US 85 O 201' - 800' from US 85 • > 800' from US 85 US 85 Roads Railroad �- - Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary 0 Study Area GREELEY TTEVILL E ON WCR 74 mesa WCR 32 kallacr BROMLEY LN DENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NORTH Railroad Crossing Distance from US 85 U585 PtL 12,196060614p: COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 Legend 35-40 MPH 45-50-55 MPH = 60-65 MPH US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes L. j County Boundary O Study Area US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study TTEVILLE ERD BRIGHTON ON WCR 74 WCR 32 BROMLEY LN 120th Al_ j Denver tounty L , - i ilk DENVER ,-J a Miles Posted Speed Limits US 35 PEI 12 195 0601114 j� COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend No Growth 0 0 - 0 01 Households per acre 0.01 - 0.5 Households per acre 0,5 - 1 0 Households per acre > 1 0 Households per acre US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Area 64J .i "r WCRB- rrt th AVE, US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Existing HH Percent Growth DRCOG MODEL AREA 25,645 53,614 TOTAL WCR 32 l" WCR 22 BROMLEY LN 103,046 DRCOG & NFR MPO Estimated Models (2009-2035) NORTH 2 4 Miles Estimated Household Density Growth ust$va. u.iten6na•fa;x COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend No Growth 0.0 - 0.01 Jobs per acre A 0.01 - 0.5 Jobs per acre A 0.5 - 1.0 Jobs per acre > 1.0 Jobs per acre US 85 Roads Railroad -,•--- Rivers/Streams Lakes �.� County Boundary Q Study Area WCR 100 TTEVILLE US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Percent Growth DRCOG MODEL AREA 25,924 37,839 46% TOTAL ON WCR 74 itWCR 64 "'■ WCR8 BROMLEY LN Denver County 1 _ DENVER 115,473 DRCOG & NFR MPO Estimated Models (2009-2035) DRCOG MODEL AREA NORTH Estimated Employment Density Growth Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 55% 30% Growth 60% Growth 60% Growth Growth 450/9 Growth Growth 1990 Daily Traffic Volumes xxxxExisting Daily Traffic Volumes 2035 Daily Traffic Projections GREELEY SD !BRIGHTON / ON WCR 74 Weld Coun -Tide; BROMLEY LN US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 31,500 15% Growth 950/s Growth Growth 95% Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth NORTH 2 4 Historic, Existing, and Future Traffic Volumes 1S 95 Pt[ 12-1960611O114 pc WCR 100 104th A WCR 90 MILLIKEN NUNN PIERCE EATON Existing WCR 100 Legend X/X AM/PM Level of Service Signalized Intersection • LOS A/B - LOS C/D • LOS E/F WCR 74 WCR 74 WCR 64 46A B/B 3 r C/C - GREELEY !C/CH—ti ▪ Th:135 `34 GARDEN CITY ' C/C E/E EVANS C/C etat0 C/C LA SALLE GILCREST B/B D/F LATTEVILLE FORT LUPTON BASELINE RD BRIGHTO 96th AVE WCR 32 WCR 22 BROMLEY LN DENVER MILLIKEN No Action 2035 oud,L • , _ r--� WCR 64 i E/F F/F GARDEN CITY F/F EVANS CRC/C F/F TTEVILLE FORT LUPTON WCR 6 F/F F/F 104th BASEUNE RD BRl ' • F/F F/F 85': 96th AVE WCR 32 op WCR 22 BROMLEY LN 120th AVE DENVER Existing and 2035 No Action Level of Service AM Northern Area Access Category: Expressway YCITCO 45... into 40.. NO LLTCN 25-30... GARDEN C-ITY__\. _ 'Onto 50.. CWn10 33... NN utS 25-30... EVANS 50... 32 NO SCnUN 5-15.,. nao 45... tuTno 37... 10 20. Lower Latham Reservoir Southern Area Access Category: Expressway 104 ' AVE 0 2 4 wsrto 65... 60... .O 4CMW 10-20.- Miles 60... 50.. ;0-20. 60.. I.. 10-20.. Barr Lake • NORTH BASELIN : RD RIGHTON COMMERCE CITY PM Northern Area Access Category: Expressway GARDEN CITY 50... EVITYo4 38... r Y7v EVANS WCR 64 o 20... 15-25... Southern Area Access Category: Expressway 104 AVE .CITE 60.. EYISTTMG 35... 15-25.. 0571 65... CLSPNc 60... 15-25.. 60.. 41.. NC 1GTN)N 30-35... BASELINE RD BR0M ELY rasn0 65... Tt 20-30... )MMERCE CITY US 85 Existing and Projected Vehicle Speeds Legend Existing Speed as a Percent of Posted Speed Limit 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% 70% 80% 90% 100% I Average Posted Speed Limit Average Existing Speed Average No Action Speed (Year 2035)' 'Future traffic with signal timing optimization Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation Existing Corridor Alignment I lull. Envisioned Corridor Alignment II II l Poudre River Trail Pawnee Pioneer Trail I IIl Great Western Illl l South Platte / American Discovery Trail / Colorado Front Range Trail Greeley / LaSalle WCR 100 Pawnee National Grasslands N ON WCR 74 GREELEY WCR 32 NE RD BRIGHTON / BROMLEY LN US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NORTH 2 4 J$ssrtt,r 1%f&1ase,ic Regional Bicycle and Trail Corridors COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend Existing Existing Bus Station Greeley -Evans Transit Fixed Bus Routes RTD Fixed Bus Routes Proposed O NI -25 EIS ROD Phase 1 Commuter Bus Stations N_ Express Bus (20 minute peak headway) Inter -Regional Express/Commuter Bus (60 minute peak and off-peak headway) Essential Service Denver to en Greeley (- 3 times per week) US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Area WCR 100 WCR 90 MILLIKEN WCR 32 WCR 74 WCR 22 BROMLEY LN US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NORTH Existing and Proposed Transit Service US 15PFl '2-1460 &14 ; US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation SUMMARY OF JUNE 2014 PUBLIC MEETINGS Public Meeting Dates, Locations, Attendance Three public meetings were held in June 2014 for the US 85 PEL, as follow: • Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:00 - 7:00 PM The Armory at Brighton Cultural Center 300 Strong Street, Brighton, CO • Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:00 - 7:00 PM Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2nd Street, Pierce, CO • Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:00 - 7:00 PM Greeley Ice Haus 900 8`h Avenue, Greeley, CO A total of 83 people attended the public meetings (21 in Brighton, 33 in Pierce, and 29 in Greeley). Sign in sheets from each public meeting are included as an attachment to this summary. The public meetings were advertised using: CDOT's (and local agency) website, CDOT's Facebook and Twitter accounts, a press release, posting of flyers in local communities (at the local agencies' discretion), email distribution, and robo-calls to all land lines within 2 miles of the corridor. Public Meeting Content The public meetings were open house format where the public could drop by anytime to discuss the study with the CDOT Project team, learn about the US 85's current conditions and provide input on the transportation problems and potential solutions. The same information was provided at each of the three meetings. The public meetings included the following stations (the boards are provided as an attachment to this summary): • Sign In • Introduction and Welcome • Inventory and Analysis • Purpose and Need • Community Input Input from the public was obtained through 1) discussions with the project team, 2) sticky notes on the community boards, and 3) questionnaires/comment sheets. Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Overview of Public Comments COLORADO Department of Transportation The input received from the public during the three open house meetings and online through the US 85 PEL webpage on CDOT's website ranges widely from general commentary on the problems along the corridor to travel pattern observations to location -specific problems. Many members of the public have provided ideas on transportation improvements to consider through the PEL process including both spot improvements (e.g., intersection improvements) and visionary changes for the entire corridor. The comments have been categorized into concerns and improvement ideas and are provided beginning on page 5 of this summary. Questionnaire Results A total of 44 questionnaires were completed at the public meetings (6 in Brighton, 15 in Pierce, 10 in Greeley) and on CDOT's website (13). The questionnaire responses are summarized below. Q1. What three words would you use to describe US 85 today? Thoroughfare Unrnaintaincd Convenient repair Deteriorating Terrible outdated 1ois\► Slow tr'uvs kiconvcnicnt Narrow I -lard Under -prioritized Trashy Suitt Congested routc yo Trucks Crowded Busy Stop Nom,,,, f located planning Uital Unsafe Dci n e r o u s Broken condition Disgraceful maintenance Poor OCr �urnbar 'Li Uisr•c;pciir knpassoblc Acccssbic enoughUseful 'tore Direct drive Groat lights IJ iJ e y Disaster Fr 'ustr 'utirti t ri Disgusting land Good RUttcd `''1 'Ulric yas �ccdin nccd Scenic Important y siyricils < I ;< ii f< it I--iciz rden i Spccd 'v►(i)r •FS Junky Access Truck neglected NecessaryInefficient capacity Rough Inadequate Rout' ItOut Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Q2. How would you characterize the role of US 85 through your community? (Select the two that you think are most fitting) 25 2U D 263 s 111) Mar Street 512'x.(21) ♦� Crii alto c.Lr mmunity'S tiraulatcn 24.4 `.; CO) 0,1 53.7% (22) R:egianal highway 24% (1) .4,v'aess tt Barrier within business»suer es the community 34.1%04) Safery hand mnYun Cy' Page 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Q3. What are your top concerns regarding travel on US 85? (Rank the order with 1 being your highest concern and 5 being your lowest concern) Safety - Too much traffic Too many traffic signals 10.3 7. 5.1% 2.% 7.7 % 12.8 10.3 23.10. JC 25.6% 231% 23.1''; 17S% I 51% 103% Speeds are too high _ 15.4% Difficult or dangerous to get onto US 88 30.8 301 17.9 % I 23.1 282 oa 15.4 % 15.4 l c _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 Page 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Q4. What immediate and future transportation needs/problems should be addressed through this study? 1;= 1C 73_2% (30) 61.o z (25) 61.0 (25) 517% (22) ? =z 31.7 t(13) I I 5 - Si ids FRI 8'na a B aQ Q, 'II Corridor Concerns ttc a. - Ili 'Itc 3 a a % (Al) / ,f 46.3% (19) 31.7%(13) 26,8 % (11) 58.5 y. (24) 24.4% (10) I T I ,E m; 11 firtz.-c CIF -113 i 3 3 ig6 03II a3. a - a..„,, ° c-5 Q a a. -=r- � aI I. m a_ =g rj. Q' = Q. m D N. a aO g l g7 at c' n z•si 2 3 - I ,5 2- $ a The concerns about travel on US 85 that have been expressed by the public through the questionnaires at the public meetings and online, as well as comments made directly to the project team during the public meetings have been sorted by topic and are listed below. Increasing Truck Traffic • Heavy truck traffic • Get gravel trucks onto US 85 and off of CR 18 and CR 23 • Trucks exceed the speed limit and tailgate • Slow the trucks • Trucks go faster than posted speeds, especially in the evening • Large trucks pull up next to each other at signals and won't allow cars to go around them • Increase in trucks on CR 14.5 (oil and gas) Page 5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation • Large heavy trucks that are side -by -side at red light, block (or significantly slow) everyone behind when the light turns green. • There are often many trucks in the left lane that don't travel at the speed limit • Look into growth in truck traffic over last 10/20 years • Heavy truck traffic near Wattenburg area • Intersections not configured for turning trucks, especially onto US 85. They run over curbs and medians • Trucks use the left lane from CR 18 to 1-76 • Large trucks take the entire road to make turns • Large trucks cause slow -downs - sometimes take both lanes of US 85 to make turns • The portrayed Truck Volumes seem too low. They feel much higher • There are many large trucks that use WCR 90 and go towards Severance to avoid US 85 • Some of the trucks in the Fort Lupton to Platteville area have regularly routed themselves along the county roads to bypass the port of entry just south of Platteville. • Agricultural equipment needs the highway to get around. Maintenance Concerns • Potholes are particularly bad between SH 392 and Nunn • Road needs to be resurfaced • Pavement condition is very poor shape • The travel surface of US 85 is bad (numerous comments on this). The big trucks are tearing up the highway. • Paving concerns - many potholes in the north region of US 85 • Weeds in the median make it difficult to see oncoming traffic • CDOT does a good job of snow removal on 85 - it's very obvious when you get into Wyoming • Snow storage is often pushed to the median, which then melts, flows along the travel lanes, and the subsequently freezes causing safety issues. Further, the left lane of US 85 is often not plowed, resulting in snowpacked conditions for passing vehicles. Corridor Safety Concerns • No shoulder to pull off • There is no place to pull over if you break down • Difficult to tell if signal is red for turn lane or through traffic at skewed intersections • No guardrail in some sections with steep sideslopes Mobility Concerns • Adding more signals to US 85 will make it more challenging to ever convert it into a freeway in the future Speed Concerns • Too many changes in speed limits through towns • Speeds fluctuate too much • People pass on the right, makes it difficult to turn Page 6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study • Enforce the speed limits Railroad Concerns COLORADO Department of Transportation • Relative to gates at the RR crossings, drivers are sometimes seen going around them when down • Trains can make for an interesting trip, especially when one is on their way to DIA (SB US 85) to catch a flight. One individual shared how he has to make a guess when traveling along SB US 85 as to where to cross the RR and avoid a long (and possibly costly if he misses his flight) delay. Factors such as his speed, the train's speed, the train length (which he may not always know) come into play when deciding the right point to make the crossing of the RR to DIA (I mentioned that E-470 is always a good safety net on this front). • Dave Young was curious if the State Rail plan has a role in this corridor. Bicycle/Pedestrian Concerns • Pedestrian and Bicycle is a major problem on US 85 because they wouldn't even try to walk or ride on it. • Kids that live on east side of US 85 in Ault need to cross US 85 to get to school and most other activities Location -Specific Concerns (Southern Corridor: I-76 to Fort Lupton) • US 85 and CR 18 is hazardous to cross • Noise levels (Brighton - live at Kuner Rd & Southern St) • US 85/CR 18 - gravel trucks fill the NB to WB left turn lane, especially during morning peak hour • US 85/CR 18 - very difficult to cross; trucks entering from side street • US 85/CR 18 - right turn lane is too narrow; unsafe; trucks flying by • WCR 18 - oil and gas trucks from the east, gravel trucks from the west • WCR 18 intersection - Sight distance issues when trucks are parked at the NG service station (for WB driver entering US 85). • WCR 18 sees a heavy amount of gravel trucks to/from the west. • Turning left from CR 18 onto US 85 can take up to 45 minutes; travel time can often take longer when there are trucks ahead that take a long time to start moving • US 85/CR 16 - can no longer make left turns • CR 16 - railroad crossing in bad condition from all the heavy loads; cuts tires • US 85/SH 52 NB off ramp backs up onto mainline when there are a lot of trucks • SB merge of US 85 onto 1-76 can be problematic as US 85 traffic must narrow to one lane; trucks have been seen racing with each other in this merge section Location -Specific Concerns (Middle Corridor: Platteville to Greeley) • A lot of traffic between Eaton and LaSalle • Signals through Evans and Greeley are poorly timed, particularly during the off-peak hours • Frontage roads being a part of US 85 signal creates longer delays • Intersection at SH 257 [SH 60] needs to be fixed Page 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation • Northbound turn lane onto SH 60 backs up into the through lane creating a dangerous situation • US 85/WCR 42 signal (EB) does not turn green if there's a train on tracks; can't turn left onto US 85 • Awkward turning onto SB US 85 from Gilcrest gas station (at Elm) as the accel lane is short and closeness of frontage road makes it uncomfortable. • General needs for more signage and better sight distance - WCR 33-1st/Park is an example. SB US 85 right turn onto WCR 33 is an issue with respect to visibility to the west along Park. • WCR 84/WCR 33 area has a new business catering to the oil/gas. There is a lot of equipment kept there, and large vehicles are in and out of this site when equipment is needed. Location -Specific Concerns (Northern Corridor: Eaton to Nunn) • At US 85/SH 392 - takes 10 minutes to clear the traffic after a train crosses • 65 mph speed limit sign across from elementary school (in Pierce?) • WCR 90 area has 65 MPH speed, but a school is there. Are these compatible? Also, the gearing up to 65 MPH and the ratcheting down from 65 MPH, by way of speed postings, could be smoother in this area. This area has experienced a fatal accident (one involving a crash into the school yard). • "Strange" intersection in Pierce • Long wait times for trails at CR 98 • Kids that live on east side of US 85 in Ault need to cross US 85 to get to school and most other activities • Railroad blocking SH 14 • Train blockage of SH 14 is sometimes excessive. 30 to 45 minutes is not unusual, and queues along SH 14 can be extremely long. A person died a few years back because emergency response vehicles could not cross the tracks in time due to sitting train. • 2 lane section - you get stuck behind trucks and can't pass (primary reason for needing 4 lanes) • There is a sense that the Eaton signal could become problematic in the future relative to operations • Nunn has a very long area of 30 mph, but no residential in the area; therefore, the speed limit should be raised in that area. • Bridge over ditch at WCR 86 is minimal for the kinds of trucks it has been serving. The ditch and RR tend to constrain this intersection area. • Ault has a development strategy plan we might want to review. • There is a pattern of traffic from the north to SH 14 west that cuts through via WCR 33. Trash trucks (apparently trash from Wyoming) are often seen in this movement pattern (there is a landfill along SH 14 a number of miles west of WCR 33). • Traffic isn't bad from Ault to US 34 Other Concerns/Considerations • Job growth - would like to see specific industry type of jobs as they relate to US 85 impacts on safety, mobility and access; if mostly oil and gas, can't see transit as a viable option for employees • Need to consider demographic changes (aging population in rural areas) - impacts the type of vehicles and travel on corridor • Feel CDOT doesn't think the highway exists north of Greeley Page 8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation • Drainage problems - hydroplane • Recently lengthened turn lanes have been very helpful • WCR 49 represents an opportunity. Currently, there are no communities along WCR 49 (unlike US 85), and perhaps that should be preserved so that WCR 49 can be the "super" north south roadway serving the region. Several others also commented on the potential of WCR 49 (Dave Young, State Representative, indicated that a Renewable Energy Biogas facility will be going in near WCR 44/WCR 49). • General observations of Leprino impact • Poudre trail is getting GoCo grants; could be connected to Fort Collins. • The urban area will probably get all of the improvements and the rural areas will get nothing in this process, once again. Improvement Ideas The ideas for improving the US 85 corridor that have been expressed by the public through the questionnaires at the public meetings and online, as well as comments made directly to the project team during the public meetings have been sorted by topic and are listed below. Mobility Improvement Ideas • Maybe one alternative we could consider would shift the US 85 highway alignment to the east side of the UP RR (nothing more specific than that). • Can we force the trucks to be in a line, in the same lane instead? • Force trucks to stay is a single lane, especially at signals • Keep US 85 as a mixed vehicle route and add a dedicated truck route • Limit trucks to using right lane only • Truck only lane • Truck only lane • Require slow traffic to use right lane • Lanes for trucks entering the highway • Truck only lane • Add service roads with consolidated access onto US 85 • Eliminate access points similar to 1-25 • Do not bypass the towns • Rerouting or create a bypass through towns • Add signals • Add lanes • Toll road • Wider lanes and shoulders to handle large trucks • More lanes to be able to pass trucks Operational Improvement Ideas • Change the flashing lights so that they alert drivers when the signal is going to change to yellow/red rather than flashing all the time • Change FYB on Signal Ahead warning signs so they only flash under a Be Prepared to Stop condition and not all day flash Page 9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation • Change out flashing yellow signals warning of stop lights; put in time flashing lights telling drivers they are approaching a red light so drivers can reduce speed without slamming on breaks - help reduce rear ends • Signalization modifications should implement a minimum 30 second red for each direction (forcing people to learn that they must all come to a stop and preventing some drivers from rolling through knowing that the red indication will not be illuminated for very long). • Better signal timing • Signal phasing should be set up to flush out side streets after RR crossings, specially in north section of corridor (southern part of corridor has RR timing info in the cabinets) • Time signals with highway priority, allowing drivers to maintain speeds • Limit oversize trucks • Limited access freeway Safety Improvement Ideas • Wider shoulders in certain areas would nice. • Speed limit signs sooner so you can slow down before entering Towns • Slow the trucks • Lower speeds through towns • Add longer turn lanes • Close some accesses Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Ideas • Signal at CR 76 would help with bike/ped crossing • Off-street bike facility within ROW connecting communities • Bike lanes going along the highway to Nunn • Add pedestrian crossing in Evans • Pedestrian walkways - maybe behind a fence • Need safe bicycle path through Brighton Transit Improvement Ideas • Add bus service to DIA and downtown Denver • Add bus service to Greeley, Fort Collins, Denver • Add express bus service on SH 14 to Fort Collins • Place train station in Brighton and Greeley • Bus service 2-3 times per day up to Nunn along US 85 (and along SH 14 to 1-25) • Commuter rail • BRT Maintenance Ideas • More mowing so you can see to pull onto the highway • Fix the road • Do nothing (except fix potholes) Page 10 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Location -Specific Ideas (Southern Corridor: I-76 to Fort Lupton) • WCR 18 concerns in general; a signal may or may not be the right answer. • Interchange (or at a minimum signal) at US 85/CR 18 • Signal at US 85/CR 18 • More travel lanes (Ft Lupton to Denver) • Eliminate protected only lefts (e.g., at US 85 and 124`h Avenue) Location -Specific Ideas (Middle Corridor: Platteville to Greeley) • SH 392 - SB to EB left signal needed • The SH 392 intersection could possible use left turn signal heads. • There is a need for NB and SB left turn lanes at the WCR 66 intersection • Signalize US 85/SH 392 Location -Specific Ideas (Northern Corridor: Eaton to Nunn) • Take four lanes all the way to Cheyenne • Four lanes between Ault and Nunn • Ault to Nunn - 4 lanes, put NB lanes on the east side of the RR (one-way couplet) • Widen to four lanes from Ault to Nunn • Widen to four lanes • Widen to four lanes from Ault to Nunn • Move 65 mph posted speed another 200-500 feet north of WCR 90 • Ault to Nunn - add shoulders, turn lanes, accel/decel lanes, improve signage on intersecting roads, improve sight distance • Widen intersection of US 85 and CR 100 so trucks have room to turn • Add turn lanes at intersection in Ault at US 85 • Repair drainage at US 85 and CR 88 in Pierce Other Improvement Ideas • Fix at -grade railroad crossings Attachments • Sign in Sheets • Public Meeting Boards • Community Maps with Sticky Note Comments Page 11 COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study PUBLIC MEETINGS The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting a study to establish a vision for the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to the Town of Nunn. Please join us at our upcoming meetings to provide input on the transportation problems and potential solutions for this corridor. Save the Dates! --� June 17, 2014 Tuesday 4:00 - 7:00pm The Armory at Brighton Cultural Center 300 Strong St. Brighton, CO 80601 —❑ June 18, 2014 Wednesday 4:00 - 7:00pm Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2nd St. Pierce, CO 80648 —E] June 24, 2014 Tuesday 4:00 - 7:00pm Greeley Ice Haus 900 8th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Public Meeting Format: The public meetings will be an open house format where you can drop by anytime to discuss the study with the CDOT Project Team, learn about the US 85 corridor's current conditions and provide input for creating a vision for the future. To learn more about the US 85 PEL Study, please visit the project website at www.coloradodot.info/projects/us85pel or call the US 85 Public Involvement Team at 970.350.2148. I WCR 100 June 18 Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 Pierce, CO -]fir _ I —J li WCR6 _UK>h ;Jr/ M Iliken SALLE EATON LCREST WCR 64 WCR 44 WCR 32 PLATTEVILLE June 17 The Armory Brighton, CO BASELINE R0 BRIGHTON air 96th AVE WCR 22 Weld County___ Adams County BROMLEY LN 120th AV J, — !Denver CounC1____ 5-: Requests for communication assistance or reasonable accommodations for special needs can be made by contacting the Public Involvement Team prior to the meeting: 970.350.2148. Se puede hacer las solicitudes de traduccion o de otras necesidades especiales por paniendose en contacto con el equipo de la participacion publica: 970.350.2148. US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study PRESS RELEASE COLORADO Department of Transportation The Colorado Department of Transportation is conducting a study to establish a vision for the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to Town of Nunn. CDOT is hosting public meetings which will be open house format where you can drop by anytime to discuss the study with the CDOT Project team, learn about the US 85's current conditions and provide input on the transportation problems and potential solutions. For your convenience, three public meetings will be held along the corridor. The same information will be available at each of the meetings. • Tuesday, June 17th 4-7 PM in Brighton at The Armory, 300 Strong Street; • Wednesday, June 18th 4-7 PM at the Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2, 601 2' Street in Pierce; • Tuesday, June 24th 4-7 PM at the Greeley Ice Haus, 900 8th Avenue Please join us at one of the public meetings to ask questions and provide your input on the study. If you have questions, please feel free to contact the Public Involvement Team at 970-350-2148. a US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study QUESTIONNAIRE June 2014 Public Meetings COLORADO Department of Transportation If you would like to stay involved in the US 85 PEL planning process, please provide your contact information: Name: Phone: Address: Email: Q1 What three words would you use to describe US 85 today? Please describe why you chose those words. 1. 2. 3. Comments/Description: Q2. How would you categorize the role of US 85 through your community? (Select the two that you think are most fitting) ❑ Main Street ❑ Regional highway ❑ Critical to our community's circulation ❑ Barrier within the community ❑ Access to businesses/residences ❑ Safety hazard to community 0 Other Q3. What are your top concerns regarding travel on US 85? (Rank the order with 1 being your highest concern and 5 being your lowest concern) Safety Too much traffic Too many traffic signals Speeds are too high Difficult or dangerous to get onto US 85 Other (Continued on back] Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Q4. What immediate and future transportation needs/problems should be addressed through this study? (Check all that apply) ❑ Improve safety by widening the shoulders ❑ Improve safety by realigning skewed or confusing intersections ❑ Improve safety by providing more/longer turn lanes ❑ Improve safety by adjusting travel speeds through towns ❑ Improve access from side streets by adding traffic signals ❑ Improve the travel times by adding more travel lanes ❑ Improve the travel times by creating interchanges (and eliminating traffic signals) ❑ Improve crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians ❑ Provide more travel options by adding bus service ❑ Improve the condition of the road by fixing potholes/reconstruction ❑ Provide better accommodation for large vehicles ❑ Improve the aesthetics by adding landscaping and urban design features ❑ Other Q5. What specific alternatives, options or solutions should to be considered or studied and why? Q6. Please describe where you live/work/travel most frequently on the US 85 corridor? Please provide any other comments. Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Brighton Public Open House Meeting 1 June 17, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM The Armory at Bnghton Cultural Center 300 Strong Street, Brighton, CO ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS 111 Wa ✓u.4tf I 4- 3p3 YS'l(7(/Js Qradc e i 6-3tOcrd _ t — QA)EYL ��C,�G`�-L ref r"- s' (e. 2 v ( 10 C sm,/ nl.iscn S}u (E 0 @)6) 059- -rti platy] I • �-^ (\/\/� \-\w ( S �,\ � _ 3 3 � 3 � ' LOO . 2 /,, �21� s_�.�.�, o.q --c 7_l0 / i7 Rig ,3JtetAIAE •.(itref,Q 44 30 S3 MelinNQ ell- Ply � c•? 14 V Is 72 C e. - 7 363-ec 1- 03)0 brdo goo/ c e nP • L UAL co O U o-3 SCO4K-)6tAgrtneAP/N \ Mi, 2-, OL:ve t-4(- `f-1-�• scoff CJ w e 8) ;Vs e (\CO . C...49C...49.A _ (fir. N . C c) 'iota() Z I ,5 ,�,�, aft,' 1 3 Lsfi 2,q3 L_ c� - II 77/ iJ� 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Brighton Public Open House Meeting 1 June 17, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM The Armory at Brighton Cultural Center 300 Strong Street, Brighton, CO ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS 1 . °ES `Io2- 3r' �3_�`s 6968' hon,1fa2CD50 nil scapQ :cor✓1 Mir ' / w -D .— p�.J 6 3Y0 LJ , Sa 4L erg - f- 303- L.S % -. 24R1 Ad -q fR,a,..r<(4. 711) e t/ \ ;e,,..im r6 o, -74 3 3 3C'Ris CeJSwC 4L 1 2f n<se4 Ch,:S�-)1C P bot —Coij ff. 2,7ci, ca go62l 4 �� f� /� n /J /r/1�i1 Pe' x/0 7 ) e' g 5, 1 17jl , I,u et)re / PjiC.� La -07 e -.55/e< 74D2 7 w.c 3o3- 'WS 7- `''�%6 .C _23x._ FT2 Toti,Co.Aa6?.I S 6 /111(4°1- tf.ttnberr 36�j vi-" r . %1O 'I3 / -� Mcfk Jut.I toio(fr%4� ( v-.. alhwaloCei-ek.0-tre,w.10,. br:**0n 6, 7 Al ttn i S . }vim l(%c� 1>✓ P ?20 .G. cu rt�-kcfve{ filu.�-}r, Sim t ► l 0.0 T Pilot I US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Brighton Public Open House Meeting 1 June 17, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM The Armory at Brighton Cultural Center 300 Strong Street, Brighton, CO ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS 17-4-Fy G l I6F ` V'a 60/6/-Wg oa5 ill v2-30, !� /c.4 - ) l 4 c° a ixt / e, e 4v - Ypr r ! n 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Ault -Pierce Public Open House Meeting 1 June 18, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2n° Street, Pierce, CO ADDRESS, CITY. ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS co/ 4 Ic?-4..,„,1,_,6,k___> —PO.Box 23 ' 970)1351 -adz 5u,e lc' orP er67.4. co► . -recce CD DS0(oc O 4zcrveL iiwite 424-Czc es SfUle/G i 70 en o7fd'1 .54;7754, K'e 2 - l: icitc&A4-- O/ce (-- (°r> -,6, 12. 3 _ . 4AAIM (1- qil\t1l * `AbA WIN, O %%Sa I CJ Pa13 0 x 9,4 -83v-o It?70 P.4) r cam- 1 CD (3"C 5d 5 de 2 n _ c �i kv e c.�er eo isoy. (UGC ��-�6,(t�.►F�S�9n. cam 12-n-6-7 _ .Atu , 60 6 ccCJi 7 7 Rie ` gvci. 5)7q v( / (,-1 i'lav 7t1 ,-pve e co arc. ca 1:46,,,,Air: ,,,i,F .. 7,61 I 1 InD rixs- I'a,c I US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Ault -Pierce Public Open House Meeting 1 June 18, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2n° Street, Pierce, CO ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS sf/arOid � SfGC(Y CO 4 &S _ --)F07 q�531/30 Alto t /6:7_5 Co 2-4 cr C i<r- 'e- ,b `D ,0 a lc ci- c;c(- ignf gn.34-46)-- 12.-% o t n 3 'R; thee. 00 ft-aka--tAA Nev( rite_ Co v qiv-al8— C O&85 _ kltickli\-, e r Sk:ZOLDN-t1/4-C, ,2 ' 54 41° 27/ 6a 3 • , r O 1 129'6 6 (4c -K_ 176L-It°5-39c4 �n e k E .\ , Go col , S 14 �i�✓✓ -'r v4Otrr Jc eke( iLt LJ 3 Sr - g i Y -L 13, GOV r / 0) 8061 o `1 ,5 k- -51acl c_ yqy eto C 4'33 _c 70 3Lf Js;; _ YOe rcc Co 55067 50 ,6 k.\IN N, St --Q," (qT0 ` LI A k) C k 0 LD to I,.,,_e. US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Ault -Pierce Public Open House Meeting 1 June 18, 2014 4:00 PM — 7:00 PM Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2"° Street, Pierce, CO ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation � %7C1 / 5 7� raN �6/ 155%5 GC ?23r q 70 - 5fo -2301 Al Lc aZ GO 80 !o LF k 18 te- a, /17 --Ate ...5' 9701..E -035 c*/ Letut S;/- - 120 4 6, 34“ -e - f- Heit3 CL --49 7 to) 1356„,25/97 la n*-e_(wRreelage2- oisges ,c cid - z - i - if 21 Ozet-Il Zed37 Scwvwi,et f3 9x.-Z3Z -6437 1 S a, taste_ 22 v & )\.) 24Q S f/erccCf) 970 -o34-o3o4 , 23 v zqo fir, d(( I ^' Q K� 1 R' V JJ 5 e��-.. _ SjA2q r)r\for c P _4906.50 24 -7\a\iit) a& A VY1* 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Ault -Pierce Public Open House Meeting 1 June 18, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Ault -Pierce Fire Station #2 601 2�' Street, Pierce, CO ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS + Li 25 L AAA / So&o C R 94 qi0-OY-2-(4Uv scorn) AAt.--1f- AMLco l,, Je 1`.' Plat vcA_ l l�i go‘ro % / 26 SL.a row Scie (// ey a ?So �& le 303 -d ga - LQ9-3 6RSche/(ere'nrspi , cot' -7 L01n4 ►s'.tok lL , (e) , into q 271,[/ zi%/ / my e a__ gle,15- e &a 07' M 28 29 i 30 31 i 32 Page 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Greeley Public Open House Meeting 1 June 24, 2014 4:00 PM — 7:00 PM Greeley Ice Haus 900 8"' Avenue, Greeley, CO ADDRESS, CITY. ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS .—r 7) e 7O-h/I yam. ;re Woe fre - Cr Lite 3 I37S7 � I J5 o X 1 'r`-i 6 1 37'' 3`1I id4Lr_ A/ 0 KNoL 374, _-/ i1tg,L 770 7j' -A Ltd 12ang J C. jil , it/ 4aarcfc, 4%0 e Li& `!9o-o7Y Le? 79 4,6,�!-� ;�u a 5 r 6 64}5gifea ,/, 4 irkayi bazeug.,„ co 7/ 9 / 17/g P.-14, y9cr-irt- 7 6 A'. &:ndlir frail! US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Greeley Public Open House Meeting 1 June 24, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Greeley Ice Haus 900 Ss' Avenue, Greeley, CO ADDRESS, CITY. ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS 9 2-42-5 3 f, st-le2c2. t f t o .- 3 s-1 Loot fl&DL-L42- ' ar-iu fi E_ w`° -t -Q . Lecht _g_ 0 j ev IYLa.-vi`c_ £Q o e a-#- 0 ve-e Q U l0 3 q 10 5-16.4) �``l.b Ti Qs -n- /�C I�... (/ 0(l�T,"� - 5C A4 yy ('V cosLaW'co. us. / / ,,� aut Gv ,Co o&,3 c- too( i 770-0--9317 c a 11 ate- 12 Klaaedea.c, &c1g-m oti-4 /4 34d w � �io2 9w 3s -a kf 1 ku ur y (z gD(oti 1,2oo A5' i j"t.ttdtt 470 - 5s-OVll,I Q1�t tJp,.(s �Gakc �4jGJ� 0.4.,` 1 13 ' /AY1,' ��+�> Co SOftv3% 1 14 �� NA NIL � 14 (2' s 53r"e 4%) �o -- 3e,f 7 S �sLA� g r0eie cAK L,(-.Q� '-`7 Cy tec(03 5 � U � 4c.� 2�3S7 ccJc# - 37 no - irk? �/ � K/►- dill Pitilki ` .� 4 S0. ��[ 1610-S SML9oec 004't kr ... 5142-1c6'_ nieer�4* gegi 77e ..3s -A l eime4 ---44 �"7 �f h /� � .�,.ty it, _SW US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Greeley Public Open House Meeting 1 June 24, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Greeley Ice Haus 900 8"' Avenue, Greeley, CO ADDRESS, CITY. ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS \ In io C` - 3S-- I n & SLidriLA .cj t11-8Ct oc.a as Q `� k°rt�� as-- �v6 S [ LiWctuiaSiedlieS /lap r1tfi.�trsZ. v ,8 _rte _ f` recA' 1 23640,5 13-ke k)ord≤1ro I (rrhq Co X063/ 20 pc Set -A 6 2-‘ 59 0- 3/ 6 9 �� caw/a I'40;-u-eC o goe so 21 9 / )47(>/ /iZu-,6t. f Gci PD 6 it 22 3 f 3 1;TA 1-va 4'74 346 -%'W &lc&fl �.�✓Q L ✓oeyls w bQ 6 Lo U1/4);I 23 rick Lri S 3S -77i t wry 37 17o H sa-i -r 53 CO Act{ Gin l sr M A Co •3 24 +�� US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study NAME AFFILIATION Greeley Public Open House Meeting 1 June 24, 2014 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Greeley Ice Haus 900 8`" Avenue, Greeley, CO ADDRESS, CITY. ZIP CODE PHONE: COLORADO Department of Transportation E-MAIL ADDRESS „Do/ -t( ,1-‹ � (7oLt&&m 1� �ilf')WD 2 i 42 av-e V70 -3o2 C.Q Z ( I CQ ( r""ti c(a25S' < < n4^ /(^7� l= r<ia Co ?o3) . 26 S€ 4 S -`tea 4(1 G ifi rCC ie I °3t.jf e Cite in CPO to 13- 3 (a Vg 9CAKCi et e `f ekilslicl C CIA* I (-410t .C141 it Uk27( CQ7`- io/-og84 Ott0ni rt55EG7" 1657o 27 terie A), Go g4D6 i 51 28 29 30 31 32 Paw -I I I I I Pt 1 verage Daily fly Truck Volumes Purpose and Need Summary ! the Proposed Action M transpatatwn+ndrrovamnx s tdong us US AS riot a a CMy. reduce essrg and fubie talk aong0ett tYn.sfa ar78ss for exatl ig and future de#fltccsnent. and Imprvie to mobility arid ccnaearinty Irct noosed Action - ve nentss we newlectto adhr_ys � ': Shen sue' r!d mitts of awes at en, btu us RS corns: lrrr wet* tit wows acme as along `rta M cry traffic congesegon. tnedbas • modals ;Dens naiads. 2nd unneatti w line peeled to nein is the haunt a the locators end dewy of uu4Mc to ln& opst4unS and safety This S simerbatod try We AroaoA Of the . - Socadons. At7kh turtle cs ttsa% -- , espeosty :or taiga corm -oat CMtesttutfute 4 elleme the Oar( bcnrDe t along and scrods US 35 Co flat . • M futility nevi. of populism; and travel Trani dependant muluhs eking re or no amens to Witt transporlS for essentet ,rat avoyrtt+Mtts ilip- 'it z', Planning and Environn x II 4. 1 erc. ft I,- 4 OOPS Regional Bicycle and Trait ii I _ I I Purpose and roeas.e tow- I II Purposr of Us. P t atety Problem Inert st eral ;nieI've:t rs and " Mobility Problem corndtr ,i 5vttstlr intersects tr... tangy Mae tr• region gttrws Access Problsr- rIllimomw I wC;K t wept a DAW.Nt Kt k c .1 ,,.:tt I ti1M1t\ IN 1ttIlh A Sat - .' I Existing and Proposed Transit Service I I Fi Hello