The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20171961.tiffPlanning and Environmental Linkage Study subrYiitte to: US 85 in ACCESS FM; r CONTROL -lc PLAN in.* 1-76 TO WCR 80 submitted by: in association with: Pinyon Environmental, Inc. All Traffic Data Services US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation Prepared by: Felsburg Holt Et Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 April 2017 FHU Reference No. 112196-04 This page intentionally left blank. US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Agency Support COLORADO Department of Transportation The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying funding for and implementation of the improvements. ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process to facilitate improvements to this area. ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all interested parties. (Signature pages for all participating public agencies can be found in Chapter 8.0) Page i US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table of Contents COLORADO Department of Transportation Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.1 Study Location and Description 1-1 1.2 Planning Context and Other Transportation Projects in the Vicinity 1-3 1.3 Purpose 1-10 1.4 Need 1-11 2.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 2-1 2.1 Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process 2-1 2.2 No Action Alternative 2-4 2.3 Level 1 Development and Evaluation - Fatal Flaw/Purpose and Need 2-5 2.4 Level 2 Refinement and Evaluation - Classification and Capacity 2-12 2.5 Level 3 Alternative Refinement - Intersection Evaluation 2-24 2.6 Level 4 Alternative Refinement and Evaluation - Intersection/ Interchange Configuration 2-31 3.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES CONCEPT 3-1 3.1 Section 1-1-76 to WCR 22 3-1 3.2 Section 2—WCR 22 to WCR 48 3-13 3.3 Section 3—WCR 48 to SH 392 3-21 3.4 Section 4—SH 392 to WCR 100 3-37 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 4-1 4.1 Parks and Recreation Resources 4-1 4.2 Historic Resources 4-3 4.3 Section 4(f) 4-8 4.4 Section 6(f) 4-8 4.5 Traffic Noise 4-9 4.6 Floodways and 100 -year Floodplains 4-12 4.7 Wetlands and Waters of the US/Surface Water Resources 4-14 4.8 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species 4-18 4.9 Hazardous Materials 4-22 4.10 Other Resources 4-25 5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5-1 5.1 Agency Coordination 5-1 5.2 Public Participation 5-7 Page ii US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 6.0 NEXT STEPS 6-1 6.1 Update to the US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) 6-1 6.2 General NEPA Requirements 6-15 6.3 Preservation/Acquisition of Property for Right -of -Way 6-16 6.4 RoadX 6-16 6.5 Scoping, Preliminary, and Final Engineering Design 6-17 6.6 Construction 6-18 6.7 Prioritization 6-18 7.0 REFERENCES 7-1 8.0 SIGNATURE PAGES 8-1 Appendices Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Corridor Conditions Report (CD Only) FHWA Colorado Division Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire Alternative Development and Evaluation Matrices Traffic Safety Report Location Recommendations and Alternative Concepts Agency Coordination Public Involvement Page iii US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.11 Figure 3.12 Figure 3.13 Figure 3.14 Figure 3.15 Figure 3.16 Figure 3.17 Figure 3.18 Figure 3.19 COLORADO Department of Transportation Study Corridor and Vicinity Map 1-2 Access Control Plan Recommendations 1-6 Corridor Crash Overview 1-12 High Crash Locations 1-14 Existing and 2035 Projected Traffic Operations 1-16 Existing Speeds, Speed Limits, and Future Speeds 1-17 Intersection Proximity from the Railroad 1-19 US 85 Sections 2-2 Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process 2-3 Operational Classification 2-13 Level 2A Development and Evaluation Determination 2-14 Reliability Measures Along US 85 2-15 Sample SPF Curves for 6 -Lane Urban Freeway 2-17 Level 2B Evaluation Results 2-23 Level 3 Alternative Refinement Results 2-25 Diamond Interchange Transit Accommodation 3-3 Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Transit Accommodation 3-4 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements 3-5 Section 1 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements 3-11 Example Channelized-T Intersection 3-14 Section 2 Conceptual Improvements 3-15 Section 2 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements 3-19 Example Texas Turnaround Interchange 3-22 Section 3 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations 3-23 Section 3 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements 3-27 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Setting 3-29 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Deficiencies 3-30 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 1 3-32 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 2 3-33 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 3 3-34 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 4 3-35 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 5 3-36 Section 4 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations 3-39 Section 4 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements 3-43 Page iv US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study List of Tables COLORADO Department of Transportation Table 1.1 Demographic Data 1-21 Table 2.1 Projects Included in the No Action Alternative 2-4 Table 2.2 Level 1 Development and Evaluation Results 2-7 Table 2.3 Level 2A Evaluation Matrix Results 2-19 Table 2.4 Level 3 Evaluation Recommendations 2-28 Table 2.5 Level 4 Evaluation Recommendations 2-35 Table 4.1 Parks and Recreation Resources Direct/Indirect Impacts 4-2 Table 4.2 Historic Resources Impacts 4-4 Table 4.3 Noise Direct/Indirect Impacts 4-9 Table 4.4 Floodways and 100 -year Floodplain Direct/Indirect Impacts 4-13 Table 4.5 Wetlands/Waters of the US Direct/Indirect Impacts 4-15 Table 4.6 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species Direct/Indirect Impacts 4-19 Table 4.7 Hazardous Materials Direct/Indirect Impacts 4-23 Table 5.1 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings 5-2 Table 5.2 Executive Committee Meetings 5-3 Table 5.3 Resource Agency Correspondence Record 5-5 Table 6.1 PEL Recommendations Compared to Access Control Plan Improvements 6-2 Table 6.2 Mobility Prioritization Analysis Results 6-20 Table 6.3 Safety Prioritization Analysis Results 6-21 Table 6.4 Railroad Proximity Prioritization Analysis Results 6-21 Table 6.5 Combined Factors Prioritization Results 6-22 Table 6.6 US 85 Recommended Prioritization 6-23 Page v US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Acronyms and Abbreviations COLORADO Department of Transportation AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACP Access Control Plan APCD Air Pollution Control Division BMP best management practice BTPD black -tailed prairie dog CAP -X Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions CatEx Categorical Exclusion CBD Central Business District CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CM/GC Construction Management/General Contractor CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CR County Road DB Design -Build DBB Design -Bid -Build DDI diverging diamond interchange DIA Denver International Airport DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments EA Environmental Assessment EC Executive Committee EIS Environmental Impact Statement EJ Environmental Justice EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FACWet Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands FASTER Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Page vi US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIR Field Inspection Review FOR Final Office Review FTA Federal Transit Administration GET Greeley -Evans Transit HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HSM Highway Safety Manual 1-76 Interstate 76 IGA Intergovernmental Agreement ITS Information Technology Service LEP limited English proficiency LOMR Letter of Map Revision LOS level of service LOSS Level of Service of Safety LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxic MVRTP 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFRMPO North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places PDO property damage only PEL Planning and Environmental Linkages PTI planning time index RAMP Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnership RIRO Right-in/Right-out ROW right-of-way RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon COLORADO Department of Transportation Page vii US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study RTD Regional Transportation District RTP Regional Transportation Plan SB 40 Senate Bill 40 SH State Highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SPF Safety Performance Function SPUI single point urban interchange SWMP Stormwater Management Plan TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDM Transportation Demand Management TEL Tolled Express Lanes TIP Transportation Improvement Program TIPID Transportation Improvement Plan Identification Number TPR Transportation Planning Region TTI travel time index UFR Upper Front Range UNC University of Northern Colorado UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers US DOT United States Department of Transportation USES USDA Forest Service v/c volume to capacity vpd vehicles per day WCR Weld County Road WQCD Water Quality Control Division WTCC Weld County Trails Coordination Committee WUS waters of the US COLORADO Department of Transportation Page viii US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 3 has conducted a Planning and Environmental 4 Linkages (PEL) study for the segment of United 5 States Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 6 (1-76) and Weld County Road (WCR) 100. The 7 objective of the US 85 PEL study is to develop a 8 strategic vision for US 85 that addresses safety, 9 mobility, and access concerns. 10 The goals of the project are to: 11 ► Identify the transportation needs along 12 US 85 from 1-76 to WCR 100 13 ► Create a vision for development 14 improvements that address the needs 15 ► Determine the short-term and long-term 16 transportation priorities for US 85 17 ► Position the corridor for successful and 18 streamlined implementation of 19 improvements 20 Short-term and long-term improvements have been 21 identified and prioritized through a collaborative 22 process with stakeholders and the public along the 23 corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) 24 (1999) serves as a foundation for the PEL study. 25 ES.1 Study Location and 26 Description 27 The US 85 PEL study area includes approximately 62 28 miles of US 85 between 1-76 in Commerce City and WCR 100 in the Town of Nunn, Colorado. US 85 is a 29 north -south expressway under the jurisdiction of CDOT. This stretch of US 85 passes through: 30 ► 13 municipalities (Commerce City, Brighton, Fort Lupton, Platteville, Gilcrest, LaSalle, Evans, 31 Greeley, Garden City, Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn); 32 ► 2 counties (Adams County and Weld County); and 33 ► 3 regional planning organizations: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), North 34 Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and Upper Front Range (UFR) 35 Transportation Planning Region (TPR). 36 Figure ES.1 shows the study area and the municipal, county, and regional boundaries. COLORADO Department of Transportation PEL is a study process used to identify transportation issues, priorities, and environmental concerns. A PEL study can lead to a seamless decision -making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost-effective solutions, promotes environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. The purpose of a PEL study is to perform preliminary analysis and to make decisions not completed as a part of traditional regional level planning that will make NEPA-level evaluation and decision -making more transparent to resource agencies and the public. PEL represents an approach to transportation decision -making that considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the planning stage and carries them through project development, design, and construction. This leads to a seamless decision -making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost-effective solutions and environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. More information about the PEL process can be found on the CDOT website at https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/ planning -env -link -program 37 38 39 40 41 Page ES -1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 2 This page intentionally left blank. COLORADO Department of Transportation Page ES -2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure ES.1 Study Corridor and Vicinity Map COLORADO Department of Transportation w Coor La - WCR 100 WCR 90 8s N N A LT UMTPR &wnleg IPRMPO eawnary +� F WCR 74 NC s:ir.lSh rr' + 34 WCR 54 YtLLIKEN T6RNPo eovH GREELEY DRcac 4kPy e..a4II, 104th AVE WCR 6 as) EV S GIL EST P' TTFVILL.E FORT LUPTON { •Y WCR 44' Nest WCR 32 eir " WCR 22 WP TPA■IS:r.Mar] WCR BASELINE RQ BRIGNTQ$ • BROMLEY EN COMMERCE CITY ` Nth AVE 120th AV r R64 giWiffific Denver County DENVER Legend US 85 Roads Railroad ti— Rivers/Streams Lakes DRCOG MPO Boundary NFRMPO Boundary UFR TPR Boundary DRCOG Model Boundary NFRMPO Model Boundary City Boundaries County Boundary Study Area 0 4 Miles Page ES 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. COLORADO Department of Transportation Page ES 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 ES.2 Purpose 2 The purpose of transportation improvements along the US 85 corridor is to improve safety, reduce 3 existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, 4 and improve mobility and connectivity for all transportation modes (cars, trucks, transit, bicycle, and 5 pedestrian) that match the context of the adjacent communities. 6 ES. 3 Need 7 These transportation improvements are needed to address the following problems: 8 ► Safety — Several intersection and mainline locations along the US 85 corridor have a higher 9 than expected number of crashes. 10 ► Mobility — Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections that fail to accommodate users' needs, 11 highway design, and unreliable travel times substantially impact the ability of people to move 12 across and along the corridor. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future as the 13 region grows due to local and regional population and employment growth. 14 ► Railroad Proximity — The close proximity of the UPRR and US 85 can negatively affect the 15 operations of US 85. Passing or standing trains restrict travel to and from the east of US 85 and 16 can cause substantial queuing at some cross streets, sometimes extending into the through 17 lanes of US 85. The facilities are so close at some cross streets that a single large truck cannot 18 queue between US 85 and the UPRR without either overhanging the tracks or encroaching on 19 US 85, resulting in a safety problem. 20 ► Access — The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses have 21 contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. The access 22 problem is exacerbated by the proximity of the highway to the railroad tracks throughout most 23 of the corridor, which further contributes to operational and safety deficiencies, especially for 24 large commercial vehicles. 25 ► Alternative Modes — The traveling public has limited or no access to public transportation for 26 essential human services, commuting, recreational, and other travel needs along the corridor. 27 Current infrastructure does not safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians traveling 28 parallel or across US 85. Corridor demand for transit, biking, and walking trips is expected to 29 increase in the future. 30 Page ES -5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 ES.4 Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 2 Process 3 A multi -level, iterative process was used to develop, refine, and evaluate alternatives for the US 85 4 corridor. The development, refinement, and evaluation process focused on identifying alternatives that 5 both meet the Purpose and Need for the corridor and match the context of the corridor. 6 Broad, overarching alternative development occurred at the initial level of the process. These 7 alternatives set the stage for subsequent levels where alternative refinement and evaluation occurred 8 with increasing amount of detail. At each level, the alternatives were refined to match the overall goal 9 of each level and then removed alternatives appropriately. This approach provided an efficient way to 10 evaluate contextually appropriate alternatives throughout the corridor. Because the context of the 11 corridor varies extensively (urban in the south to very rural in the north), not all alternative types were 12 suitable throughout the corridor. The corridor was split into sections based on geography and 13 operational classifications. The Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process was 14 developed as a systematic way to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives at each location. 15 The iterative Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process defined an overarching 16 direction for corridor sections as a whole and then added detail and focus for specific locations. For 17 example, the overarching alternative types were removed (functional classification, general purpose 18 lanes, managed lanes, alignment, etc.) based on comparison against the Purpose and Need. Those that 19 did not address the Purpose and Need were eliminated, while those that did were carried forward. The 20 next level determined the context and capacity of each corridor section. The final two levels focused 21 on refining and evaluating specific alternatives at intersection locations throughout the corridor. 22 Figure ES.2 presents the Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process: 23 ► Level 1 Development and Evaluation — Developed overarching alternatives and eliminated 24 alternatives with fatal flaws or that did not meet the Purpose and Need categories (Safety, 25 Mobility, Railroad Proximity, Access, and Alternative Modes). 26 ► Level 2 Refinement and Evaluation — Included two sublevels that identified all potential 27 operational classifications and capacity for each corridor section and then removed 28 alternatives to identify the appropriate operational classification and capacity for each corridor 29 section. Alternatives were evaluated to show how they met the needs (Safety, Mobility, and, 30 Access) and to identify impacts to the natural environment and the surrounding community. 31 ► Level 3 Refinement — Identified all potential intersection improvement types (closure, 32 intersection improvement, or interchange) for each location and then removed those to match 33 the context of each section of US 85. Level 3 heavily used Level 2 results to define each 34 section's context. 35 ► Level 4 Development and Evaluation — Developed specific improvement configurations and 36 layouts to determine their ability to meet Purpose and Need (Safety, Mobility, Railroad 37 Proximity, Access, and Alternative Modes). Level 4 also considered impacts to the natural 38 environment and to the adjacent community. Alternatives were identified as Recommended, 39 Feasible -Not Recommended, or Eliminated. Page ES -6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure ES.2 Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 2 Process EVALUATION CRITERIA Purpose & Need EVALUATION CRITERIA Safety Access Mobility Alternative Modes Railroad Proximity Environmental Economic Social Alternatives in each screening level to be; • Eliminated • Feasible • Recommended 3 i i SCREENING LEVELS Fatal Flaw Screening Level 1 -r ;fin ;Ow Irtlldl'i;l, psi tl;" V1!,:r r''tit'Iik in! Screening Intersection Screening Level 3 Intersec ion and Interchange Configuration Screening I ' Conceptual Layout & Recommended Plan PRIORITIES i ALTERNATIVES • Full Range of Ideas • Operational Classification • Managed Lanes • General Purpose Lanes • Alignment • Intersection Modifications & Improvements • Interchange Configurations • Intersection Configurations 4 Level 4 Development and Evaluation results for each intersection location represent the results of the 5 US 85 PEL recommendations. The Recommended Alternatives (some locations have more than one 6 recommended alternative) are to be advanced to the next stage of project development (see 7 Section 6.0). Appendix C contains a one -page summary document for each Recommended Alternative 8 with information pertinent to the next stages of project development. 9 Locations were prioritized throughout the corridor based on the current and future need categories 10 (Mobility, Safety, and Railroad Proximity). Section 6.7 describes the prioritization process and results. 11 Page ES -7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 ES.5 Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 2 Results 3 The Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process resulted in a recommendation or 4 multiple recommendations for each of the 93 intersections in the 62 -mile corridor. In every instance, 5 the No Action Alternative was carried forward for consideration in subsequent NEPA evaluations. Every 6 option for each intersection was given one of the following designations: 7 ► Recommended — This alternative would sufficiently meet the corridor's Purpose and Need and 8 provide the needed improvement to the local transportation system to meet future demands. 9 This alternative is recommended for further consideration and evaluation in subsequent NEPA 10 steps 11 ► Feasible, Not Recommended — This alternative would meet the Purpose and Need to a certain 12 degree, but other factors, such as community impacts or environmental impacts, were too 13 much to recommend this alternative for further consideration. However, during subsequent 14 NEPA evaluations, situations could change, and as a result, this alternative could become more 15 advantageous and, thus, be revisited. 16 ► Eliminated — This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need or provide adequate 17 improvements to Access, Mobility, Safety, or Railroad Proximity to justify the improvement. 18 In some cases, more than one alternative may be recommended for a given intersection because 19 differentiation between alternatives may not be great enough to make one recommendation over 20 another. In these cases, it is proposed that multiple alternatives be advanced and evaluated in NEPA to 21 determine which alternative would be the most reasonable for the location and context at that time. 22 Table ES.1 provides the results of the Alternative Development, Refinement and Evaluation Process. 23 Appendix C provides detailed information for each alternative that met or did not meet each criterion 24 discussed in the section. Section 3.0 presents a depiction of the Recommended Alternatives 25 throughout the corridor. Appendix E presents the location recommendations and alternative concepts 26 for each of the Recommended Alternatives. These summary sheets are intended to serve as guide and 27 summary for local agencies to advance the identified improvements. 28 Section 4.0 presents information on the natural and cultural resources present in the US 85 PEL 29 Corridor. Section 4.0 discusses the impacts from the implementation of the Recommended Alternatives 30 and presents next steps and mitigation recommendations. 31 The PEL study included a detailed local agency stakeholder, resource agency, and public outreach 32 process. These groups were presented with information regarding the PEL study at key milestones. 33 Information and feedback from these groups helped shape the study and the alternative development 34 and evaluation process. Section 5.0 presents the details of this coordination process. 35 Section 6.0 outlines the next steps in the project development process needed to advance the 36 Recommended Alternatives for each location throughout the corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan 37 (ACP) that governs the amount and types of accesses on US 85 from 1-76 to Weld County Road 80 will be 38 required to be updated to incorporate the Recommended Alternatives from this PEL. The US 85 ACP 39 will continue to serve as the legally -binding, governing document for the US 85 Corridor. Table ES.1 40 identifies the recommended improvements that will require an amendment to the US 85 ACP. 41 Amendments to the US 85 ACP will take place only when funding is available for the identified 42 improvement. 43 It should be noted that there are many cases where a road closure is recommended, but the actual 44 closure should not occur until an adjacent improvement is implemented. This commonly occurs when a 45 new interchange is identified and a nearby road is recommended for access closure because of the 46 proximity to the interchange. In these cases, the road access closure would not occur until the Page ES -8 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 interchange is implemented. Other occurrences include those closures that are incorporated between 2 the parallel roadways between WCR 18 and WCR 28. These access closures would not occur until the 3 parallel road systems are implemented. This document identifies the parallel road system as a common 4 vision for the system, but the precise location can change, as development occurs. Additionally, each 5 location throughout the corridor was prioritized based on the need categories in the Purpose and Need, 6 as presented in Section 6.0. 7 Table ES.1 Level 4 Evaluation Recommendations Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Commerce City 104th Avenue Split Diamond (with 1-76) Recommended $80,500,000 No SPUI with Flyover Recommended $38,200,000 No DDI Recommended $48,700,000 No Partial Cloverleaf Recommended $61,800,000 No Longs Peak Drive Closed Recommended $200,000 No 112th Avenue SPUI Recommended $45,900,000 No Skewed SPUI Recommended $47,700,000 No 120th Avenue Tight Diamond Recommended $44,000,000 No DDI Recommended $49,700,000 No Brighton 124th Avenue Closure Recommended (Closure will not happen until access to the interchange at 120th Avenue is provided) $200,000 No E-470 No Action N/A N/A N/A 132nd Avenue Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with new interchange at 136th Avenue) $200,000 No 136th Avenue SPUI Recommended $39,100,000 No 144th Avenue Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at Bromley Lane) $300,000 Yes Bromley Lane SPUI Recommended $27,400,000 No Bridge Street / SH 7 Bus Slip Ramps to Station Recommended $600,000 No Page ES -9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Brighton Denver Street Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2) $100,000 No 168th Avenue! WCR 2 SPUI Recommended $31,000,000 No WCR 2.5 Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2) $100,000 No Weld County WCR 4 Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2 and WCR 6) $100,000 No Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Recommended $24,700,000 No WCR 6.25 Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 6) $100,000 No WCR 8 Hook Ramps Recommended $24,700,000 No WCR 10 No Action, No Access Recommended N/A No SH 52 Pedestrian Improvement Recommended $200,000 No WCR 14.5/ 14th Street Junior Interchange Recommended $31,400,000 (includes WCR 16) No WCR 16 RI/R0 Recommended (Completed in coordination with improvements at WCR 14.5. Outcome at WCR 16 could be different depending on action taken at WCR 14.5/14t Street.) $31,400,000 (includes WCR 14.5/14th Street) Yes WCR 18 SPUI Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $27,500,000 Yes Page ES -1O US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Fort Lupton WCR 18.5 Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 18. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $200,000 Yes WCR 20 RI/RO Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $800,000 Yes Weld County WCR 22 Diamond Recommended $32,000,000 Yes WCR 22.5 Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 22. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $100,000 Yes WCR 24.5 RI/RO (West); Closure (East) Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $400,000 Yes WCR 26 RI/RO Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $800,000 Yes WCR 28 SPUI Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) $37,900,000 Yes Platteville WCR 30 Closed Recommended (Requires new parallel connection to WCR 32) $3,000,000 No SH 66 Channelized-T with SB Grade Separation Recommended (SB grade separation: consider groundwater and shifting alignment to the east) $16,500,000 Yes Page ES -11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Platteville Marion Avenue Partial Closure Recommended (% movement) $200,000 Yes WCR 32, Grand Avenue Signalization Recommended (Frontage road relocation to eliminate phasing. Improvements work in conjunction with parallel road to WCR 30 in Platteville.) $400,000 No WCR 34 Diamond Recommended $38,700,000 Yes WCR 36 Closed Recommended (With connections to next intersections north and south. Closure will happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 34 and SH 60) $100,000 Yes SH 60 Diamond Recommended (interim storage lengths) $38,500,000 Yes WCR 38 Closed Recommended (When signal improved connection to WCR 40 and WCR 60. Closure happens in conjunction with improvements at SH 60) $100,000 Yes WCR 29/38.5 Closed Recommended (When signal improved connection to WCR 40 and WCR 60) $200,000 Yes Gilcrest WCR 40 Traffic Signal Recommended (Realign west frontage road at the intersection) $1,200,000 Yes Elm Street % Access Recommended (East side closure only when signal at WCR 40) $300,000 Yes Main Street Channelized-T Recommended (Must cul- de -sac western frontage roads) $800,000 Yes WCR 31/Ash Street No Action Recommended (Maintain current 3/4) N/A No WCR 42 Add EB Right Turn Lane Recommended (Create EB turn lanes: consider signal phasing during pre-emption) $600,000 No Page ES -12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation s._._.. Improvement Type - Recommendation .. ,.. - ,_ Cost ACP Amendment Required? Community Location Weld County WCR 33 Closed Recommended (Improvements work in conjunction with WCR 44 improvements, including interim improvements) $4,200,000 (includes Interim Improvements at WCR 44) No WCR 44 Interchange Recommended (Improvements work in conjunction with WCR 33 improvements. Includes interim improvements of a signal) $30,600,000 (Interim Improvements = $4,200,000) Yes WCR 46/WCR 35 Channelized-T with Closure on the East Side Recommended $1,400,000 No WCR 48/ WCR 37 Channelized-T with East Side Closure Recommended $600,000 Yes La Salle 1st Avenue Traffic Signal Recommended (Turn lane extensions, to address railroad operations) $300,000 No 2nd Avenue RI/R0 Recommended $300,000 Yes 3rd Avenue No Action Recommended N/A No 4th Avenue RI/R0 Recommended $300,000 Yes 5th Avenue No Action Recommended N/A No 1st Street %Access Recommended (Median channelization for left turn lane) $200,000 Yes SH 394 Couplet Intersection Recommended $5,400,000 No Evans 42nd Street Auxiliary Lane Additions Recommended (Can get close to v/c goal without big infrastructure improvements; must include realignment of frontage roads) $900,000 No 37th Street Auxiliary Lane Additions Recommended (Can get close to v/c goal without big infrastructure improvements; must include realignment of frontage roads) $1,000,000 No Page ES -13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Evans 31st Street Auxiliary Lane Additions Recommended (Can get close to v/c goal without big infrastructure improvements: must include realignment of frontage roads) $1,800,000 No US 34 Interchange TBD I Feasible N/A N/A Greeley 22nd Street Texas Turnaround Recommended (Requires parallel road connection to allow business access on the east side of the railroad. Context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) $19,600,000 Yes 18th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended (Context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) $16,900,000 Yes 16th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended (Context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) $14,600,000 Yes 13th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended (Context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) $16,500,000 Yes 8th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended (Fits context of surrounding land uses and parcels than split diamond) $23,500,000 Yes Page ES -14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Greeley 5th Street Texas Turnaround Recommended (Fits context of surrounding land uses and parcels than split diamond) $17,700,000 Yes O Street C/osure and Combine with Signal at WCR 66 Recommended (Constructed in conjunction with a traffic signal at WCR 66. Has some out of direction travel but fits context of surrounding land use) $10,900,000 (includes WCR 66) Yes WCR 66 Traffic Signal Recommended (Constructed in conjunction with closures at O Street. Lane additions to be studied) $10,900,000 (includes WCR 66) No Lucerne SH 392 Auxiliary Lane Improvements Recommended $1,400,000 No WCR 70 No Action Recommended N/A No Eaton WCR 72 Closure (on East Side Only Recommended (Closure at WCR 72 in conjunction with new improvements in Eaton and full access maintained at WCR 70. East side only: enhance CR 39) $100,000 Yes Colorado Pkwy % Movement Recommended $800,000 No Orchard Street RI/R0 Recommended N/A No Collins Street No Action Recommended N/A No 1 S: Street No Action Recommended N/A No 2"» Street No Action Recommended N/A Yes 3rd St No Action Recommended N/A Yes 4th Street No Action Recommended N/A No 5th Street Traffic Signal Recommended (HAWK) $600,000 No 7th Street No Action Recommended N/A Yes WCR 76 Signal Recommended $400,000 No Page ES -15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Cost ACP Amendment Required? Eaton WCR 37 Close on East Side and Parallel South to CR 76 Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with signal at WCR 76) $100,000 No WCR 78 No Action Recommended N/A No WCR 80 No Action Recommended N/A Yes Ault SH 14 No Action Recommended N/A N/A 2nd Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A 3rd Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 84 No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 86 No Action Recommended N/A N/A Pierce WCR 88 No Action Recommended N/A N/A Main Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 90 Traffic Signal Recommended (HAWK interim) $500,000 N/A WCR 92 No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 94 No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 96 No Action Recommended N/A N/A Nunn WCR 98 No Action Recommended N/A N/A 4th Street No Action Recommended N/A N/A WCR 100 Signal with Closure Recommended (Closure east side only) $400,000 N/A 1 Notes: CR = County Road DDI = Diverging Diamond Interchange EB = eastbound 1-76 = Interstate 76 RI/RO = right-in/right-out RR = railroad 2 SB = southbound SH = State Highway SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange TBD = to be determined v/c = volume to capacity ratio WCR = Weld County Road Page ES -16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 2 The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has 3 conducted a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) 4 study for the segment of United States Highway 85 5 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County 6 Road (WCR) 100. The objective of the US 85 PEL study 7 is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 that addresses 8 safety, mobility, and access concerns. 9 The goals of the project are to: 10 ► Identify the transportation needs along US 85 11 from 1-76 to WCR 100 12 ► Create a vision for development improvements 13 that address the needs 14 ► Determine the short-term and long-term 15 transportation priorities for US 85 16 ► Position the corridor for successful and 17 streamlined implementation of improvements 18 Short-term and long-term improvements have been 19 identified and prioritized through a collaborative 20 process with stakeholders and the public along the 21 corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) (1999) 22 serves as a foundation for the PEL study. 23 As part of the US 85 PEL study, CDOT prepared a 24 Corridor Conditions Report, which documents current 25 and anticipated future corridor conditions in regard to 26 land use, the transportation system, and environmental 27 resources. Information from the Corridor Conditions 28 Report was used as a foundation for determining the 29 transportation needs and potential improvements in 30 the corridor. The Corridor Conditions Report is hereby 31 incorporated by reference (CDOT 2015) into this PEL 32 document; however, the Corridor Conditions Report is 33 available electronically as Appendix A to this document. In compliance with the Federal Highway 34 Administration (FHWA) guidance, Appendix B contains the FHWA Colorado Division 35 Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire prepared for this PEL study. Appendix C presents the 36 detailed summary of Alternatives Development and Evaluation, which is summarized in Section 3.0. 37 1.1 Study Location and Description PEL is a study process used to identify transportation issues, priorities, and environmental concerns. A PEL study can lead to a seamless decision -making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost-effective solutions, promotes environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. The purpose of a PEL study is to perform preliminary analysis and to make decisions not completed as a part of traditional regional level planning that will make NEPA-level evaluation and decision - making more transparent to resource agencies and the public. PEL represents an approach to transportation decision -making that considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the planning stage and carries them through project development, design, and construction. This leads to a seamless decision -making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost-effective solutions and environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. More information about the PEL process can be found on the CDOT website at https://www.codot.gov/programs/environment al/planning-env-Iink-program 38 The US 85 PEL study area includes approximately 62 miles of US 85 between 1-76 in Commerce City and 39 WCR 100 in the Town of Nunn, Colorado. US 85 is a north -south expressway under the jurisdiction of 40 CDOT. This stretch of US 85 passes through: 41 ► 13 municipalities (Commerce City, Brighton, Fort Lupton, Platteville, Gilcrest, LaSalle, Evans, 42 Greeley, Garden City, Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn); 43 ► 2 counties (Adams County and Weld County); and 44 ► 3 regional planning organizations: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), North 45 Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), and Upper Front Range (UFR) 46 Transportation Planning Region (TPR). 47 Figure 1.1 shows the study area and the municipal, county, and regional boundaries. Page 1-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.1 Study Corridor and Vicinity Map COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 •N —_1 NMNUP0 SOW %d ', 090004PO Sow w WCR 22 WCR 6 104th AVE WCR 74 t CR64 .� ate Actrwi WCR 44 S WCR 32 gnaw. FORT LUPTON urn ff er mr*r eRculluAoa,•..,... WCR EIINE aD t3RIGHTQN Met BROMLEY LN COMMERCE tO f _ CiTY 96th AVE 120th AVE_ penwr County r — DENVER Legend US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes DRCOG MPO Boundary NFRMPO Boundary UFR TPR Boundary DRCOG Model Boundary NFRMPO Model Boundary City Boundaries County Boundary Study Area 0 NORTH 2 4 Miles Page 1-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 1.2 Planning Context and Other Transportation Projects in the 2 Vicinity 3 Regional planning agencies, coalitions, counties, and municipalities have developed several 4 transportation studies and plans that relate to the project corridor in various capacities. The following 5 subsections summarize the plans related to the US 85 corridor. 6 1.2.1 Regional Planning Agencies 7 Colorado Department of Transportation 8 US 85 Access Control Plan (1999) 9 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP), completed by CDOT Region 4 in 1999, includes US 85 from I-70 to 10 WCR 80. This long-range plan addresses how each access along this segment should be treated, the cost 11 for the recommended access modifications, and the relative priority of the improvements. The ACP was 12 adopted through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) among CDOT and the corridor towns, cities, 13 and counties. The ACP serves as a blueprint for improvements along the corridor. All parties in the IGA 14 must agree to any changes to the plan. Figure 1.2 identifies the ACP generalized recommendations. 15 North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (2011) 16 In 2011, CDOT completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 17 to identify and evaluate multimodal transportation improvements along 18 approximately 60 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins - 19 Wellington area to Denver. The North 1-25 FEIS study area included the 20 two major transportation corridors that surround 1-25 (US 287 and 21 US 85). The US 85 corridor that was studied included US 85 from the 22 northern Denver metropolitan area north through Greeley and to Ault. 23 The FEIS addressed regional and inter -regional movement of people, 24 goods, and services along 1-25 and the US 85 corridors. The FEIS 25 identified a Preferred Alternative with the following elements: 26 ► General Purpose Lanes — One new general purpose lane in 27 each direction of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 66 and SH 14. 28 ► Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) — One buffer -separated TEL in each 29 direction of 1-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle 30 (HOV)/Express Toll lanes at approximately 84th Avenue north to 31 SH 14. Wellington to Denver. 32 ► Interchanges — Thirteen upgraded 1-25 interchanges. 33 ► Express Bus — Express bus with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34, and Harmony Road with service 34 from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). Commuter Bus — Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. Commuter Bus Stations were included as part of the Commuter Bus system and are located in Fort Lupton, Platteville, Evans, and two in Greeley. North I-25 FEIS 35 ► Commuter Rail — Commuter rail service with nine stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont 36 using the BNSF Railway right-of-way (ROW), generally paralleling SH 119 then County Road 37 (CR) 7 and tying into FasTracks North Metro line in Thornton, providing service to downtown 38 Denver. Passengers may also connect to the FasTracks Northwest line in Longmont, which will 39 travel to Boulder. 40 ► Commuter Bus — Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to 41 downtown Denver. Commuter bus stations were included as part of the commuter bus system 42 and are located in Fort Lupton, Platteville, Evans, and two in Greeley. Page 1-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 ► Congestion Management - Accommodations for ridesharing, carpools, and vanpools, along 2 with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities and improved signal timing, ramp metering on 3 1-25, and signage. 4 In late 2011, CDOT issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative. The 5 following elements of the Preferred Alternative were included in ROD 1: 6 ► Widening 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 392 7 ► Widening 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 with one TEL in each direction. 8 ► Widening 1-25 between approximately US 36 and 120th Avenue with one buffer -separated TEL in 9 each direction and interchange modifications, as necessary 10 ► Replacement and reconstruction of five interchanges to their ultimate configurations 11 ► Replacement or construction of 46 structures, modification of 2 existing structures, and 12 rehabilitation of (minor) 2 structures 13 ► Installation of six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges 14 ► 1-25 express bus, including transit stations and service 15 ► US 85 commuter bus, including transit stations and service 16 In 2014, CDOT and FHWA completed ROD 2, which addresses the inclusion of a TEL from 120th to SH 7. 17 ROD 3, approved in June 2016, addresses the interchange at 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard. 18 US 85 FASTER Intersection Prioritization Study (2013) 19 In 2011, CDOT identified 10 intersections along US 85 from WCR 18.5 near Fort Lupton to SH 394/ 20 WCR 52 just north of LaSalle as candidates for safety improvements under CDOT's Funding 21 Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 (FASTER). The US 85 22 FASTER Intersection Prioritization Study evaluated each intersection based on safety, access, 23 benefit/cost, and clearance and then assigned a relative prioritization. The study focused on 24 unsignalized intersections along this section of the US 85 corridor. The proposed projects focused on 25 low to moderate cost improvements that could be implemented in the immediate future without 26 significant impacts to environmental resources, properties, or utilities. The following locations were 27 ranked as high priority: 28 ► US 85 and WCR 44 & 33 — Recommendations included the addition of a signal at WCR 44, 29 reconfiguration of WCR 33 access, and improvement of existing auxiliary lanes. Adding the 30 signal, reconfiguring WCR 33 access, and improving the existing auxiliary lanes provide both 31 safety and operational benefits for the highest accident location in the study area. 32 ► US 85 and SH 394 & WCR 52 - Recommendations included the addition of southbound 33 right -turn deceleration and eastbound to northbound left -turn acceleration lanes. Adding the 34 auxiliary lanes and extending the southbound left -turn deceleration lane provide both safety 35 and operational benefits for a location with high truck turning volumes. 36 Intercity Bus 37 The CDOT Division of Transit and Rail has recently updated the Intercity and Regional Bus Network Plan 38 (CDOT 2014), which includes US 85. It identifies the current intercity bus service along US 85 that is 39 served by Greyhound. It also recommends the towns along the US 85 corridor between Greeley and 40 Denver be served with Essential Regional Services. The report defines "Other Essential Regional 41 Services" as primarily operating on a fixed route and fixed schedule for traveling from rural to urban 42 areas, with flexible routing at either end of the route. They are designed to serve areas within 43 200 miles of a regional service center (3.5 hours' drive time), allowing a same day trip with 4 to 44 5 hours to conduct business (CDOT 2014). Page 1-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Denver Regional Council of Governments 2 The 2035 DRCOG long-range regional plan, the 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan 3 (MVRTP), was used to address the challenges and guides the development of Denver's multimodal 4 transportation system over the next 25 years. MVRTP recognizes the importance of US 85 as one of the 5 main thoroughfares between Denver and northeast Colorado. DRCOG has released the 2040 Fiscally 6 Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) since the US 85 PEL was substantially completed. It was 7 determined that the modeling and analyses performed in the US 85 PEL would not be updated to the 8 2040 RTP. However, the following does recognize the improvements from the 2040 RTP. The 2035 9 MVRTP Fiscally Constrained Plan Iists the following projects related to the US 85 corridor: 10 ► 104th Avenue from US 85 to SH 2 — Locally funded capacity project (roadway widening) 11 ► US 85 - 104th Avenue Intersection Operations (Completed Project -2015, Transportation 12 Improvement Plan Identification Number [TIPID] 2003-135) 13 ► US 85 — New Interchange at Bromley Lane (Ongoing Project, TIPID 2005-137) 14 Additionally, the DRCOG 2040 RTP identified the following projects relating to the US 85 Corridor: 15 ► 104th Avenue from Grandview Ponds to SH 2 — Widen from two to four lanes (Listed as three 16 projects in the RTP) 17 ► East Bromley Lane —US 85 to Sable Boulevard — -Widen from four to six lanes 18 ► SH 7 —Riverdale Road to US 85 — Widen from two to four lanes 19 SH T (Lafayette to Brighton) PEL 20 In 2014, CDOT completed a PEL study on SH 7 from US 287 in the City of Lafayette to US 85 in the City 21 of Brighton to establish existing conditions, to identify future transportation challenges (using the year 22 2035 as a planning horizon), and to create a vision that will serve as a blueprint for future multimodal 23 transportation improvements in this approximately 16 -mile corridor. This study developed a 24 Recommended Alternative for multimodal transportation improvements along the entire length of the 25 corridor and presented an approach to the prioritization and funding of those improvements. For the 26 segment of SH 7 from Holly Street to US 85, much of the development is expected to be low density 27 residential in nature (single family homes). Consequently, the communities preferred to retain a rural 28 character in this section of the corridor. Therefore, the recommended cross-section included two 12 -ft 29 travel lanes in each direction, a painted median, 12 -ft shoulders/bike lanes, roadside ditches for 30 drainage, and 10 -ft shared use paths. The median was not carried across the bridge over the South 31 Platte River. On the easternmost portion, from Miller Avenue to US 85, the cross-section narrowed to 32 an urban section without shoulders to reflect the restricted ROW in this area. 33 SH 7 (Boulder to Brighton) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Feasibility Study 34 Boulder County initiated a feasibility study to evaluate BRT along SH 7 in April 2016. The feasibility 35 study will evaluate BRT capital improvement and operational options, as well as BRT build -out 36 scenarios including travelway features, service plans, stations, associated land use, and total capital 37 and operation conceptual cost. The feasibility study is expected to be completed in 2017 and will 38 provide a phased blueprint for implementation of the recommended BRT scenario(s), including a 39 prioritized list of projects. 40 Northeast Area Transit Evaluation (NATE) 41 RTD conducted NATE in 2007 to investigate ROW preservation opportunities for future, post-FasTracks, 42 fixed guideway bus and/or rail transit between Denver and Brighton. The study area was generally 43 located between US 85 and 1-76, north and east of Commerce City to the Weld County line. Based on 44 the conceptual -level comparative analysis, the most favorable alignment was commuter rail operation 45 along the Union Pacific - Greeley line between the North Metro Corridor (serving Denver Union Station) 46 and downtown Brighton. Potential station locations were identified in the area between 64th Avenue 47 and 72nd Avenue (connection to the North Metro Corridor), 1201h Avenue/US 85, and Downtown Brighton 48 near the Old Depot station area. Page 1-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.2 Access Control Plan Recommendations COLORADO Department of Transportation Coto Ude Applicant and Sponsor Town rt Planevltn Request: Existing March SI fo.., • • planned foe cloavc ' • as right-sn'rght•oul Decision: Yea on 04/2007 Applicant: Colorado Rstorical Society Sponsor Town of Plottevtlie Request Acceleration lane to remnant. swar.h access movements Applicant and Sponxrr Town of Fort Lupton Request WCR i tl stgrmbzatinn Applicant: Metro Waste Water Sponsor. City of Brighton Request WCR 2 to WCR e W Frontage Rd Remover flernlnn Vp•,. •,:;r„':n.^. Applicant and Sponsor. City of Brighton Request. SH7 round-aboute on exit ramps Decrsion. Vet on 0.17063 Applicant: FuRon Ditch Company Sponsor: City of Bnghton Request 132nd Ave reastside) ditch road to remain Decision- Yam on 060001 Applicant and Sponsor. Commerce City Request: I.76 new fipht•n/right-out acv. Decision Vey on 111017 WCR 100 f_ EftRORKIRTON - WCR 44 rr>„ WCR 32 keasrr WCR 22 Wets County_ Mama County BROMLEY LN 120th A Applicant and Sponsor, Town of Eatcn Request 2nd St (westee$e) Right•ininght-out access to tension whole a lull movement proposed to be closed Dectsinn' Yes on 11:?004 Applicant Leprino Foods Sponsor: City of Greeley Request Signalize 13th St intersection nr000sed for ncht•bdrfght out in the future Decision: Yes (conditional - development must pay for) on t 1 /2008 Legend Slgnalization. • Improvement. Or Realignment New or Improved Interchange RIRO. Median Closure, or Conversion to 3/4 Intersection • • Auxiliary Lane Improvements • Intersection Closure US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Area So Elj 0 2 4 Mites Page 1-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization 2 NFRMPO's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Update (2011), a corridor -based long-range plan, 3 prioritizes corridors in the North Front Range Planning Area. The Plan identifies US 85 from WCR 48 on 4 the south to WCR 70 on the north (including US 85 Business Route through Greeley and the Union 5 Pacific Railroad [UPRR]) as a regionally significant corridor with the following goals: 6 ► Increase mobility — Construct intersection and interchange improvements such as traffic 7 signals, auxiliary lanes, and roadway improvements 8 ► Support commuter travel by expanding transit usage and initiating travel demand management 9 (TDM) — Expand transit service coverage and provide improved transit amenities 10 ► Increase travel reliability with a focus on supporting commuter travel and increased freight 11 transport 12 Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region 13 The UFR TPR is one of 15 TPRs in the state. A fiscally constrained plan was developed as a part of the 14 Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan to identify those highest priority projects that 15 are likely to be funded by the year 2030 based on the projected financial resources available to the 16 region. The fiscally constrained plan identified the following US 85 projects: 17 ► Intersection improvements at US 85 and SH 60 in Platteville 18 ► Traffic signal and intersection improvements at US 85 at WCR 42 in Gilcrest 19 ► Traffic signal and intersection improvements at US 85 at WCR 74 in Eaton 20 ► Intersection improvements (right-in/right-out [RI/RO] or 3/4 movements) at US 85 at WCR 2.5, 21 WCR 4, and WCR 6.25 22 ► Corridor improvement plan on US 85 from WCR 40 to WCR 42 in Gilcrest 23 1.2.2 Highway 85 Coalition 24 The Highway 85 Coalition was created via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2009 among Weld 25 County and Ault, Brighton, Eaton, Evans, Fort Lupton, Gilcrest, Greeley, LaSalle, Pierce, and 26 Platteville. This effort is in partnership with CDOT and UPRR. The Coalition desires to continue 27 implementing the ACP vision so that the vitality of the corridor can be preserved for future 28 improvements. The Coalition intends to expand the efforts of the ACP and incorporate not only 29 transportation but also land use and sustainability resources. 30 1.2.3 Counties 31 Two counties are active in the progress and development of US 85. Adams County lies on the southern 32 end of the study corridor, while most of the study area lies within Weld County. Both counties have 33 their own distinct characters, industries, housing, and associated growth patterns. Each county is 34 discussed relative to its transportation planning surrounding US 85. 35 Adams County 36 Adams County identified US 85 as a regional strategic road corridor as a part of their Comprehensive 37 Plan (2012) and Transportation Plan (2012). According to these plans, mobility is the predominant 38 function for this corridor, and access will be limited to provide safe and efficient through travel. The 39 Transportation Plan will incorporate the recommendations from the US 85 PEL study for multiple 40 intersections within Adams County, including US 85 at 104`h Avenue, 1121h Avenue, 120``' Avenue, 41 136"' Avenue, and 144°' Avenue. Page 1-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Weld County 2 Weld County's 2035 Transportation P/an (2011), a needs -based plan, summarizes existing 3 transportation conditions and recommends policy, funding, and roadway development for Weld County. 4 This plan recognizes US 85 as a major north -south route that provides regional mobility to and through 5 their county. This plan mentions the importance of the Highway 85 Coalition, which is a direct 6 follow-up to the IGA for the US 85 ACP. 7 1.2.4 Municipalities 8 Thirteen cities and towns along the study corridor have a vested interest in the decisions made for 9 US 85. The corridor varies in character from community to community. It is urban in character as it 10 passes through several communities. The highway serves as an integral part of the local transportation 11 network in some communities. In other communities, the corridor is primarily agricultural in nature 12 and very rural. 13 City of Brighton 14 The City of Brighton cites US 85 in two planning documents. First, the 2020 Comprehensive P/an wants 15 to manage surrounding US 85 for the protection of prime farmland, working toward open space 16 objectives and goals while allowing limited development to occur. In respect to transportation 17 planning, the City of Brighton plans to minimize environmental and quality of life disturbances while 18 maximizing efficiency and multimodal opportunities. 19 In the South Sub -Area Plan (2005), the City of Brighton discusses three roadway improvements that 20 intersect US 85: 21 ► SH 22 or 124th Avenue would be closed to allow the development of an interchange at 22 120th Avenue and US 85, as recommended by the US 85 ACP (1999). 23 ► 136th Avenue would increase to a six -lane major arterial from US 85 to 1-76. 24 ► 144th Avenue would be reduced to a four -lane major arterial with dual left turns. 25 City of Commerce City 26 The City of Commerce City references US 85 in three City documents: the US 85 ACP (1999), the 27 Highway 85 Corridor Study (2002), and the Comprehensive Plan (2010). The US 85 ACP and the 28 Highway 85 Corridor Study recommend improvements at 104th Avenue and 120th Avenue, as well as 29 required multimodal improvements. The Comprehensive Plan identified US 85 as a priority corridor for 30 appearance and way -finding enhancements. 31 Town of Eaton 32 In their Transportation Plan (2013), the Town of Eaton adopted the US 85 ACP (1999) improvements for 33 the following intersections: 34 ► 5th Street — Signalize, improve bicyclist and pedestrian access, and install Rectangular Rapid 35 Flash Beacon (RRFB) 36 ► Collins Street — Improve pedestrian crossing, install channelized right -turn lanes, and improve 37 all turn lanes to meet state standards 38 City of Evans 39 The City of Evans has two documents that recommend improvements along US 85. The Comprehensive 40 Plan (2004) recommends creating a US 85 business district since the highway divides east and west 41 sides of the city rather than being a connector. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Page 1-8 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Transportation P/an (2004) describes access issues and operational deficiencies with US 85 throughout 2 the city. To look toward the future, the plan develops four goals for the City of Evans: 3 ► To ensure that adequate transportation facilities will serve new development 4 ► To support a variety of transportation choices 5 ► To develop a network of continuous and direct streets, walkways, and bicycle lanes 6 ► To coordinate long-range land use and transportation decisions 7 City of Fort Lupton 8 The City of Fort Lupton recognizes US 85 in their Comprehensive Plan (2007) and a Business Corridor 9 P/an (2004). Both plans recognize the importance of creating community gateways at major 10 intersections, including the grade -separated intersection of US 85 at Highway 52 (1St Street). 11 Town of Garden City 12 The Town of Garden City does not have a transportation plan; however, the Town is a stakeholder in 13 the corridor and has participated with planning efforts as part of this PEL. Additionally, Garden City 14 plans to continue to work with the Highway 85 Coalition to seek enhancements to the US 85 corridor 15 that complement the US 85 ACP. 16 Town of Gilcrest 17 In 2003, the Town of Gilcrest developed their Comprehensive P/an, which adopted the ACP (1999) 18 recommendations. The Comprehensive P/an also adopted goals to efficiently and economically service 19 the existing and new businesses and to ensure an effective and safe transportation system for the 20 town's citizens. 21 In this plan, the Town of Gilcrest accepted and recommended the US 85 ACP (1999) improvements. The 22 related improvements to US 85 include the following: 23 ► Relocate Frontage Road (Railroad Street) farther away from US 85 24 ► Realign WCR 40 25 ► Realign and signalize Elm Street, WCR 31 (Ash Street), and WCR 42 26 r Close intersection with Main Street 27 City of Greeley 28 The City of Greeley identified US 85 as an important corridor in the City's 2060 Comprehensive Plan 29 (City of Greeley 2009). In this study, the City identified to work with other transportation agencies and 30 local municipalities to improve US 85 and to "promote the development of comprehensive, effective, 31 efficient and attractive travel along this transportation and entryway corridor." 32 Additionally, the City recently undertook a substantial infrastructure improvement to create an 33 interconnected traffic signals along the US 85 Bypass. This allows for adaptive signal control to facility 34 traffic flow throughout the City and along US 85 Bypass. 35 The US 85 Bypass crosses the City of Greeley through one distinct neighborhood, Sunrise Neighborhood. 36 This neighborhood has a plan that discusses issues regarding US 85. 37 The Sunrise neighborhood is located between the UPRR to the east and US 85 to the west and is 38 bordered on the north by 5th Street and on the south by 16th Street. Their Neighborhood Plan (2006) 39 notes the relatively low traffic despite being adjacent to US 85 and the desire to improve maintenance 40 activities for their local street network. 41 From a broader perspective, the 2060 Comprehensive P/an (2009) aims for a transportation goal that 42 optimizes safe, efficient, and pleasing movement of people, goods, and services into and throughout Page 1-9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 the community through a comprehensive local and regional interconnected transportation system. In 2 2013, the City of Greeley developed the Parks and Open Lands Plan, which indicates that the city plans 3 to create connective open spaces and illustrates a possible bike and pedestrian path crossing US 85. 4 Town of LaSalle 5 In 2010, LaSalle worked to develop and release their Transportation Plan. Proposed improvements 6 related to US 85 include the following: 7 ► Intersection signalization at WCR 46/WCR 35, WCR 48/WCR 37, Crystal River Road, and 8 WCR 394/WCR 52 9 ► Extending transit service to LaSalle (Greeley -Evans Transit [GET]) 10 ► Intersection improvements at WCR 48/WCR 37, Sunset Drive, 1st Avenue, WCR 46/WCR 35, and 11 WCR 394/WCR 52 12 Town of Platteville 13 The Town of Platteville cites US 85 as a part of the Comprehensive Plan (2010) and Amendment (2013). 14 The Town of Platteville incorporated the recommendations of the US 85 ACP (1999) as a part of their 15 Comprehensive Plan. The Town plans to continue to work with the Highway 85 Coalition to seek 16 enhancements to the US 85 corridor that complement the US 85 ACP. 17 Town of Ault 18 In their 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Ault describes the current conditions related to US 85. 19 Most businesses on the US highway are auto -oriented, light industrial uses with nondescript 20 architecture and limited landscaping. The railroad, running parallel to US 85, and the granary hold the 21 biggest presence on US 85. The Town of Ault envisions developing a transportation plan, encouraging 22 multimodal transportation use, and coordinating with local and regional agencies such as the towns of 23 Eaton and Pierce, cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, Weld and Larimer counties, Colorado Parks and 24 Wildlife (CPW), USDA Forest Service (USFS), and the NFRMPO. The Town of Ault was not included in the 25 US 85 ACP, because the northern extent of the US 85 ACP was WCR 80, which is south of the Town of 26 Ault; however, Ault has been a participant in the US 85 Coalition. 27 Town of Pierce 28 The Town of Pierce does not have a comprehensive plan or a transportation plan; however, the Town 29 has been consistently involved in the Highway 85 Coalition. The Town of Pierce was not included in the 30 US 85 ACP, because the northern extent of the US 85 ACP was WCR 80, which is south of the Town of 31 Pierce; however, Pierce has been a participant in the US 85 Coalition. 32 Town of Nunn 33 The Town of Nunn completed a Comprehensive Plan (2008) that seeks to find new economic 34 development revenue streams and to promote the town as a historic tourist destination and as a tourist 35 connection to the Pawnee National Grasslands. The Town of Nunn plans to seek regional coordination 36 with the development of the High Plains Loop Trail with Fort Collins, Greeley, Wellington, Cheyenne, 37 and other communities along US 85. The Town of Nunn was not included in the US 85 ACP, because the 38 northern extent of the US 85 ACP was WCR 80, which is south of the Town of Nunn; however, Nunn has 39 been a participant in the US 85 Coalition. 40 1.3 Purpose 41 The purpose of transportation improvements along the US 85 corridor is to improve safety, reduce 42 existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, 43 and improve mobility and connectivity for all transportation modes (cars, trucks, transit, bicycle, and 44 pedestrian) that match the context of the adjacent communities. Page 1-10 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 1.4 Need 2 These transportation improvements are needed to address the following problems: 3 ► Safety — Several intersection and mainline locations along the US 85 corridor have a higher 4 than expected number of crashes. 5 ► Mobility — Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections that fail to accommodate users' needs, 6 highway design, and unreliable travel times substantially impact the ability of people to move 7 across and along the corridor. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future as the 8 region grows due to local and regional population and employment growth. 9 ► Railroad Proximity — The close proximity of the UPRR and US 85 can negatively affect the 10 operations of US 85. Passing or standing trains restrict travel to and from the east of US 85 and 11 can cause substantial queuing at some cross streets, sometimes extending into the through 12 lanes of US 85. The facilities are so close at some cross streets that a single large truck cannot 13 queue between US 85 and the UPRR without either overhanging the tracks or encroaching on 14 US 85, resulting in a safety problem. 15 ► Access — The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses have 16 contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. The access 17 problem is exacerbated by the proximity of the highway to the railroad tracks throughout most 18 of the corridor, which further contributes to operational and safety deficiencies, especially for 19 large commercial vehicles. 20 ► Alternative Travel Modes — The traveling public has limited or no access to public 21 transportation for essential human services, commuting, recreational, and other travel needs 22 along the corridor. Current infrastructure does not safely accommodate bicyclists and 23 pedestrians traveling parallel or across US 85. Corridor demand for transit, biking, and walking 24 trips is expected to increase in the future. 25 1.4.1 Safety Problem 26 The crash history for the most recent five-year period (2008 through 2012) reveals that there were 27 2,370 total reported crashes in the study corridor. Most crashes (about 71 percent) were property 28 damage only (PDO) crashes. Of the remaining crashes, there were 675 injury crashes and 23 fatal 29 crashes. Most fatal crashes involved overturning, followed by crashes involving fixed objects and 30 approach turns. The number of crashes along the corridor was evenly split between intersection and 31 non -intersection crashes (52 percent and 48 percent, respectively). Figure 1.3 presents the types of 32 crashes in the corridor along US 85 and at intersections. 33 Page 1-11 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Figure 1.3 Corridor Crash Overview 2 3 4 5 COLORADO Department of Transportation Crash Type Distrbution Sideswipe (Same) (90) 7% Approach Turn (158) 13% Intersection Crashes Fixed Object (121)10% Sideswipe (Same) (200) 18% Other (155)1496 Crash Type Distribution Non Intersection Crashes Overturning (141) 12% Rear End (308) 27% Fixed Objects (333) 29% Page 1-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The safety analysis showed 15 urban intersections and 3 rural intersections along the corridor in which 2 crash experience exceeded what is expected for those intersection types (Appendix D). Safety analyses 3 indicate that two segments of US 85 (which do not encompass signalized intersections) have shown a 4 higher than expected crash experience when compared to other similar facilities. This comparison used 5 CDOT diagnostic norms according to location (urban versus rural), number of approach lanes, traffic 6 control, and number of approach legs. The rural segment from north of Fort Lupton to WCR 26 7 experienced above average crash rates, including 5 fatal accidents. Along other corridor segments, 8 there were higher than average injury crashes. Figure 1.4 shows the intersections and segments with 9 higher than expected crash experience. This highest amount of crashes occurred in the southern 10 portion of the corridor, specifically the US 85 and 104th Avenue intersection and the US 85 section 11 between Fort Lupton and WCR 26. 12 1.4.2 Mobility Problem 13 Conditions along the entire study corridor inhibit people's ability to move easily and freely across, 14 onto, and along US 85. The existing daily traffic volumes along US 85 range from approximately 15 5,400 vehicles per day (vpd) in the northern end of the study area between Pierce and Nunn to 16 33,000 vpd on the south end of the study area through Commerce City. Daily traffic volumes north of 17 Brighton through Greeley range from approximately 21,000 to 29,000 vpd, while volumes north of 18 Greeley range from 5,400 to 13,000 vpd. In addition, most of the corridor is experiencing substantial 19 daily truck volumes of greater than 2,000 trucks per day. Because of varying land uses and community 20 needs, the US 85 traffic impacts mobility along the entire study corridor. The following are a few 21 specific examples that highlight these mobility impacts: 22 ► In the rural portions of the corridor, traffic volumes, speeds, and inadequate acceleration/ 23 deceleration lanes make it difficult for drivers to access and cross US 85 during certain times of 24 the day, depending on the location. 25 ► In Greeley, the bypass no longer functions as a bypass because of the number of signalized 26 intersections, resulting in delays for local and regional travel through Greeley. 27 ► In Adams County, many substandard cross-streets/intersections impact the ability of the 28 corridor to provide the travel speeds and travel time reliability intended for the high functional 29 classification indicative of that stretch of US 85. 30 Page 1-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.4 High Crash Locations COLORADO Department of Transportation CO COOT a COLORADO f)cpartmvnt of Transportation Legend t a 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 8' WCR 14.5l14th St. No. of (rashes 26 1 FAT Predominant Cradi1 pes Approach Turn tillreR No. of Predominant Crashes CrashTypes 6 Rear End 6 Denver St No of Crashes 12 Predominant CrashTypes Fixed Object 5.:• Bromley Lane No. of Crashes 91 1 FAT Pmdominart CrashTypes Rear End 4. 136th Ave. 4 No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 35 Pear End d_f_ 22/120th Al s, No. of Predominant Crashes CrashTypes 40 Rear End ,12th Ave. No. of Predominant Crashes CrashTypes 67 Rear End , No. of Crashes 115 I FAT Predominant CrashTypes Rear End Dark -Lighted 0fig Ink CV WCR 100 WCR90 ail 3s' GREELEY WCR54 CE 85 LT Th US 85 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 ON WCR 74 r - GARDEN Chrff• MILLB(E J " 1 WCR EV IL • ' EST TTEViLLE t 1-76 Imp North of 226.8) to SH 44 (mp 227.47) No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 53 Sideswipe (same direction) Per End 104th AVE-_ 13 trP WCR64 ALLE q - WCR 44 Aar.- WCR32'4'44" North of toCR28 Fort Lupton (rep 243: mp?A 201 , No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 128 5 FAT Sideswipe (same direction) Wild Animal Embankment Overttrnng Fixed 0 •.ect WCRB BASELINE RD BRIGHTON BROMLEYLN k f II2Oth A We oun —Ain am y MY 1 Li • 6111 Miles • 112Intersections • 24 Signalized • 57 Adjacent to Railroad Crossing • Urban Intersections Sugritited 16 Unsignalized • Rural Intersections 4 Signalized 72 Urtsignateed l No. of Predominant Crashes Crash Types 15 Rear Ery No. of Crashes 12 Predominant CrastTypes Broadside No. of Crashes Predominant CrashTypes 41 Approach Turn 18th swag 34. No. of Crashes 36 Predominant CrashTypes Fixed Object 22nd S4 No. of Crashes 49 Predominant CrashTypes Rear End 42nd St. No. of Crashes 32 Predominant CrashTypes Rear End No. of Predominant Crashes CrashTypes 8 Broadside WCR 44 No. of Crashes 28 Predominant CrashTypes Broadside V WCR 28 No of Crashes 10 Predominant CrashTypes Broadside No. of Crashes 23 Predominant CrashTypes Approach Turn 0 • NORTH 2 4 Miles Page 1-14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Regional Mobility 2 Congestion caused by intersections hinders regional mobility along US 85. The worst performing 3 intersections include: 104w Avenue, 120"' Avenue, Bromley Lane, SH 66, and 37th Avenue. Based on 4 recent travel time data, drivers are experiencing up to eight minutes of congestion -related delay 5 through Commerce City and Brighton between 104th Avenue and 168th Avenue daily. Between 1st Avenue 6 in La Salle and O Street on the north side of Greeley, drivers can experience up to six minutes of 7 congestion -related delay. Because of the many intersections through these congested areas, US 85 does 8 not function as intended. The high truck volumes and many access points along the corridor create 9 situations where slow -moving truck traffic negatively affects desired speeds of passenger cars. 10 Local Mobility 11 The ability for all travel modes to cross and to access US 85 is an important component of local 12 mobility for the communities along the corridor. Many see US 85 as a barrier to local mobility. The 13 speed and volume of traffic and roadway width, combined with insufficient pedestrian facilities, turn 14 lanes, and acceleration/deceleration lanes, hinder the ability of all travel modes to access or cross the 15 highway. Locations where the Project Team has heard this to be a challenge is Bromley Lane in 16 Brighton, 1st Avenue in LaSalle, and 37"' Avenue in Evans. 17 Traffic Operations 18 As shown on Figure 1.5, many major intersections along the corridor are signalized, and most 19 intersections operate well during the AM and PM peak hours. However, five intersections (104th Avenue, 20 112th Avenue, Bromley Lane, WCR 32, and 31st Street in Evans) currently have long delays and queues 21 associated with level of service (LOS) E or F during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Figure 1.5 identifies 22 these intersections as existing traffic operations hot spots. The operation of these intersections also 23 impacts corridor travel speeds. Currently, during the AM and PM peak hours, travel speeds are lower 24 than the posted speed limits for the portions of US 85 containing traffic signals. In the southern end of 25 the corridor, travel speeds are as low as 30 percent of the posted speed limit. 26 Figure 1.6 identifies the existing travel speeds, posted speed limits, projected 2035 travel speeds for 27 urban sections classified as expressways along US 85. As traffic volumes continue to increase, these 28 speeds will reduce to half the posted speed limit. 29 The unsignalized intersections along US 85 are two-way stop -controlled. Due to the amount of through 30 traffic on US 85 during the peak hours, drivers from the side streets at unsignalized intersections have 31 difficulty finding a gap in traffic and, therefore, experience longer delays. 32 US 85 carries a high portion of large truck traffic, generally 10 to 20 percent, with some sections as 33 high as 32 percent truck traffic. Likewise, many side street approaches carry high truck volumes 34 entering onto US 85. The difficulty finding adequate gaps to complete turning movements and crossings 35 is exacerbated because of design deficiencies in accommodating turning trucks such as lack of 36 adequate lane storage and lane width. Furthermore, the slow acceleration of large commercial 37 vehicles contributes to delay on US 85 as the trucks enter onto the highway and accelerate slowly from 38 a stopped condition. 39 The area in and around the US 85 corridor is forecast for substantial growth. By 2035, the NFRMPO and 40 DRCOG project an additional estimated 45,700 households and 49,300 jobs within the transportation 41 analysis zones intersected by a 2 -mile buffer of the study corridor. This growth represents a 77 percent 42 increase of households and a 73 percent increase of employment. The 2035 fiscally constrained 43 regional travel demand models were used to develop 2035 traffic forecasts, using projected land use as 44 an input. 45 Page 1-15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.5 Existing and 2035 Projected Traffic Operations COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 WCR 90 WCR 54 WCR 6 LT C Existing WCR 100 Legend X/X AM/PM Level of Service B Signalized intersection • LOSAIB O LOS CID • LOS E/F ;ON V ,10 c3REELEr D/B ID/E. 104th A C/B B/C C/C C/C, -- B/C'1 iCITq C/C A/B WCR 74 B1 WCR64 B/B E/E EVANS C/CI &C I B/B LA SALLE =!LCE•'caT B/B D/FJ PLATTEVILLE ATTEVILL E FORT LUPTON WCR 32 B/C B/B WCR BASELINE RD ', E RICHTON nip .1411. BROMLEY LN WE 7 Etc WCR44 WCR 22 120th AVE J Dossiti re0rit1 —_ FJ D ebb DENVER 9EIh AVE >`— 1 Id Id No Action 2035 NUNN PIER EATON WCR 64 GREELEY MILLIKEN IF/F D/F B/B VCR 74 F/F F/F 13 nP CITY„ F/F EVANS r� ID/D OILC REST' F/F I ATTEVILLE BASELINE RD BRIGHTON C/C WCR 64 C/FJ E/FiS E/F� F/F D/EI NCR 32 WCR9 VCR 44 WCR 22 -Rams-Corr BROMLEY LN 120th AVE iben eCount) DENVER Page 1-16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.6 Existing Speeds, Speed Limits, and Future Speeds COLORADO Department of Transportation r Existing. Speed as a Percent of Posted Speed Limit 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% !la% 60% Mb ao% 90% 100% Percent of Posted Speed Limit Average Posted Speed Unlit Average Existing Speed Average No Action Speed' ', ilk , fsnc 991 RA"ng OptOn4Bratt US 85 PEL Adams and tAfeki Counties, CO Page 1-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Due to forecasted household and employment growth along the US 85 corridor and the surrounding 2 area, traffic volumes through the corridor are projected to increase. By 2035 the traffic volumes along 3 corridor sections are expected to double (one segment increases from 19,000 to 44,500 vpd). The 4 projected future operations of the corridor show that by 2035, 21 signalized intersections will operate 5 at LOS E or F, as shown on Figure 1.5. 6 The traffic volume within the study area impacts regional arterials that provide east -west connectivity 7 through the area and intersect with US 85. As traffic volumes on these regional facilities and US 85 8 continue to increase, there will be additional impacts to intersection operations and overall corridor 9 mobility. Specifically, travel times will increase, and corridor travel speeds will be reduced to half the 10 posted speed limit. As traffic increases along the corridor, access onto and across US 85 for all modes 11 will become increasingly difficult. 12 1.4.3 Railroad Proximity Problem 13 The UPRR parallels US 85 for the entire length of the corridor and can be very close to one another, as 14 shown on Figure 1.7. The proximity of US 85 and the UPRR impacts traffic operations along US 85. The 15 impact tends to be the greatest where the two facilities are closest, depending on other factors. This 16 situation is prevalent in the corridor north of Greeley and between Greeley north of Fort Lupton: 17 ► 37 intersections along the entire corridor are less than 200 feet from the railroad 18 ► 27 intersections are between 200 and 800 feet from the railroad in that same area 19 ► Only 4 intersections (not including Greeley) are more than 800 feet from the railroad 20 Most US 85 cross -street intersections cross the railroad are at -grade, and a significant queue can build 21 when a train is present. Further, there are locations in which the train blockage duration of the US 85 22 cross -street can be significant, and vehicles attempting to enter, exit, or simply cross US 85 queue 23 significantly. This difficulty is further compounded by a heavy large -truck presence; up to 30 percent of 24 the traffic at some locations along US 85 is made up of trucks. An example of this proximity problem is 25 shown in the following photo. 26 Page 1-18 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.7 Intersection Proximity from the Railroad COLORADO Department of Transportation COLORADO Depart nivnt of .:, r.1n Sfrat to t till` Legend Railroad Crossing Distance • 0' - 200' from US 85 201' - 800' from US 85 • > 800' from US 85 US 85 Roads Railroad -""--- Rivers/Streams .* Lakes J County Boundary O Study Area I WCR 100 0' WCR 90 NN CE LT _J WCR WCR 74 -K - 4 MILLIKEN WCR6 104th GREELEY IL . EST TTEVILLE 85 ALLE WCR 64 WCR 44 Mum WCR 32 "'' WCR 22 WCRB BASELINEn. BRIGHTON • Wed County_ _ Memitoun,v BROMLEY LN 120th AVE_ I r Deny County r DENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 4 Miles Page 1-19 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 As such, many intersections along the corridor are not adequate to safely accommodate the significant 2 queues that form between US 85 and the UPRR, as well as along the highway when a train is present. 3 One large truck can overwhelm the available distance between them, resulting in the truck trailer 4 overhanging the railroad tracks while waiting to turn on to (or cross) US 85. Because of the difficulty 5 entering or crossing US 85 during peak hours of traffic, the rear of a truck may sit on the tracks for a 6 long period, or it may be forced to encroach into traffic on US 85. Areas with substantial railroad and 7 roadway proximity problems are WCR 22.5 to SH 66, generally north of Platteville to LaSalle, and 8 WCR 66 to WCR 100. 9 1.4.4 Access Problem 10 There are a substantial number of accesses along the 62 -mile US 85 corridor. Most of the corridor is 11 categorized E -X, or Expressway, Major Bypass, but there are many more access points than an E -X 12 typically allows. In December 1999, 15 governmental agencies entered into an IGA with CDOT 13 approving the US 85 ACP for US 85 from 1-76 to WCR 80 in Ault. The ACP identifies the permitted 14 changes in access, including closures, turn movement restrictions, signalization, intersection 15 reconfiguration, and interchanges. The ACP and associated IGA demonstrate a history of the need for 16 access improvements or removals and strong support by CDOT and the local agencies for making these 17 access modifications. 18 The ACP has gradually been implemented as development and funding have allowed, but many 19 improvements in the plan are yet to take place. As such, many access points throughout the corridor 20 are still open, unsignalized, and/or have not been reconfigured. With recent traffic increases due to 21 energy and sand/gravel development along the corridor, some of these access points have become 22 overly congested and resulted in unsafe conditions along US 85. The proximity of the railroad along 23 many sections of the corridor further contributes to the US 85 access problems. The continued growth 24 in households and jobs in the area is expected to exacerbate the problem that the high number of 25 accesses along the corridor causes with increased traffic along US 85. This will lead to increased 26 congestion along US 85 and side streets, which could lead to more crashes. 27 1.4.5 Alternative Travel Modes Problem 28 The current lack of alternative travel modes accommodation along most US 85 limits the ability for 29 alternative travel modes (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) to serve current and future travel needs. As 30 residential and employment growth occurs, the demand for travel by transit, biking, and walking is 31 expected to increase. Additionally, several demographic and employment trends in the study area 32 suggest an increased propensity for use of alternative travel modes. 33 Transit Infrastructure 34 Transit service in the study area is limited to fixed -route and demand -responsive bus service provided 35 by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) in the southern portion of the study area and by GET in 36 the Greeley and Evans area, leaving 46 miles of US 85 without access to transit. While an intercity bus 37 route runs along the US 85 corridor (operated by the Black Hills State Line and El Paso -LA Limo), this 38 route is limited to eight trips per day and stops only in Greeley and Denver. 39 The need for interregional transit service on the US 85 corridor has been recognized in two recent 40 studies completed by CDOT: North 1-25 EIS (2011) and Colorado Statewide Intercity and Regional Bus 41 Network Plan (2014). Both studies demonstrate the demand and community support for transit service. 42 The Statewide Intercity and Regional Bus Network Plan recommends interregional express service on 43 the US 85 corridor between Greeley and Denver with near -term and mid-term ridership projections of 44 62,200 annual riders (based on 12 one-way trips per day, 6 days per week). The study also recommends 45 essential services transit on the US 85 corridor between Greeley and Denver with near -term and mid - 46 term ridership projections of 3,150 annual riders (based on 2 one-way trips per day, 5 days per week). Page 1-20 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Some population segments are more likely than others to use transit service and depend on it as their 2 primary form of transportation. Typically, the reasons relate to economics, ability, or age, and 3 whether individuals own or have access to a private vehicle. In general, the two key markets for public 4 transportation services are: 5 ► "Transit Dependent' riders who do not always have access to a private automobile. This group 6 includes individuals who may not be physically (or legally) able to operate a vehicle, or those 7 who may not be able to afford to own a vehicle. Transit dependency characteristics based on 8 age include both youth (individuals 18 or younger) and older adults (persons age 65 or older). 9 Others who typically rely on public transit include people with disabilities, individuals with low 10 income, zero -vehicle households, veterans with disabilities, and persons with limited English 11 proficiency (LEP). 12 ► "Choice" riders are those who usually or always have access to a private automobile (either by 13 driving a car or getting picked up by someone) but choose to take transit because it offers 14 them more or comparable convenience. For example, a choice rider might choose to add 15 10 minutes to their overall trip via bus to save a $10 all -day parking charge. A commuter might 16 choose to take a bus if they can work along the way rather than focusing on driving. 17 Based on the Colorado Department of Local Affairs demographic forecasts, Weld and Adams counties 18 are expected to experience a 111.1 percent and 51.6 percent growth in population, respectively, 19 between 2013 and 2040. Both growth estimates are higher than the statewide average of 47.1 percent 20 growth. The percentage of residents age 65 and older in Weld and Adams counties are expected to 21 grow 180 percent and 173 percent, respectively, over the same time period, compared to the 22 statewide average of 120.5 percent growth. Weld County has populations below the federal poverty 23 level, LEP, and disabilities that are higher than statewide average percentages. Adams County has 24 populations below federal poverty level and LEP that are higher than statewide average percentage. 25 These measures are indicators of a higher likelihood and need for transit use. 26 Table 1.1 Demographic Data 2011 Population Below Federal Poverty Level 2011 Limited English Proficiency 2012 Disabled Population 2011 % 2011 a % 2012 Adams 60,147 14.0 53,932 13.6 41,531 9.5 Weld 33,351 13.8 16,715 7.3 25,610 10.2 Statewide 607,727 12.5 264,397 5.7 487,297 9.8 Source: 2077 and 2012 U.S. Census American Community Survey Five -Year Estimate 27 By 2035, 75 percent more households and 70 percent more jobs are expected. Substantially higher 28 growth in households is anticipated in the southern portion of the corridor (generally from Platteville 29 south). Higher growth in employment is anticipated in the northern portion of the corridor (generally 30 from Gilcrest north). This trend will likely result in a balancing of commuter travel demand for 31 employment access along the corridor; that is, more people will commute from the southern portion of 32 the corridor to the Greeley area for work, demonstrating the need for bi-directional transit service 33 along the corridor. 34 Page 1-21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 As the need for transit service increases, the surrounding infrastructure needs to be improved to 2 accommodate the transit services described. Not all the current configurations of the current corridor 3 can sufficiently accommodate the additional services. Transit stations and additional connections are 4 needed to sufficiently serve this service. 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure 6 High traffic volumes and high travel speeds along US 85, paired with a lack of bicycle and pedestrian 7 facilities on the corridor, create safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along and 8 across US 85. During the five-year period between 2008 and North 1-25 EIS, there were three 9 vehicle/bicycle crashes and eight vehicle/pedestrian crashes within the US 85 corridor. Two of the 10 three bicycle crashes involved an injury. Of the eight pedestrian crashes, four involved injuries, and 11 three involved fatalities. There was more than one bicycle or pedestrian related crash at the following 12 three intersections: 13 ► US 85/Bromley Lane in Brighton (1 bicycle crash, 3 pedestrian crashes; 2 fatal crashes) 14 ► US 85/37th Street in Evans (2 pedestrian crashes; 1 injury, 1 fatal) 15 ► US 85/22"d Street in Greeley (1 bicycle crash, 2 pedestrian crashes; 3 injury) 16 While the history of bicycle and pedestrian crashes on US 85 demonstrates a safety problem at spot 17 locations along the corridor, the condition for bicyclists and pedestrians along the entirety of US 85 is 18 unsafe and discourages bicycling or walking as a viable travel option within and between communities. 19 US 85 passes through 13 communities and creates a barrier for bicyclists and pedestrians wanting to 20 cross the highway. In several communities, US 85 splits the community, with homes on one side of the 21 highway while many community facilities such as schools and parks are on the opposite side. US 85 acts 22 as a barrier to the community, making it inefficient and unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross 23 the highway. Page 1-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 2 Section 2.0 presents the methodology used to develop and evaluate alternatives along the entire 3 62 -mile portion of US 85. The alternatives developed and evaluated include a wide range of potential 4 solutions that provide additional lanes, interchanges, intersection improvements, and intersection and 5 access point closures along the corridor. Appendix C presents detailed matrices showing the 6 quantitative and qualitative information used in the evaluation process. Section 2.0 also discusses the 7 criteria and evaluation methods applied during the various evaluation levels. This portion of the PEL 8 represents the vast majority of the effort and coordination between the CDOT and the corridor 9 stakeholders. 10 Agency coordination and public involvement played a major role in this process, as summarized in 11 Section 5.0. Agency involvement activities included regular progress committee meetings with agency 12 participants and a series of resource agency scoping meetings. To ensure that the needs and concerns 13 of affected entities and groups would be heard and considered in the alternatives development and 14 evaluation process, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed. The TAC, as further described 15 in Section 5.0, was involved in each level of the evaluation process and during alternative 16 development and refinement. An Executive Committee (EC) consisting of elected officials from corridor 17 jurisdictions also provided insight during the evaluation process. 18 2.1 Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 19 Process 20 A multi -level, iterative process was used to develop, refine, and evaluate alternatives for the US 85 21 corridor. The development, refinement, and evaluation process focused on identifying alternatives that 22 both meet the Purpose and Need for the corridor and that match the context of the corridor. 23 Broad, overarching alternative development occurred at the initial level of the process. These 24 alternatives set the stage for subsequent levels where alternative refinement and evaluation occurred 25 with increasing amount of detail. At each level, the alternatives were refined to match the overall goal 26 of each level and then removed alternatives appropriately. This approach provided an efficient way to 27 evaluate contextually appropriate alternatives throughout the corridor. Because the context of the 28 corridor varies extensively (urban in the south to very rural in the north), not all alternative types were 29 suitable throughout the corridor. The corridor was split into sections based on geography and 30 operational classifications (see Figure 2.1). The Corridor Conditions Report detailed the process of 31 dividing the corridor into sections (CDOT 2015). The Alternatives Development, Refinement, and 32 Evaluation Process was developed as a systematic way to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives at 33 each location. 34 The iterative Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process defined an overarching 35 direction for corridor sections as a whole and then added detail and focus for specific locations. For 36 example, overarching alternative types (functional classification, general purpose lanes, managed 37 lanes, alignment, etc.) were evaluated on the Purpose and Need elements and eliminated those that 38 did not address the Purpose and Need and carried forward those that did. The next level determined 39 the context and capacity of each corridor section. The final two levels focused on refining and 40 evaluating specific alternatives at intersection locations throughout the corridor. Page 2-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Figure 2.1 US 85 Sections 2 COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend a a Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Area 0 4 Miles Page 2-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure 2.2 presents the Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process: 2 ► Level 1 Development and Evaluation — Developed overarching alternatives and eliminated 3 alternatives with fatal flaws or that did not meet the Purpose and Need categories (Safety, 4 Mobility, Railroad Proximity, Access, and Alternative Modes). 5 ► Level 2 Refinement and Evaluation — Included two sublevels that identified all potential 6 operational classifications and capacity for each corridor section and then removed 7 alternatives to identify the appropriate operational classification and capacity for each corridor 8 section. Alternatives were evaluated to show how they met the needs (Safety, Mobility, and, 9 Access) and to identify impacts to the natural environment and the surrounding community. 10 ► Level 3 Refinement — Identified all potential intersection improvement types (closure, 11 intersection improvement, or interchange) for each location and then removed to match the 12 context of each section of US 85. Level 3 heavily used Level 2 results to define each section's 13 context. 14 ► Level 4 Development and Evaluation — Developed specific improvement configurations and 15 layouts to determine their ability to meet Purpose and Need (Safety, Mobility, Railroad 16 Proximity, Access, and Alternative Modes). Level 4 also considered impacts to the natural 17 environment and to the adjacent community. Alternatives were identified as Recommended, 18 Feasible, or Eliminated. 19 Figure 2.2 Alternative Development, Refinement, and Evaluation 20 Process 21 22 EVALUATION CRITERIA SCREENING LEVELS Purpose & Need EVALUATION CRITERIA Safety Access Mobility Alternative Modes Railroad Proximity Environmental Economic Social a Alternatives an each screening level to be: • Eliminated • Feasible • Recommended ' Intersec ion and ' Configuration Screening Level 4 -44 Conceptual Layout & :7, nnnended Plan PRIORITIES ALTERNATIVES • Full Range of Ideas • Operational Classification • Managed Lanes • General Purpose Lanes • Alignment • Intersection Modifications & Improvements • Interchange Configurations • Intersection Configurations Page 2-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Level 4 Development and Evaluation results for each intersection location represent the results of the 2 US 85 PEL recommendations. The Recommended Alternatives (some locations have more than one 3 recommended alternative) are to be advanced to the next stage of project development (see 4 Section 6.0). A one -page summary document has been prepared for each recommended alternative 5 with information pertinent to the next stages of project development (Appendix C). 6 Locations were then prioritized throughout the corridor based on the current and future need 7 categories (Mobility, Safety, and Railroad Proximity). Section 3.7 describes the prioritization process 8 and results. 9 2.2 No Action Alternative 10 The No Action Alternative would essentially leave US 85 as -is and provide no major infrastructure 11 improvements. However, the No Action Alternative would include safety and maintenance 12 improvements that would be required to maintain an operational transportation system. The No Action 13 Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need but is used as a baseline against which to compare 14 alternatives for evaluation and environmental analysis purposes. 15 For the purposes of forecasting travel demand and identifying resource impacts directly related to 16 traffic volume, the No Action Alternative would include transportation projects currently planned in 17 the project vicinity. These other transportation projects have committed or identified construction 18 funds and would be built regardless of any identified improvements that are a part of this study. Travel 19 demand forecasting predicts traffic conditions that are expected to occur on US 85 in the design year 20 (2035). Table 2.1 represents regional improvements included in the travel demand forecasting for the 21 No Action Alternative. 22 Table 2A Projects Included in the No Action Alternative ID Project Name Project Description Source SR45218 US 85 MP 236-242 Surface Treatment Pool DRCOG / CDOT SST6803.073 Commerce City to Denver CBD Regional Bus Service Regional Bus Service DRCOG SR46601 US 85 and WCR 6 Region 4 Bridge Off -System Pool DRCOG SNF5788.030 US 85 Access Control at 37th St (Evans) Implementation of Access Control at the Intersection of US 85/37" Street NFRMPO SNF5788.031 US 85 Access Control at 315i St (Evans) Implementation of Access Control at the Intersection of US 85/31st Street NFRMPO SR45218.105 US 85: Ault to Wyoming Bridge On -System TC Directed; FASTER Safety Projects; Surface Treatment; Surface Treatment Pool Staging Program CDOT SR45218.148 US 85 Nunn to Carr 288-300 Surface Treatment; Surface Treatment Pool Staging Program CDOT SR45001.009 US 85 Bypass Signals 22n, St - 5t" St (Greeley) (4-13) MP 266-268.5 Regional Priority Program RAMP Page 2-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation SR46606.021 US 85, Upper Front Range Intersection Improvements (Various Locations) FASTER Safety Allocation Staging Program; FASTER Safety Projects CDOT SR47005.004 Carpool Lots (Fort Lupton US 85 - WCR 14.5 & Evans US 85/ 42nd Avenue) FASTER Transit Staging Program; Transit and Rail Statewide Grants CDOT SST8103.028 R4 B-17-DF US 85 Nunn Bridge over UPRR FASTER Bridge Enterprise Bond Issuance Proceeds Pool CDOT SDR6754.999 Bromley Lane & US 85 Intersection National Highway Fund; Local Match; Highway Safety Improvements Program DRCOG Notes: CBD = Central Business District CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation DRCOG = Denver Regional Council of Governments FASTER = Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 MP = milepost NFRMPO = North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization RAMP = Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships UPRR = Union Pacific Railroad WCR = Weld County Road 1 2.3 Level 1 Development and Evaluation - Fatal Flaw/Purpose 2 and Need 3 The Alternatives Development, Refinement, and Evaluation Process began with the development of 4 corridor -wide alternatives. More than 70 alternatives (in 12 categories) were developed and assessed 5 relative to their ability to meet the Purpose and Need of the study. Elements were developed based on 6 information provided by the corridor communities, feedback from the public, and professional 7 judgment. Elements included a broad range of functional classifications, lane management strategies, 8 alignments and parallel facilities, multimodal elements (including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian), 9 intersection modifications, intersection and interchange configurations, safety -specific improvements, 10 and other elements such as Information Technology Service (ITS), TDM, and maintenance elements. 11 Level 1 evaluation focused on eliminating any alternative that did not address the Purpose and Need in 12 such a way that they would be considered a fatal flaw. Level 1 evaluation eliminated 5 alternatives and 13 retained 57 alternatives. Some alternatives were eliminated only for the study's planning horizon 14 (2035). For example, the Commuter Rail Alternative (Transit Service category) was eliminated for the 15 planning horizon because anticipated ridership does not match the need for commuter rail through 16 2035. However, future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result in a scenario where this alternative is 17 viable. Page 2-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 2.3.1 Evaluation Criteria COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 The criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level 1 evaluation represented a broad measurement 3 of consistency with the Purpose and Need. Each criterion asked if an alternative could meet an 4 individual need at a basic level. The intent was not to provide a multitude of quantitative measures but 5 to eliminate any alternatives that could not address corridor needs, did not fit the corridor context, or 6 had a fatal flaw. 7 The following questions represent the overarching ability of the alternatives to meet the individual 8 needs. If an alternative could not meet any of the following criteria, then the alternative was 9 eliminated from further consideration. However, if an alternative met only one need, it was included 10 for further consideration. 11 ► Safety Problem — Will the alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions 12 crashes? 13 ► Mobility Problem — Will the alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions 14 crashes? 15 ► Railroad Proximity Problem — Does the alternative address congestion and safety on US 85 16 caused by the proximity of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)? 17 ► Access Problem — Does the alternative remove or improve problematic accesses in order to 18 decrease congestion in the corridor? 19 ► Alternative Mode Problem — Does the alternative address the configuration of US 85 to 20 accommodate the current and future transit infrastructure and enhance bicycle/pedestrian 21 crossings? 22 2.3.2 Development and Evaluation Results 23 The results of the Level 1 Development and Evaluation process eliminated five alternative types from 24 consideration during the remainder of the study. Major transit services that require major separate 25 infrastructure (i.e., commuter rail, light rail, and separated bus rapid transit) were eliminated through 26 the planning horizon at the time of evaluation (2035). This was done to not preclude these alternatives 27 if future project ridership numbers eventually justify these alternatives. The retained alternatives 28 were not necessarily appropriate for each section of US 85 but could be combined with other elements 29 as part of a thematic package to address the corridor needs or refined in later levels to match the 30 appropriate context of the location. Table 2.2 summarizes the elements developed for each category 31 and whether the alternative was eliminated or retained. Appendix C presents a more detailed matrix 32 for Level 1 evaluation results. Page 2-6 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 2.2 Level 1 Development and Evaluation Results COLORADO Department of Transportation Alternative Summary of Results Additional Comments Functional Class Freeway (F -W) Retained — Enhanced Expressway (E -X) Retained — Standard Expressway (R -A or R -B) Retained — Enhanced Arterial (NR -A) Retained — Arterial Roadway (NR -B) Retained — Main Street (NR -C) Retained — No Action No Action Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition. Managed Lanes High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Retained None Toll Lanes Retained None High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Retained None Truck Only Lanes Retained None General Purpose Lanes 2 Additional General Purpose Lanes (one in each direction) Retained None Page 2-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Alternative Summary of Results _ Additional Comments Alignment Bypass Towns Retained Retained for consideration within municipal areas. Realign US 85 to the East (Extended Lengths— Rgreater than one mile) Eliminated Moving the roadway to the east would be too close to the planned upgrade to Weld County Road (WCR) 49, thereby negating the benefits of a parallel system. It would also create substantial community disruption by removing residential and business accesses, splitting properties along realigned roadway, and requiring substantial improvements to the surrounding transportation system. Realign Northbound (NB) US 85 East of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to create a two-way couplet with the railroad in the middle Eliminated This alternative would cause the highway to be a more substantial barrier by creating a wider swath of southbound, railroad, and northbound traffic needing to be crossed by pedestrians and vehicles. This would result in additional safety and capacity issues with smaller cross -street queue areas between the lanes and railroad. Realign US 85 to the West (Short Lengths —less than one mile) Retained None Transit Service Commuter Rail Eliminated (to 2035) Anticipated ridership does not match the need for commuter rail for the entire length of the US 85 PEL corridor through the current planning horizon (2035). This alternative would far exceed the transit needs in the corridor. The anticipated ridership for this corridor is 62,200 annual riders. Comparable commuter rail lines carry 1 to 2 million annual riders. Future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result in situations where this option is viable. Light Rail Eliminated (to 2035) Vehicles are unsuited for long distance trips: unproven technology for this corridor length. Future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result in situations where this option is viable. Bus Rapid Transit Retained None Commuter/Express Bus Retained None Expanded Human Service Transit Retained None Page 2-8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Alternative . , Summary of esults ' it .l. �. • . Transit Infrastructure Separate Transit Guideway Eliminated (to 2035) This alternative would provide the necessary infrastructure for alternatives like commuter rail and light rail, which do not currently meet the needed ridership and/or suitability for longer trips. Future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result in situations where this option is viable. Bus Lane (only if Managed Lanes in Level 2A) Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Transit Queue Jumps Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Transit Signal Priority Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Transit Stations/Stops/Amenities Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Bicycle / Pedestrian Bike Lanes Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Sidewalks Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Sidepath (Shared Use Path Proximate to US 85) Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. South Platte River Trail Shared Use Path Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Parallel On -Street Bike Route (Local, County Roads) Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Enhanced Bike/Ped Crossings Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Intersection Modifications Close Access Retained None Partial Closure Retained None Intersection Reconfiguration Retained None Turn Lane Additions/Extended Storage Retained None Signalization Retained None Grade Separated Crossing (No Access) Retained None Page 2-9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Summary of Adtgo, . Comments Altemative Mode Intersection Improvements Retained None Intersection Capacity Improvements Retained None Interchange Retained None Safety -Specific Improvements Shoulders Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Guard Rail/Cable Rail Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Signing Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Railroad Crossing Treatment Upgrade Retained This alternative does not individually meet Purpose and Need. Intersection / Interchange Configuration Junior Interchanges Retained None Diamond Retained None Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Retained None Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Retained None Full Cloverleaf Retained None Partial Cloverleaf Retained None Fully Directional Retained None Others (especially for US 85/ US 34 Interchange) Retained None Intersection Configuration Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) Retained None Channelized Continuous Green T Intersection Retained None ThrU-Turn Intersections Retained None One-way Quad Signals Retained None Page 2-10 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation _ _ - Summary • ` R •� r tonal Comment Add.t t7s y . _Alternative , _ Other Information Technology Service (ITS) Retained None Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Retained None Parallel Facilities Retained None Local Street Grid Network Retained None Notes: ITS - includes elements such as signal timing, etc. TDM - includes elements such as alternative modes, rideshare programs, etc. Page 2-11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 2.4 Level 2 Refinement and Evaluation - Classification and 2 Capacity 3 Operational classifications were developed to define the operational and environmental characteristics 4 of each corridor section (see Figure 2.1). The intent of defining and applying the operational 5 classifications is to determine a classification that balances the future transportation demands and 6 matches the context of each section. These operational classifications serve as the foundation for 7 Level 2 evaluation criteria. Alternatives for each section were developed and compared against the 8 evaluation criteria outlined below. 9 2.4.1 Level 2A - Classification 10 Level 2A refinement and evaluation identified the operational classification at which each section of 11 US 85 currently operates. Level 2A evaluation also identified if an operational classification was 12 appropriate or if another operational classification should be considered for each section. Three 13 components of the project Purpose and Need were used to develop Level 2A evaluation criteria: 14 Mobility, Safety, and Access. The other components of the Purpose and Need were not seen as being 15 differentiators in Level 2A evaluation: Railroad Proximity and Alternative Modes because these Purpose 16 and Need components can be accommodated/addressed regardless of the classification chosen for the 17 sections. 18 Figure 2.3 shows the operational classifications and defines the operating speed range, minimum 19 access spacing, intersection treatment options, and multimodal treatment options for each operational 20 classification. By determining the existing operational classification and the operational classification 21 in which each section of US 85 should be in the future, appropriate improvement options can be 22 considered. For example, an at -grade intersection would not be a suitable option to consider if the 23 operational classification is a freeway due to the requirement that all access on freeways be 24 grade -separated. Page 2-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.3 Operational Classification COLORADO Department of Transportation ♦ ® COLORADO US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study CO Depa+tn.ntol Trtnpottatwn (1rsOam Ames Splay Himont Collar laineelel Yi—s. - FlaMoq a Mile Small Examp*n' 1-76 t galls *UM _ j 1.' , ae '& HO weed and Mae nit eat d10`eM vie no 3 a* - deflate. I Man MOerabe Gnaw Separation. 0040:001IacrA61 Grade roomed Dedeetruiiar , ad oft- rate, rteapuo ___.. tee - - ; a ,.5--- • Enhanced +-- Expressway LLazrc tt. US 34 lweat al to seday) -- - smile to speed an I roes • tw trade separation, trade separated -- (Mile s ma0ermeMsigntram raetsaopn.3mat pea' ' w'. 00.00401, Inge- • .. - �" rouses rem Pew rod poste Area arum + la wn/ded %iatrtetaom, we sgStiatat,parlvu dares Or ja Ifaell asps Intl it co'6A aid cif- tarp, maaged awiyk Irian ewe de AMO et ten mile Canines stmt MU Mee. laval►e pu -t ped s .- - • maim and sepaded m leerssclent M.noway'n woiseened drolanal travel a o-wre quad lrgereecems. deist cue taro Standard Expressway eerie &tan-.; ' US 85 (Brighton) ModoratdA e heal, lit • bras Grade miner. Gluenowated _... _... - end traffic vol mies mat lenity!tnte inomiie.L tonon pds faeoatilt mat MIX irdrnpe. aVek01a4Prta) pdetweblia soon* teseminredSleen- - 4-5 55 - in multiple ante n wadi dowse (ter laeltiaae), old oft- lalp. ewepld ,_ •direcean and feast ikon Wee. ilfAotaonal wanedWinn -t pflsb NDdre 4.-. - - - - - lass tun Irereueors, CR sewage it Vatted -- - - -kill On -liar Wad nwwdiaa, tram till dr0 Rural Highway I ,iitr f 1 Exarryve. SH 392 (east of US 85) .. 45 435 inane lo reps speeds war mddartleblow alcao trsnalee 1/2 role - to M neiemeollatraaio,s wltrattic tdedaap Signeeratir twenty slue rated Podeetrfryteoe aces, atVar. pcomtriVble aaWpalegaWsd ea Em el One icons hilerseellena,kaattfall -_.a Pa Ca trapndrtp m outs _ a Ow weewde tit men Arterial Roadway 1 'silt - W 10th SWS 34 Business Route (west end of Greeley) ebawsle aim trail wed& amanlMe Mead wow ( 1/2 mie to holly SSUmelialUL.aportal Psdaetronitsla amine + -- - - - 35 - 4-5 IPSO ad India volumes weft moaaam Stoat smelasnetiar nlal alPi pan* 314 mdmrwa at web . dlYl�� douse ram MO). Canine sun -t TWO tun nlenecions, M. rank Pedesintabae crowing. at eprattzed Irainwtbra. UAW oar salt, rllq S+ri a a ens +Reif kr eta pate roue w,lr reap cereal we OM KOS p pastde, Main Street E+urltdo US 66 Buaiwss Route (Oreaby) l mi. low bawl speedy aid Om mese pa pets SipwWaott Saes Pedak avbea aossuvi 1 2-5- 35 Ira v anlq It elprelcadr-v'-lle deaekpmal end acme ~Er scaled pwetlq deeds (tin fWYkE ML tors-waStdepmrRrd *PS maned OadrstnaWwaaue9. e HAWK. nee pedwltarilms awned at Sped eminedo t, and pia as Page 2-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The existing operational classifications of US 85 sections were determined by comparing the existing 2 land use, highway character, geometry, and operating speed to the guidance in Figure 2.3. Each 3 existing classification was evaluated to determine if it was appropriate or if it should be changed to 4 meet the needs of the road users and surrounding environment. For each criterion, the operational 5 classification was determined to be "Not Applicable," "Retained," or "Eliminated" based on the 6 criterion's threshold, defined below. Figure 2.4 shows how each determination was made. 7 If an operational classification met the threshold for that criterion, it was considered "Retained." If an 8 operational classification was not retained and was below the existing operational classification, it was 9 "Eliminated" because it did not achieve the standards to meet the Purpose and Need objectives. If the 10 operational classification was not retained and was above the existing operational classification, it was 11 considered "Not Applicable." This means that the operational classification likely exceeds the Purpose 12 and Need objectives; however, it is not necessary for the success of the alternative. If the operational 13 classifications retained in Level 2A are unable to achieve the goals of the Purpose and Need further 14 into the evaluation process, the operational classifications considered Feasible, Not Recommended 15 could be revisited. 16 Figure 2.4 Level 2A Development and Evaluation Determination Operational classification met threshold for criterion Operational classification did not meet threshold for criterion 17 18 Mobility Criteria Retained Operational classification was below existing classification Operational classification was above existing classification Eliminated Fesible, Not Recommended 19 One of the Strategic Policy Initiatives in CDOT's FY 14-15 Performance Plan is to maintain system 20 reliability for Colorado highways. Travel time index (TTI) was identified as a way to measure the 21 efficiency of the transportation system that is consistent with CDOT policy objectives. The TTI is the 22 ratio of the time spent in traffic during peak traffic times as compared to travel times in free -flow 23 traffic. It normalizes travel time to account for the distance of a particular section. For example, if 24 only travel times were compared, a travel time of five minutes leads to a different conclusion for 25 congestion levels if the total distance in that time is 1 mile versus 5 miles. A TTI of 1.0 means travel 26 times are equal to free -flow speed and there is no congestion. 27 Page 2-14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The planning time index (PTI) also measures travel times of vehicles along a corridor, but it calculates 2 the amount of time a driver should prepare to travel to ensure that they arrive on time for 95 percent 3 of all trips. For example, a commute typically takes 10.2 minutes (with a TTI of 1.18). However, to 4 arrive on time 95 percent of the time, a driver needs to plan on 14.6 minutes (with a PTI of 1.69). The 5 ratio of the total time a traveler estimates for their commute compared to the free -flow travel time is 6 the PTI. The buffer index compares the amount of extra travel time that is added to a commute due to 7 congestion. 8 Figure 2.5 illustrates these concepts using actual data gathered on US 85 using an online service called 9 INRIX. INRIX collects real-time speed data using vehicle probe data and performs calculations to 10 determine statistics along a corridor for stakeholders to use to make decisions. The TTI shows the 11 average time to travel northbound on US 85 from 112th Avenue to Bromley Road. During peak periods, 12 the TTI is greater than 1.0. During the period that data were collected for this section, there was more 13 than average congestion throughout the day and most notably during the PM peak hour. The amount of 14 time required to travel the corridor during the PM peak hour was 40 percent longer than average (TTI is 15 approximately 1.2 and PTI is approximately 1.7). The difference between the TTI and the PTI is the 16 buffer index, which shows the amount of additional time the traveler needs to account for to arrive at 17 the end of the trip on time. 18 Figure 2.5 Reliability Measures Along US 85 Index Value 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 Reliability Measures US 85 Northbound from E 112th Ave to W Bromley Lane a Q Q Q Q a Q a a Q a Q a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri N m V Cr; lD r- W di o '-i N ci N m tJl l0 r� 00 O1 0 r4 19 20 Source: INRIX 2015. 21 Time of Day Travel Time Index Planning Time Index Page 2-15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The TTI was calculated for each alternative for the US 85 sections to determine whether changing the 2 operational classification would improve mobility. The calibrated peak period travel times were taken 3 from Synchro/SimTraffic and compared to the travel times for free -flow conditions. The worst case 4 scenario (highest travel time from any peak time or direction) was used for comparison purposes for 5 both the existing and 2035 No Action conditions. 6 CDOT has a performance objective to maintain a PTI of 1.25 or better for Colorado highways. The 7 operational classification alternatives were tested to determine if the change in classification is likely 8 to achieve CDOT's performance objectives. 9 The following represent the evaluation thresholds established to identify solutions in the US 85 PEL 10 that achieve system reliability in terms of CDOT's Strategic Policy Initiatives: 11 ► Existing TTI of a section is greater than or equal to 1.25 — Existing operational classification 12 and the next classification up retained. A TTI greater than 1.25 shows that there is congestion, 13 that a higher operational classification will increase capacity, and that the TTI should improve. 14 ► Existing TTI of a section is less than 1.25 — Existing operational classification and the next 15 classification down retained. If the TTI is between 1.0 and 1.25 during the peak periods, it is 16 expected that, because there is little to no congestion, the existing classification is sufficient. 17 The next classification down is also retained in this scenario because the corridor's No Action 18 capacity is adequate and the local community may prefer additional access points or slower 19 speed limits associated with a decreased operational classification. 20 Safety Criteria 21 In 2010, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published 22 the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO 2010). Relying on research largely conducted by CDOT, the 23 HSM provided, for the first time, a structured methodology to determine the expected average crash 24 frequency (by total crashes, crash severity, or collision type) for different types of roadways and 25 average daily traffic volumes. This methodology relies on Safety Performance Functions (SPFs), which 26 are regression equations that determine the expected average crash frequency. These SPF equations 27 are developed from crash data compiled from several similar sites. 28 Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) is a method of ranking roadway sections (or sites) according to their 29 observed and expected crash frequency. The SPF for a particular type of road helps determine the 30 expected (or average) number of crashes. LOSS is divided into four classes, depending on the deviation 31 from the average. LOSS I and II reflect better than average conditions (plotting below the average 32 curve) and represent sections (or sites) that have low potential for crash reduction (LOSS I) or have 33 better than expected safety performance (LOSS II). LOSS III and IV reflect conditions that are worse 34 than average (plotting above the average curve) and represent sections that have less than expected 35 safety performance (LOSS III) or have high potential for crash reduction (LOSS IV). 36 The LOSS for each corridor section indicates whether the existing operational classification is 37 performing better or worse than expected in terms of safety. The thresholds that determined the 38 recommended operational class are as follows: 39 ► LOSS I = Retain the existing operational classification and the next classification down 40 ► LOSS II = Retain the existing operational classification 41 ► LOSS III = Retain the existing operational classification and the next classification up 42 ► LOSS IV = Retain the next classification up 43 The above served as general guidelines with respect to the appropriate classification determination 44 regarding safety. 45 Figure 2.6 shows an example SPF curve. Page 2-16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure 2.6 Sample SPF Curves for 6 -Lane Urban Freeway AADT 2 3 Source: Allery & Kononov 207 7. 4 Access Criteria 5 The US 85 ACP is the guiding plan for future access along the corridor that stakeholders developed to 6 identify their vision for the future of their community. If an entity wants access to US 85, it must be 7 formally requested and approved by the US 85 Coalition, a group of local stakeholders that meet 8 regularly to make decisions on corridor improvements. With the US 85 Coalition in place, the integrity 9 and goals for mobility, land use, and appeal of the corridor are maintained. 10 Alternatives were compared to the US 85 ACP to determine whether each operational classification was 11 consistent with the intent of the ACP. To make this decision, potential intersection treatments, 12 restrictions on access spacing, and multimodal treatments of the operational classifications were 13 compared them to the ACP. If the corridor characteristics of the operational classification aligned with 14 those of the ACP, it was considered consistent. 15 Because the US 85 ACP does not address US 85 north of WCR 80, the State Highway Access Code was 16 used to determine if the operational classification was consistent with existing access categories north 17 of WCR 80. Page 2-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The following guidelines were used to determine the recommended operational classification: 2 ► If the operational classification is consistent with the intent of the ACP, the alternative is 3 retained. 4 ► If the operational classification is not consistent with the intent of the ACP, the alternative is 5 eliminated. 6 Level 2A - Results 7 Once the evaluation for each criterion was complete, a cumulative summary was developed to provide 8 a complete picture of each alternative. If an alternative received any determinations of "Eliminated," 9 the alternative was eliminated as an alternative. If the operational classification received a 10 combination of "Retained" and "Feasible, Not Recommended," the alternative was retained and 11 carried forward to Level 26 evaluation. Table 2.3 provides details on which operational classifications 12 were retained for each section. Appendix C contains the full matrix, including results from each 13 criterion. 14 Page 2-18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 2.3 Level 2A Evaluation Matrix Results Ay (COLORADO itimpDpaeearaFt tN ieution Descnpuon I WCR 2 2? WCR 11 to SH 66 (Fort I.upton In Platteville) SH 66 to WCR 32 (I'Iattewlte) WCR 32 to WCR 38 (I laliSle to Giloest) WCR 38 to WCR 42 (Gitcrest) WCR 42 to t' Street (Gdcrest to t asalle) 14 Sheet to WCR 52 (LaSalle) WCR 52 to 5" Street (Evans/ Greeley) 5°' StreetStreetParkway to SH 392 SH 392 to Colorado (Greeley to I , Il>n) Colorado Parkway m WCR 76 (Eaton) WCR 76 to WCR 82 (Eaton to Ault) WCR 82 to WCR 84 (Ault) WCR 84 to WCR 88 (Ault to Pence) WCR 88 to WCR 90 (Pierce) WCR 90 to WCR 98 (Pierce to Nunn) WCR 98 to WCR 100 (Nunn) Interstate System, Freeway Facilities Regained Retained Feasible. Not Recommended Retained F easible. Not Recommended reasrble Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible Not Recommended Retainedfeasible. Not Recommended Feasible, Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible, Not Recommended Feasible, Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Enhanced Retained Retained I easihle. Not Recommender.' • Retained ,Expressway Feasible, Not Recommended Few:ala', Not Feasible, Not Recommended RetanrKd - Feasible. Not Recommended f eavble, Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible, Not Recommended Feasible. Not Rernrmtended Feasible, Not Recommended Recommended Standard I iminated Elminaed Retained Flmrated Retairtld Retained Reatained - Eliminated Feasible, Not Recommended Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible, Not Feasible, Not Recommended Recommended Rural Highway I Simulated Ehmmated I easioe. Not Recommended Eliminated I eavble. Not Recommended Eliminated Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible, Not Recommended Eliminated Eliminated Feasible. Not Recommended Eliminated Feasible. Not Recommended Feasible, Not Reexmneaded Arterial I (unmated I Initiated .1 'i' F Emulated Eliminated E6rrnnated E umm.ihd EYrmmated Eliminated - •- :.I:1., ,. ,: RetainedRoadway Main Street thrnmated Fhmmated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated ReU61ed F6rmnated Eliminated ISimulatedl IIli-mated Retained Nunn 1.76 = Inerszate 76 SH - Slate Highway WCR - Weld County Road Pdgr' 2-m4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 2.4.2 Level 2B - Capacity Evaluation 2 Each category from the Purpose and Need was used to develop criteria for Level 2B evaluation: 3 Mobility, Safety, Access, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes. Criteria for measuring the 4 natural/cultural environment and community impacts was also used in this evaluation. One or two 5 questions were developed for each criterion to evaluate each alternative. Questions were answered 6 with "Yes," "No," or "Somewhat" to determine if the alternative met the objective. 7 Along most of US 85, with the existing number of lanes, high user demand resulted in congestion and a 8 TTI exceeding 1.25. To achieve the desired TTI threshold, Level 2B evaluation determined the number 9 of lanes along the mainline US 85 for future conditions under the relevant operational classification for 10 each section. 11 Mobility Criteria 12 Level 2 alternative refinement and evaluation used TTI as the performance measure for mobility. 2035 13 traffic volumes were used to calculate the TTI to determine future mobility. After creating a calibrated 14 model of the corridor using Synchro, cases were identified where the capacity was acceptable, as 15 evidenced by TTI being less than 1.25, and cases where there was a sufficient number of existing lanes. 16 For sections where the TTI was greater than 1.25, additional lanes were considered for the existing 17 operational classification. Also considered was a higher level of operational classification for the 18 alternative so that the access spacing, speed, and intersection types could improve capacity along 19 US 85 for future conditions, eliminating the need for additional lanes. Using the TTI calculated from 20 the Synchro/SimTraffic model of each alternative, the following questions regarding mobility were 21 asked: 22 ► Does the alternative provide sufficient capacity to handle travel demand in 2035? 23 ► Does the alternative achieve future travel time objectives? 24 If the TTI was less than or equal to the future travel time objective of 1.25, the capacity for that 25 alternative was sufficient to handle future travel demand and met the needs of both evaluation 26 criteria. If the TTI was greater than 1.25, the alternative was considered over capacity and did not 27 meet the mobility criteria. In some instances, the TTI was above the 1.25 threshold; however, within 28 the designated operational classification, because improvements to specific intersections could be 29 completed to reduce delay and travel time, those alternatives were determined to provide sufficient 30 mobility. 31 Safety Criteria 32 Beyond the LOSS consideration explained in Level 2A evaluation, a more detailed safety analysis was 33 performed for the sections in which estimates were made where past crashes could have potentially 34 been prevented if a different operational classification had been in place. This analysis focused on the 35 busier (and historically more crash -prone) intersections within a section and provided crash reduction 36 estimates based on the intersection crash patterns. The safety analysis then estimated a section 37 accident rate that could be indicative of proposed classifications. Results were compared to overall 38 state averages for rural and urban settings. Using this information, the following two questions were 39 answered: 40 ► How many crashes could potentially be prevented with this classification? 41 ► Does the classification result in a lower than average accident rate for like facilities (1.15 42 accidents per million miles of travel on rural roads and 1.5 for urban)? 43 These measures (potential number of crashes that could be reduced and the resulting accident rate in 44 comparison to state averages) were collectively considered in the safety aspect of Level 2B evaluation. Page 2-20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Access Criteria COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Consideration of the access portion of the Purpose and Need required similar comparisons to the US 85 3 ACP, as was completed in Level 2A. To determine if the operational classification and specified number 4 of lanes address the access portion of the Purpose and Need, the following questions were asked: 5 ► Does the alternative support the intent of the ACP? 6 ► Does the alternative provide appropriate access to support local land use planning? 7 The same logic was used from Level 2A evaluation to determine if the alternative supported the intent 8 of the ACP; however, alternative refinements (number of lanes) were evaluated at this level of 9 evaluation. Transportation and land use plans from local jurisdictions were used to determine if the 10 alternative provided appropriate access to support local land use planning. In addition, interviews 11 conducted with local agency stakeholders were used to make these determinations. Section 5.0 12 presents information on the local agency stakeholder interview process and results. If the operational 13 classification alternative aligned with the access goals identified in the land use plans and local agency 14 stakeholder interviews, it was considered appropriate. 15 Railroad Proximity Criteria 16 To determine the effect that the proximity of the railroad has on the operations of US 85, an 17 assessment was conducted that relates US 85 cross -street railroad crossings and highway operations. 18 This was assessed through the development of a Volume -to -Distance ratio; that is, the daily cross - 19 street traffic volume (existing and long-term projected) divided by the distance (in feet) between 20 US 85 and the railroad (east side of highway to just west of the railroad). The ratio provides a general 21 sense of interaction between rail and highway operations; the higher the cross -street volume and/or 22 the shorter the distance, the greater the ratio becomes. Applying a typical peak hour percentage and a 23 peak hour direction split, a Volume -to -Distance ratio of 10 was determined to run the risk of being 24 problematic for this criterion. Additionally, any cross -street location in which 50 -feet or less was 25 provided was automatically considered an issue regardless of traffic level. 26 The key questions asked as part of this level of evaluation process were: 27 ► What is the extent of the railroad/highway operational problem? 28 ► Does the alternative minimize railroad proximity impacts on US 85 operations? 29 The rail -highway interaction was assessed for each section using the Volume -to -Distance ratio and 30 assessing how it might change with the various classification options. The Level 2B summary matrix 31 (Appendix C) includes entries as part of the evaluation. 32 Alternative Modes Criteria 33 The consideration of infrastructure that supports alternatives modes throughout the corridor was 34 identified as a need for the corridor and was evaluated during Level 2B evaluation. The evaluation of 35 infrastructure supporting alternative travel modes focused on the ability of the corridor improvements 36 to accommodate transit service, biking, and pedestrians in the future. The North 1-25 EIS (CDOT 2011) 37 had previously identified the development of commuter bus service along the US 85 corridor between 38 Denver and Greeley. The evaluation of transit was based on the compatibility of the PEL alternatives 39 with the recommended commuter bus. Local communities' planning documents for bicycle and 40 pedestrian improvements were also evaluated and determined the compatibility of the PEL 41 improvements with the local plans. 42 Page 2-21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 The following questions were used to compare alternatives against other options: COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 ► Does the alternative complement planned transit service in the future? 3 ► Does the alternative support the adjacent community's vision for biking and walking (both local 4 and regional)? 5 The evaluation matrices in Appendix C document the results of this assessment. 6 Natural/Cultural Environment Criteria 7 The natural and cultural environment was considered part of Level 2B evaluation and focused on the 8 ability of an alternative to avoid or substantially minimize impacts to the natural environment and 9 cultural resources. For each alternative at each location, the following question was asked: 10 ► Does the alternative avoid impacts to the natural environmental and cultural resources? 11 The Project Team evaluated the presence of natural environment and cultural resources in the area of 12 improvement as identified in the Corridor Conditions Report (CDOT 2015). Impacts were not 13 quantitatively measured, but consideration was given to the ability to avoid resources. The 14 documentation for substantially avoiding the natural and cultural environment is an important step in 15 the PEL process because it helps to identify that alternatives that would avoid resources have been 16 considered. 17 Community Criteria 18 Level 2B evaluation also considered the potential effects that an alternative might have on the 19 surrounding community. This criterion was used to determine the community context surrounding an 20 alternative. The effects that an alternative might have can be either positive or negative, or even 21 both. To determine the effects an alternative might have by asking the following questions were 22 answered: 23 ► Does the alternative minimize community impacts? 24 ► Does the alternative minimize ROW acquisition needs and resident/business displacements? 25 The potential impacts were determined by considering the areas surrounding the alternative and the 26 proximity of residential and business to the alternative area. An alternative impacting these existing 27 areas was given a Low, Moderate, or High categorization. The Project Team also incorporated feedback 28 from local agencies and the public regarding perceived impacts from improvements at various 29 locations. An example of a potential impact to the community could be that improvements would 30 create a barrier for pedestrian and/or bicycles to cross. 31 Level 2B - Results 32 Once each alternative was evaluated, the evaluation results were determined. In Level 2B evaluation, 33 alternatives were not eliminated; however, alternatives were prioritized by identifying if they were 34 recommended or feasible, not recommended. The rationale for this is to not fully remove an option 35 from future consideration if circumstances change. A single alternative that had the most "Yes" 36 answers for each criterion was recommended for each section. The other alternatives were considered 37 feasible, not recommended. The No Action Alternative was retained for comparison purposes. 38 Figure 2.7 summarizes the Recommended Alternatives. Appendix C contains the complete matrix with 39 responses for each criterion. 40 Page 2-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.7 Level 2B Evaluation Results COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 2.23 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 2.5 Level 3 Alternative Refinement - Intersection Evaluation 2 The third level of alternative refinement took place after the determination of the classification and 3 capacity analysis in Level 2. The overall goal for Level 3 refinement was to determine the category of 4 improvement for each existing intersection. Categories included: 5 ► Intersection Improvement — This category included keeping the intersection at -grade and 6 allowing several improvement types (new turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, new 7 intersection configuration, changes in access, etc.). 8 ► Interchange or Grade -separation — This category included a grade -separated interchange that 9 allows access to and from US 85 or a grade -separation without access to and from US 85. 10 ► Closure — This category included full or partial closure of an existing intersection. 11 The information developed in Level 2 was used for this level of refinement. The operational 12 classification identified in Level 2 helped to determine the context of the types of improvements 13 identified in Level 3. For instance, for the corridor sections identified as a Freeway, all accesses were 14 either interchanges or closures. For the Standard and Enhanced Expressway section, there could be a 15 mixture of interchanges, at -grade intersection improvements, and closures. 16 The spacing guidelines identified in Figure 2.3 were used to assist in determining appropriate 17 improvements. These guidelines assisted the Project Team in ensuring that the improvements that are 18 advanced into the next round of evaluation appropriately matched the context of the surrounding 19 community and corridor sections. 20 Multiple scenarios and combinations based on the identified needs, feedback from stakeholders, and 21 feedback from the public were analyzed. The resulting combination represents the set of 22 improvements that best balances these needs. Figure 2.8 graphically presents the results of this 23 evaluation step. These improvement types were then carried forward to Level 4 evaluation, where 24 detailed configurations of improvements at each location were evaluated in more detail. Table 2.4 25 presents the recommendations from Level 3 evaluation. 26 Page 2-24 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.8 Level 3 Alternative Refinement Results 168TH AVE Lent 3 Intersection Improvements P; 85PEl TH AVE COLORADO Department of Transportation 5 CR 16 CR22 ,LO!') !..UPTON CR 14 CR 12 CR 10 CR 4 CR 2 144TH AVE 136TH AVE 132ND AVE 112TH, AVE r'( 'IA 1.!17 - 104TH AVE x BROMLEYLN TOWER RD Barr Lake 128TH AVE 120TH AVE 470 figiamin DENVER R Interchange o Intersection Improvement Closure — Project Alignment Lakes — Railroad Study Area RiverstStnams Page 2-25 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.8 Level 3 Alternative Refinement Results (Continued) Interchange Intersechon Improvement Closure 20TH ST 37TH ST — Project Alignment Lakes -- Railroad O Study Arca RlverslStreams CR36 CR34 in M Q U CR38 COLORADO Department of Transportation a a U CR 40 CR 32 v 5 C ST 16TH ST 18TH ST 24TH ST CR54 CR50 2 U "futon koser wur Level 3 Intersection Improvements 'JS 85 PEI Page 2-26 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.8 Level 3 Alternative Refinement Results (Continued) COLORADO Department of Transportation to N ¢ a U U CR 104 CR 108 NUNN CR90 A U V xlmon 14 CR88 CR86. CR84 CR 106 ci cc cc 0 0 CR 72 CR 70 CR 102 CR 100 CR 98 CR96 CR94 In cc U a U CR 92 is r_ -el l ON4. M a U v cc U CR80 CR 78 CR 76 CR74 Q Interchange — Protect Alignment Lakes e Intersection Improvement — Railroad O Study Area - RiverstStreams Closure Level 3 Intersection Improvements US 85 PEL Page 2-27 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 2.4 Level 3 Evaluation Recommendations Section 1 (Commerce City through Brighton) Operational Classification Freeway 104th Avenue Interchange / Grade Separation Longs Peak Drive Closure 112th Avenue Interchange / Grade Separation 120th Avenue Interchange / Grade Separation 124th Avenue Closure E-470 Interchange No Change 132nd Avenue Closure 136th Avenue Interchange / Grade Separation 144th Avenue Closure Bromley Lane Interchange / Grade Separation Bridge Street Intersection Improvements Denver Street Closure CR 2 Interchange / Grade Separation CR 2.5 Closure CR 4 Closure CR 6 Interchange / Grade Separation COLORADO Department of Transportation Section 1 (Fort Lupton) Operational Classification Freeway WCR 6—WCR 78/ Enhanced Expressway WCR 78 — WCR 22 CR 6.5 Closure CR 8 Interchange / Grade Separation CR 10 No Change SH 52 No Change CR 14.5 Interchange / Grade Separation CR 16 Intersection Improvements CR 16.5 Intersection Improvements CR 18 Interchange / Grade Separation CR 18.5 Closure CR 20 Intersection Improvements CR 22 Interchange / Grade Separation Section 2 (Fort Lupton to Platteville) Operational Classification Enhanced Expressway CR 22.5 Closure CR 24 Closure CR 24.5 Intersection Improvements and Closure CR 26 Intersection Improvements CR 28 Interchange / Grade Separation Section 2 (Fort Lupton to Platteville) (corn.) SH 66 Interchange / Grade Separation CR 30 Closure (Combine with SH 66 Interchange) Page 2-28 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 2 (Platteville) Operational Classification Standard Expressway Marion Avenue Intersection Improvements and Closure CR 32 Intersection Improvements CR 34 Interchange / Grade Separation Section 2 (Platteville to Gilcrest) Operational Classification Enhanced Expressway CR 36 Closure SH 60 Interchange / Grade Separation CR 38 Closure Section 2 (Gilcrest) Operational Classification Standard Expressway CR 29/38.5 Closure CR 40 Intersection Improvements Elm Street Intersection Improvements Main Street Intersection Improvements CR 31 / Ash Street Intersection Improvements CR 42 Intersection Improvements Section 2 (Gilcrest to LaSalle) Operational Classification Standard Expressway CR 33 Interchange / Grade Separation (Combine with WCR 44) CR 44 Interchange / Grade Separation (Combine with WCR 33) CR 46/CR 35 Intersection Improvements AND Closure CR 481 CR 37 Intersection Improvements AND Closure COLORADO Department of Transportation Section 3 (LaSalle) Operational Classification Standard Expressway 15t Avenue Intersection Improvements 2nd Avenue Intersection Improvements 3rd Avenue No Change 4th Avenue Intersection Improvements 5th Avenue No Change 1St Street Intersection Improvements SH 394 Intersection Improvements Section 3 (Evans/Greeley) Operational Classification Standard Expressway 42nd Street Intersection Improvements 37th Street Intersection Improvements 31St Street Intersection Improvements US 34 Interchange Interchange / Grade Separation 22nd Street Interchange / Grade Separation 18th Street Interchange / Grade Separation 16th Street Interchange / Grade Separation Section 3 (Evans/Greeley) (cont.) Operational Classification Standard Expressway 13th Street Interchange / Grade Separation 8th Street Interchange / Grade Separation 5th Street Interchange / Grade Separation Page 2-29 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 3 (Greeley to Lucerne) Operational Classification Enhanced Expressway O Street Closure CR 66 Intersection Improvements SH 392 Intersection Improvements Section 4 (Lucerne to Eaton) Operational Classification Standard Expressway CR 70 No Change CR 72 Closure Section 4 (Eaton) Operational Classification Main Street Colorado Parkway Intersection Improvements Orchard Street No Change Collins Street No Change 1st Street No Change 2nd Street No Change 3rd Street No Change Section 4 (Eaton) (cont.) Operational Classification Main Street 4') Street No Change 5P" Street Intersection Improvements CR 76 Intersection Improvements Section 4 (Eaton to Ault) Operational Classification Standard Expressway CR 37 Closure CR 78 No Change CR 80 No Change SH 14 Intersection Improvements COLORADO Department of Transportation Section 4 (Ault) Operational Classification Main Street 2' Street No Change 3rd Street No Change CR 84 No Change Section 4 (Ault to Pierce) Operational Classification Rural Highway CR 86 No Change CR 88 No Change Section f (Pierce) Operational Classification Arterial Roadway Main Street No Change CR 90 Intersection Improvements Section 4g (Pierce to Nunn) Operational Classification Rural Highway CR 92 No Change CR 94 No Change CR 96 No Change CR 98 No Change Section 4h (Nunn) Operational Classification Arterial Roadway 4''' Street No Change CR 100 Intersection Improvements AND Closure Page 2-3O US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 2.6 Level 4 Alternative Refinement and Evaluation — 2 Intersection/Interchange Configuration 3 The final level of alternative refinement and evaluation evaluated the detailed configuration of each 4 intersection location throughout the corridor. Level 4 refinement and evaluation took the results from 5 Level 3 and considered multiple interchange types, intersections configurations, and access closures 6 and evaluated them against the Purpose and Need criteria for Mobility, Safety, Access, Railroad 7 Proximity, and Alternative Modes. Impacts to the natural/cultural environment and the communities' 8 feedback were also considered. 9 Level 4 refinement and evaluation resulted in recommendations at each intersection location 10 throughout the corridor. For each recommendation, Appendix E contains a one -page summary sheet 11 with a conceptual design. Appendix C contains detailed results of Level 4 refinement and evaluation. 12 2.6.1 Mobility Criteria 13 For Level 4 refinement and evaluation, the Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions (CAP -X), a 14 planning tool developed by FHWA, was used to evaluate localized mobility for each alternative. CAP -X 15 uses turning movement counts, truck percentages, and the number of lanes to determine the 16 approximate v/c ratios for intersection alternatives. The v/c ratio is a measure of the number of 17 vehicles using a facility compared to the expected capacity of the facility. A v/c ratio of 1.0 indicates 18 severe congestion and is considered unacceptable. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual does not provide 19 a range of acceptable v/c ratios; however, industry standards commonly consider a v/c ratio of 0.8 as 20 acceptable. For study purposes, a v/c ratio of 0.8 or below was used to indicate acceptable operations. 21 To determine which intersection or interchange configuration would provide the best operations on the 22 corridor, the following two questions were asked of each alternative: 23 ► Does the alternative have an acceptable volume to capacity (v/c) ratio to address travel 24 demand? 25 ► Does the alternative have a positive or negative effect on regional mobility? 26 Engineering judgment was used to determine what effect each alternative had on regional mobility. If 27 the improvement type typically leads to reduced delays along mainline US 85, it was considered an 28 improvement to regional mobility. Similarly, if the improvement type typically increases delays along 29 the mainline, it was indicated to have a negative effect on regional mobility. Some improvement types 30 were given a "0" designation in the matrix because they had neither a positive nor a negative impact 31 on regional mobility. The No Action configurations were also compared against the mobility evaluation 32 criteria; however, they were given a "Not Applicable" indication and retained for comparison as the 33 baseline in future evaluations. 34 2.6.2 Safety Criteria 35 For the Level 4 refinement and evaluation, a more detailed safety analysis was performed on an 36 intersection -by -intersection basis than was completed for previous refinement and evaluation levels. 37 Estimates were made with respect to the number of past crashes that could have potentially been 38 prevented if the particular intersection improvement had been in place. The analysis used crash 39 patterns that have taken place at the intersection when assessing reductions (different improvements 40 will affect various crash patterns differently). Also, consideration was given to improvements, such as 41 interchanges, in which ramp intersection signalization may still be needed and would likely see some 42 crashes (just much fewer than if the intersection was left at -grade). Page 2-31 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 To document the safety criteria in Level 4, the following two questions were answered: 2 ► Does the improvement reduce the predominant crash pattern? 3 ► If yes, what is the anticipated annual crash reduction? 4 Appendix C presents the detailed results of the Level 4 safety analysis. 5 2.6.3 Access Criteria 6 Access considerations within the context of Level 4 refinement and evaluation included the following 7 two fundamental questions: 8 ► Is the intersection improvement consistent with the Access Control Plan? 9 ► Does the option provide appropriate access that supports local land use planning? 10 The first question gauges whether an intersection alternative meets the ACP or the intent of the ACP. A 11 "No" response was not considered to be a negative aspect of the alternative, but if other factors 12 demonstrated improvements, then this factor was not weighted as heavily. This is because the 13 amendments to the ACP are an outcome of this PEL. 14 The second question pertains to the context of an area where the intersection improvement is located. 15 The context is related to the ease of access to/from US 85 that aligns with existing and/or proposed 16 land uses in the area, especially those of adjacent properties. A "No" response indicates that the 17 improvement alternative is significantly out of context with the surrounding area relative to access 18 needs and potential property impacts and/or out of context with the section's classification 19 determined in a previous refinement/evaluation level. The second question is also answered, in some 20 cases, with respect to the access opportunities that a proposed improvement may afford the 21 surrounding area that is not provided today. 22 2.6.4 Railroad Criteria 23 Each intersection improvement alternative was assessed with respect to potential benefit to US 85 24 operations, as well as the UPRR if a crossroad at -grade crossing was eliminated. Previous 25 refinement/evaluation levels addressed the interaction and location of US 85 and the UPRR. The UPRR 26 had identified several preferred at -grade crossing removals along the US 85 corridor that they felt 27 could collectively improve rail transport. This desire was captured in the Level 4 refinement and 28 evaluation matrix (Appendix C). 29 Further, the rail crossing Volume -to -Distance ratio previously discussed and considered in Level 2B 30 evaluation was more specifically assessed in Level 4 refinement/evaluation. Intersections in which the 31 ratio is greater than 10 or where the distance apart is 50 feet or less are at risk of being problematic 32 with respect to rail operations impacting highway operations. Where either of these exists, an 33 assessment was made as to whether the improvement alleviates the situation. 34 The key questions asked as part of the refinement/evaluation process were: 35 ► Is the intersection identified as a priority for closure by the railroad? 36 ► Does the alternative reduce railroad/road operational issues? 37 The railroad interaction for each location was assessed, and "Yes" or "No" entries were included in the 38 Level 4 evaluation matrix (see Appendix C). 39 Page 2-32 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 2.6.5 Alternative Modes Criteria COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 The consideration of alternative modes in Level 4 refinement/evaluation built on the evaluation 3 completed in Level 2B evaluation and focused on the future planned transit, bicycle, and pedestrian 4 improvements and the compatibility and enhancement of these modes. The North 1-25 EIS (CDOT 2011) 5 had previously identified the development of commuter bus service along the US 85 corridor between 6 Denver and Greeley. The evaluation of transit was based on the compatibility of the PEL alternatives 7 with the commuter bus and how an alternative improves bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The following 8 questions were used to evaluate each alternative: 9 ► Does the improvement enhance biking and walking? 10 ► What is the potential for enhancing existing and planned regional transit service? 11 Each alternative was evaluated and ranked based on its ability to meet these modes. The evaluation 12 matrices in Appendix C document the results of this assessment. 13 2.6.6 Natural/Cultural Environment Criteria 14 Similar to the previous refinement/evaluation levels, each alternative at each intersection location was 15 evaluated based on potential impacts to the natural and cultural environment. This consideration 16 focused on the ability of an alternative to avoid or minimize impacts to the natural environment and 17 cultural resources. For each alternative at each location, the following question was asked: 18 ► Does the option avoid or minimize impacts to the natural environmental and cultural resources? 19 Each alternative was determined if it avoided or impacted various natural and cultural environmental 20 resources. These potential impacts were compared to other options at each intersection location. The 21 resources that were evaluated were presented in the Corridor Conditions Report and are shown on the 22 final summary sheets for each location. More detailed analysis of avoidance, impacts, and mitigation is 23 required as part of the subsequent NEPA evaluations. 24 2.6.7 Community Criteria 25 Analyzing the effect that an alternative may have on the adjacent community was an important step in 26 the final alternative refinement/evaluation process. Feedback from the TAC, the public, and 27 information on the surrounding area was used to help define the context of the surrounding area. The 28 following criteria were used to evaluate each alternative's effect on the adjacent community: 29 ► Does the option fit within the context of the adjacent community? 30 ► Does the option minimize right-of-way acquisition needs? 31 ► What was the community's response to the option? 32 These criteria were used to balance the ability of the alternative to meet the corridor Purpose and 33 Need and to meet the context of the surrounding community in terms of how they envision their 34 community. These criteria were key to ensuring that local communities support the proposed 35 improvements and will partner with CDOT on implementation. 36 Page 2-33 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 2.6.8 Level 4 Refinement and Evaluation - Results COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Level 4 refinement and evaluation resulted in a recommendation or multiple recommendations for each 3 of the 93 intersections in the 62 -mile corridor. In every instance, the No Action Alternative was carried 4 forward for consideration in subsequent NEPA evaluations. Every option for each intersection was given 5 one of the following designations: 6 ► Recommended — This alternative would sufficiently meet the corridor's Purpose and Need and 7 provide the needed improvement to the local transportation system to meet future demands. 8 This alternative is recommended for further consideration and evaluation in subsequent NEPA 9 steps 10 ► Feasible, Not Recommended — This alternative would meet the Purpose and Need to a certain 11 degree, but other factors, such as community impacts or environmental impacts, were 12 considered to be too much to recommend this alternative for further consideration. However, 13 during subsequent NEPA evaluations, situations could change, and as a result, this alternative 14 could become more advantageous and, thus, be revisited. 15 ► Eliminated — This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need or provide adequate 16 improvements to Access, Mobility, Safety, or Railroad Proximity to justify the improvement. 17 In some cases, more than one alternative may be recommended for a given intersection because 18 differentiation between alternatives may not be great enough to make one recommendation over 19 another. In these cases, multiple alternatives are proposed be advanced and evaluated in NEPA to 20 determine which alternative would be the most reasonable for the location and context at that time. 21 Table 2.5 presents the results of Level 4 refinement and evaluation. Appendix C provides detailed 22 information for each alternative that met or did not meet each criterion discussed in the section. 23 Section 3.0 presents a depiction of the Recommended Alternatives throughout the corridor. 24 Appendix E presents the location recommendations and alternative concepts for each of the 25 Recommended Alternatives. These summary sheets are intended to serve as a guide and summary for 26 local agencies to advance the identified improvements. 27 Page 2-34 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Table 2.5 Level 4 Evaluation Recommendations COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Commerce City 104m Avenue No Action Feasible Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended Split Diamond (with I-76) Recommended SPUI with Flyover Recommended DD/ Recommended Partial Cloverleaf Recommended Longs Peak Drive No Action Feasible Closed Recommended 112th Avenue No Action Feasible SPUI Recommended Skewed SPUI Recommended Grade Separated, No Access Feasible, Not Recommended Single Loop Partial Cloverleaf Feasible, Not Recommended Closed Feasible, Not Recommended 120th Avenue No Action Feasible Partial Cloverleaf Feasible, Not Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended Tight Diamond Recommended DDI Recommended Brighton 124th Avenue No Action Feasible Grade Separated, No Access Feasible, Not Recommended Closure Recommended (Closure will not happen until access to the interchange at 120tn Avenue is provided) E-470 No Action N/A 132nd Avenue No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with new interchange at 136m Avenue) 136th Avenue No Action Feasible Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended Partial Cloverleaf Feasible, Not Recommended Junior, RI/R0 Interchange Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Recommended Page 2-35 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Brighton 144'' Avenue No Action Feasible Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended Grade Separated, No Access Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Feasible, Not Recommended Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at Bromley Lane) Bromley Lane No Action Feasible Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Recommended Bridge Street/SH 7 No Action Feasible Bus slip Ramps to Station Recommended Denver Street No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2) 168t1 Avenue! WCR 2 No Action Feasible Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Recommended WCR 2.5 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2) Weld County WCR 4 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2 and WCR 6) Grade Separated, No Access Feasible Fort Lupton WCR 6 No Action Feasible Partial Cloverleaf Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended WCR 6.25 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 6) WCR 8 No Action Feasible Hook Ramps Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended Page 2-36 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Fort Lupton WCR 10 No Action, No Access Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended SH 52 No Action Feasible Pedestrian Improvement Recommended WCR 14.5/ 14111 Street No Action Feasible Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Feasible, Not Recommended Junior Interchange Recommended Channelized-T Feasible, Not Recommended WCR 16 No Action Feasible RI/RD Recommended (Completed in coordination with improvements at WCR 14.5. Outcome at WCR 16 could be different depending on action taken at WCR 14.5/14'' Street.) Closed Feasible, Not Recommended Weld County WCR 18 No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Feasible, Not Recommended Continuous Flow / Super Signal Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) Hook Ramps Feasible, Not Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended WCR 18.5 No Action Feasible RI/RO Feasible, Not Recommended Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 18) WCR 20 No Action Feasible RI/R0 Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) Close Feasible, Not Recommended WCR 22 No Action Feasible Diamond Recommended Page 2-37 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location . Improvement Type Recommendation Weld County WCR 22.5 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 22. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) WCR 24.5 No Action Feasible RI/R0 (West); Closure (East) Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) WCR 26 No Action Feasible RURO Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) WCR 28 No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Feasible, Not Recommended SPUI Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28) Partial Closure Feasible, Not Recommended Closed Feasible, Not Recommended Platteville WCR 30 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (Requires new parallel connection to WCR 32) SH 66 No Action Feasible Diamond (W) and Offset SPUI (E) Feasible, Not Recommended Continuous Flow/Super Signal Feasible, Not Recommended Channelized-T Feasible, Not Recommended (potential interim improvements) Channelized-T with SB Grade Separation Recommended (SB grade separation; consider groundwater and shifting alignment to the east) Marion Avenue No Action Feasible Partial Closure Recommended (3/a movement) WCR 32, Grand Avenue No Action Feasible Signalization Recommended (Frontage road relocation to eliminate phasing. Improvements work in conjunction with parallel road to WCR 30 in Platteville.) SPUI Feasible, Not Recommended Page 2-38 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Platteville WCR 34 No Action Feasible Diamond Recommended WCR 36 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (With connections to next intersections north and south. Closure will happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 34 and SH 60) SH 60 No Action Feasible Diamond Recommended (interim storage lengths) WCR 38 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (When signal improved connection to WCR 40 and WCR 60. Closure happens in conjunction with improvements at SH 60) WCR 29/38.5 No Action Feasible Closed Recommended (when signal improved connection to WCR 40 and WCR 60) Gilcrest WCR 40 No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Recommended (realign west frontage road at the intersection) Elm Street No Action Feasible 3/4 Access Recommended (east side closure only when signal at WCR 40) Main Street No Action Feasible RI/R0 Feasible, Not Recommended Closure Feasible, Not Recommended Channelized-T Recommended (must cul-de-sac western frontage roads) WCR 31 /Ash Street No Action Recommended (Maintain current 3/4) WCR 42 No Action Feasible Add EB Right Turn Lane Recommended (create EB turn lanes; consider signal phasing during pre-emption) WCR 33 No Action Feasible Closed Feasible, Not Recommended (Interim improvements work in conjunction with WCR 44 improvements. With new signal at WCR 44 and frontage road east of the railroad) Page 2-39 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location , Improvement Type Recommendation Gilcrest Channelized-T Feasible, Not Recommended Grade Separation; Junior Interchange with WCR 44 Eliminated —Completely impacts all residents of Peckham Diamond Eliminated —Completely impacts all residents of Peckham Shifted Tight Urban Diamond Interchange Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with improvements at WCR 44. Interim improvements include addition of a signal and closure of WCR 33) RI/R0 Feasible, Not Recommended WCR 44 No Action Feasible Grade Separation 85 over; with Channelized-T at WCR 33 Eliminated —Completely impacts all residents of Peckham Signalization Feasible, Not Recommended (Improvements work in conjunction with WCR 33 improvements. With new frontage road alignment on east side of railroad) Grade Separation; Junior Interchange with WCR 33 Feasible, Not Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended Shifted Tight Urban Diamond Interchange Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with improvements at WCR 33. Interim improvements include addition of a signal and closure of WCR 33) WCR 46/WCR 35 No Action Feasible Channelized T with Closure on the East Side Recommended WCR 48/ WCR 37 No Action Feasible Full Movement Feasible, Not Recommended 3/4 Movement Feasible, Not Recommended Channelized-T with East Side Closure Recommended La Salle 1st Avenue No Action Feasible Junior Interchange Feasible, Not Recommended (does not reflect community's desires) Traffic Signal Recommended (turn lane extensions, to address railroad operations) 2nd Avenue No Action Feasible RI/R0 Recommended Page 2-40 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation La Salle 3«' Avenue No Action Recommended Closed Feasible, Not Recommended 4"i Avenue No Action Feasible RI/R0 Recommended 5'E' Avenue No Action Recommended Closed Feasible, Not Recommended Channelized-T, with RI/PO (West Side) Feasible, Not Recommended 1st Street No Action Feasible Yr Access Recommended (median channelization for left turn lane) SH 394 No Action Feasible Couplet Intersection Recommended Evans 42110 Street No Action Feasible Auxiliary Lane Additions Recommended (can get close to v/c goal without big infrastructure improvements; must include realignment of frontage roads) Turn Restrictions Feasible, Not Recommended Texas Turnaround Feasible, Not all Texas U's in [off, off, on, on]) Recommended (includes Evans; with slip ramps 37,0 Street No Action Feasible Auxiliary Lane Additions Recommended (can get close to v/c goal without big infrastructure improvements; must include realignment of frontage roads) Texas Turnaround Feasible, Not Recommended all Texas U's in [off, off, on, on]) (includes Evans; with slip ramps 31 tit Street No Action Feasible Auxiliary Lane Additions Recommended goal without big improvements; of frontage roads) (can get close to v/c infrastructure must include realignment Texas Turnaround [off, Feasible, Not Recommended all Texas U's in off, on, on]) (includes Evans; with slip ramps US 34 Interchange TBD Feasible Page 2-41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Greeley 22nd Street No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Feasible, Not Recommended Texas Turnaround Recommended (Requires parallel road connection to allow business access on the east side of the railroad. Context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) 18111 Street No Action Feasible Additional Turn Lanes Feasible, Not Recommended Texas Turnaround Recommended (context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) 161'' Street No Action Feasible Closed Feasible, Not Recommended Texas Turnaround Recommended (context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) 13111 Street No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Feasible, Not Recommended Texas Turnaround Recommended (context of Texas U fits better because of more space and access exists off existing frontage roads) 8t, Street No Action Feasible Texas Turnaround Recommended (fits context of surrounding land uses and parcels than split diamond) Split Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended 5111 Street No Action Feasible Texas Turnaround Recommended (fits context of surrounding land uses and parcels than split diamond) Split Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended 0 Street No Action Feasible Overpass Feasible, Not Recommended (structure over RR and US 85 so big that severely impacts surrounding land uses) Combined Overpass with WCR 66 Feasible, Not Recommended Closure and Combine with Signal at WCR 66 Recommended (Constructed in conjunction with a traffic signal at WCR 66. Has some out of direction travel but fits context of surrounding land use) Page 2-42 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Greeley WCR 66 No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Recommended (Constructed in conjunction with closures at O Street. Lane additions to be studied) Lucerne SH 392 No Action Feasible Auxiliary Lane Improvements Recommended Diamond Feasible, Not Recommended (too much impact; signal works fine) WCR 70 No Action Recommended Eaton WCR 72 No Action Feasible Closed; on East Side Only Recommended (Closure at WCR 72 in conjunction with new improvements in Eaton and full access maintained at WCR 70. East side only; enhance CR 39) Colorado Pkwy % Movement Recommended Orchard Street RURO Recommended Collins Street No Action Recommended 1st Street No Action Recommended 2ric Street No Action Recommended 3rd St No Action Feasible RI/RO Feasible, Not Recommended 4"i Street No Action Recommended 50" Street No Action Feasible Traffic Signal Recommended (HAWK) Pi Street No Action Recommended '// Configuration Feasible, Not Recommended WCR 76 No Action Feasible Signal Recommended WCR 37 Close on East Side and Parallel South to CR 76 Recommended (Would happen in conjunction with signal at WCR 76.) CR 78 No Action Recommended CR 80 No Action Recommended Closed on East Side Only Feasible, Not Recommended Page 2-43 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community Location Improvement Type Recommendation Ault SH 14 No Action Recommended 2nd Street No Action Recommended 3rd Street No Action Recommended CR 84 No Action Recommended CR 86 No Action Recommended Pierce CR 88 No Action Recommended Main Street No Action Recommended CR 90 No Action Feasible, Not Recommended Traffic Signal Recommended (HAWK interim) CR 92 No Action Recommended CR 94 No Action Recommended CR 96 No Action Recommended Nunn CR 98 No Action Recommended Close Feasible, Not Recommended 40, Street No Action Recommended CR 100 No Action Feasible, Not Recommended Signal Recommended (Closure East Side) 1 Notes: CR = County Road DDI = Diverging Diamond Interchange EB = eastbound 1-76 = Interstate 76 RI/RO = right-in/right-out RR = railroad 2 SB = southbound SH = State Highway SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange TBD = to be determined v/c = volume to capacity ratio WCR = Weld County Road Page 2-44 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 3.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES CONCEPT 2 Section 3.0 describes the Recommended Alternatives resulting from the extensive Alternative 3 Development, Refinement, and Screening Process conducted for this PEL study. Appendix E includes 4 the conceptual engineering plans and the cost estimates for each element of the Recommended 5 Alternatives. Appendix E also includes a one -page summary showing the individual improvements and 6 summarizing the necessary information for a community to obtain money to advance the 7 improvements. This section of the PEL shows the connection among all the elements. It should be 8 clearly noted that there are many cases where a road closure is recommended, but the actual closure 9 should not occur until an adjacent improvement is implemented. Special care should be taken to the 10 Summary Sheets in Appendix E to determine what other improvements are required prior to access 11 closures. 12 Some of the recommended improvements identified in this document will require an amendment to the 13 US 85 ACP. The US 85 ACP will continue to serve as the legally -binding, governing document for the US 14 85 Corridor. A formal amendment request for changing the current ACP recommendations to match the 15 US 85 PEL recommendations is required, as identified in Section 6. As set forth in the US 85 IGA, when 16 an amendment to the ACP is requested, all parties to the IGA must approve the change in writing. 17 Amendments to the US 85 ACP will take place only when funding is available for the identified 18 improvement. This allows for only amendments that are imminent to be brought for discussion, 19 recommended, and approved. 20 The corridor is broken into four sections to better describe the corridor improvements. 21 3,1 Section 1-1-76 to WCR 22 22 Section 1 of the US 85 corridor comprises three communities (Commerce City, Brighton, and Fort Lupton) 23 and two counties (Adams and Weld). Section 1 was designated as a Freeway for most of the corridor and 24 then as an Enhanced Expressway in the northern portion. This results in the vast majority of the 25 intersection recommendations as interchanges or closures. Section 1 contains 11 interchanges or grade 26 separations. 27 Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 present the two conceptual layouts of grade -separated interchanges in the 28 Corridor. These are generic layouts with site -specific recommendations presented in Figure 3.3. 29 Commerce City provided CDOT with two letters (Appendix F) requesting the inclusion of an alternative 30 for 104th Avenue that was not evaluated in the PEL, an evaluation of the intersections from 104th Avenue 31 to 124th Avenue as one complete system, and the desire to fully evaluation all community and 32 environmental effects of the improvements in Commerce City. CDOT has initiated a separate NEPA and 33 Preliminary Design Project addressing the US 85 Corridor between 104th Avenue and 124th Avenue. That 34 project will accommodate Commerce City's requests. 35 Figure 3.4 presents the conceptual recommendations for alternative mode facilities. All future 36 interchanges identified in the PEL shall evaluated bus slip ramps and other transit -related 37 infrastructure on all interchanges to minimize off-line queueing and enhance operational efficiency. 38 The RTD provides existing established route transit service in Section 1. No changes are recommended 39 to the existing service. However, coordination is required during the design phase at proposed 40 interchanges to ensure that bus service can be efficiently accommodated. This would include the 41 following locations: 104th Avenue, 112t'' Avenue, 120th Avenue, and Bromley Lane. 42 Page 3-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Interregional commuter bus service consistent with the North 1-25 EIS ROD 1 is recommended. This 2 includes commuter bus connections in Section 1 at SH 7 in Brighton and at 14th Street/WCR 14.5 in Fort 3 Lupton. The interregional commuter bus service would use the existing RTD park -n -Ride in Brighton. The 4 addition of bus slip ramps is recommended for direct access at SH 7. The North 1-25 EIS ROD 1 identified 5 the Fort Lupton bus station to be in the southeast quadrant of US 85 and 14th Street/ WCR 14.5 and to 6 include 20 parking spaces. A change in location would require a revision to the North 1-25 EIS ROD 1. 7 Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 present conceptual layouts of the ways in which transit can be efficiently 8 accommodated at diamond interchanges and single point urban interchanges (SPUIs). Both interchange 9 templates assume that bus stops will be located on the highway on -ramps and the far side of the 10 interchange along the cross streets, as needed. Buses would exit the highway, proceed through the 11 cross street intersection, and stop on the on -ramp before continuing onto the highway. Bus -only queue 12 jump lanes with transit signal priority treatments would be required at a SPUI to provide more efficient 13 through -service. Pedestrian connections should be provided between the bus stops. This may include 14 crosswalks at the cross streets and the highway ramps, as well as adjacent sidewalks. 15 Design elements included in these conceptual layouts should be reviewed case by case during future 16 phases to ensure the best connectivity between routes and the best accessibility to adjacent land uses. 17 The Recommended Alternatives also include opportunities to maximize local and regional trail 18 connections. DRCOG has identified the South Platte River Trail as a key multiuse trail. The PEL 19 recommendations include the following: 20 ► At -grade pedestrian crossing improvements at Bromley Lane as a part of the SPUI 21 ► Grade -separated pedestrian/bike crossing replacement at SH 7 to better connect to the RTD 22 park -n -Ride facility 23 At -grade pedestrian crossing improvements at SH 52 to connect downtown Fort Lupton to the existing 24 bridge across the South Platte River and to Pearson Park. Page 3-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure 3.1 Diamond Interchange Transit Accommodation 2 Cross Street Ensure pedestrian connections between . ■ . . . transit facilities • • • • • • • • • • • iii • • . . • ■ . • .... R Tr. 4 4 -INS alliall MSS Mime al es ellis — mono amigo ass O a) Cross street may be at -grade or grade -separated with the railroad Page 3-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure 3.2 Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Transit 2 3 4 5 Bus only queue jump for consideration Cross Street • Accommodation /. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q • . • • it • • • • • • • • • • • 040, • X.. Bus only queue jump for consideration _. a' O C) Q Cross street may be at -grade or grade -separated with the railroad Page 3-4 US 8S Manning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements Section 1A 1-76 to North of 120th Avenue FREEWAY own tat Art Solt Pont htedvge (SRA I Kr, Gbaa Long& PS' - Dm* at • low .amens suns I • o+nt M1.t Mary Pew CC ath fete SYra Pant %yen h 2 tSW1.11 P.S £ae1 aeit Falb) VP COLORADO Dopartmant of Transportation Section 1A 1-76 to North of 124th Avenue 11th Ave nttniunff OPTION St - Oorced htmlanit FELSBURG CMOLT & I.ILLFVIC 114th nut fie awn US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 1B Nome Street to North of 144th Avenue FREEWAY COLORADO Dopattmont at Tran:ponanon Section 1 B Nome Street to North of 144th Avenue FREEWAY 14th Ave • Fr dou►. P,tg� 3 6 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 1C South of Bromley Lane to North of CR 2.5 FREEWAYiI erarlev Lax Prnt Urban ms fsF . • EknteitS't • Pekstrvt l&oswq incroverent I3 Sit9 • Transit bwovorerts • Pctv.atz assa WI, fat • eM-ctM1 rap fangs Denver St rJ at bond towel. COLORADO Dapartmcnt of Transponanon Section 1C South of Bromley Lane to North of CR 2.5 WcK I • Snit Pont vow — t pr I • taw S a, FREEWAY z Page 3-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 1 D South of CR 4 to CR 10 NSW ►a NO dgratw a aes YJGR 4 •fill awn WaRb • l]anxxd nMtMyt I i OF`rI N Wae a:241 WGR b • Pocb tan dale %vat HZ • fi/ cbrvr Extant auu to YJCRt NGR 9 • %tenor ntnthrvit • look warps tote accts vmvde donna.. aces.. COLORADO Dopanmont of Tranzponatton Section 1 D South of CR 4 to CR 10 FREEWAY WLR U • No aaas I'.iyo !t US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 1 E North of CR 10 to CR 16 FREEWAY /._ al 52 • Psictran ertwoutxnta trout Matta, COLORADO Department of Transportatton Section 1 E North of CR 10 to CR 16 Mg 45 / rhh a • juver teat faro+ Mth WUt *u Transit Suction antiS in North 0.5 as FREEWAY WcRt • gort nut. nr z east aids ,'r"' /i-4 Page 3.9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Section 1 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 1 F North of CR 16 to CR 22 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Z r COLORADO Department of T:anoportatton Section 1 F North of CR 16 to CR 22 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Page 3.10 Figure 3.4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 1 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements COLORADO Department of Transportation Pedestrian Crossing Improvement South Matte River Trail eS ted/Bike Cro Trail Connection Existing Trail Transit Station wit Bus Only Slip Ramps PH/CM-170 Pedestrian Crossing Improvement (Future Interchange) Legend Transit Improvements edestrian Improvements Trail Improvements Bicycle Improvements Sidewalk Improvements BikeRed Improvements Page 3-11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 3-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 3.2 Section 2 WCR 22 to WCR 48 COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Section 2 of the US 85 corridor extends through unincorporated Weld County and the towns of 3 Platteville and Gilcrest. Section 2 has both types of Expressway designations (Enhanced Expressway and 4 Standard Expressway). The dominant improvement in Section 2 includes a section of parallel roads that 5 extends between two interchanges at WCR 22 and WCR 28. This improvement is intended to work as a 6 system improvement. It was the intent of the recommendation for the parallel road system to be built 7 by in whole or in part by CDOT, Weld County, or Developers. It should be clearly noted that there are 8 many cases where a road closure is recommended, but the actual closure should not occur until an 9 adjacent improvement is implemented. Special care should be taken to the Summary Sheets in 10 Appendix E to determine what other improvements are required prior to access closures. Section 2 also 11 has a type of intersection that has been applied throughout the corridor —a Channelized-T intersection. 12 This type of intersection allows one direction of travel to move free -flow, while turning vehicles are 13 provided a refuge and an acceleration and a deceleration lane. Figure 3.5 presents an example of a 14 Channelized-T Intersection. As the improvements move north, the recommendations transition from 15 grade separation to at -grade intersections. Figure 3.6 presents the recommended improvements for 16 Section 2. 17 Figure 3.7 presents the conceptual recommendations for alternative mode facilities for Section 2. 18 Section 2 does not provide existing fixed -route transit service. Interregional commuter bus service 19 consistent with the North 1-25 EIS ROD 1 is recommended, including a commuter bus connection at 20 SH 66 in Platteville. The North 1-25 EIS ROD 1 identifies the Platteville bus station to be located in the 21 northwest quadrant of SH 66 and US 85 (south of Salisbury Avenue and east of Main Street). The bus 22 station would include 20 parking spaces. The location of this commuter bus station can be moved, 23 should conditions change, however, a change in location would require a revision to the North 1-25 EIS 24 ROD 1. 25 A parallel bike route begins in Platteville along SH 66 between the proposed South Platte River Trail 26 and Division Street. These facilities are recommended to be 8 -foot shoulders. These improvements 27 could happen over time as paving occurs, resulting in a safer environment for automobiles, emergency 28 management services, and cyclists. 29 The parallel facility is recommended to follow Division Street through Platteville north to WCR 34. The 30 parallel facility ultimately connects to the South Platte River Trail near WCR 46. A second parallel bike 31 route connects Gilcrest to the South Platte River Trail along WCR 42. This trail continues north on 32 WCR 31 to WCR 46 before heading east on WCR 46 to WCR 35. It is recommended that collaboration 33 occur with the Weld County Trails Coordination Committee (WTCC) on the feasibility and 34 implementation of these routes. WTCC is an ad hoc committee focused on advancing and coordinating 35 the connectivity of non -motorized facilities between jurisdictions. Page 3-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Figure 3.5 Example Channelized-T Intersection 2 3 CROSS STREET 85C 1 85+ mamma SOME Sis SENS _ Sims NSIS SISES _ _ _ _ Semi _ _ _ Se _ _ xl _0) mew ...._ O ._._ a sea COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 3-14 US as Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.6 Section 2 Conceptual Improvements Section 2A South of WCR 22 to South of CR 30 in Platteville E_NI.A%LED i_Xi'.... _ ;:1'A VS i Nig ; • a...r Wean► S at fiurtuc malt wet W nut of v.5 of barmen Wig 21 S NCR 2 otwoan w h#1 VS 4'1r NC%243 • ref./SA-0a wr aura - it uY Man nut Ws VSvi (Au auu COLORADO Department of Transportation Section 2A South of WCR 225 to South of CR 30 in Platteville VS ti NCR 2% • Sri en nn rembe a '.3W IAN,. L:sk'cflkY ,.1 1',1111• US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.6 Section 2 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 2B WCR 30 in Platteville to SH 60 VCOLORADO Department or 7rantportanon Section 2B WCR 30 in Platteville to North of SH 60 ENHANLED EXPRESSWAY US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.6 Section 2 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section2C North of SH 60 to North of WCR 42 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY Mall a • :ha nti el T atl • Veakni• Remy[ rod COLORADO Dapaitroont of Trancportauon Section 2C North of SH 60 to North of WCR 42 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY is _♦ T ' 7 1 i i WCR 4 . war otus1 • kbWrd FA f ro in • 1►'0 uwaY9 Page 3.17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.6 Section 2 Conceptual Improvements (Continued) Section 2D South of WCR 33 to North of WCR 48 STANDARD (7'xpRFS<;),WrAv • Oman at Dia 33 East se comwgm Mg»to Nett++ • tine Neat MPS an east Se • Uweles-T an mat silt • Reakrwcg4e Vest f COLORADO Department of Tranaportanon Section 2D South of WCR 33 to North of WCR 48 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Chu w'R 51/43 on east. s.k • uatetted.T on ant side Page 3.18 Figure 3.7 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 2 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements , 1, Parallel Bike Routes South Platte River Trail '1I 44444 85 rn N CC U M CC U 36 Commuter Bus Service Transit Station CR30 ILLE cc U CR 28 CR26 CR 34 Lir> M CC O ro cc COLORADO Department of Transportation C R 38 cr U CR 42 CR 40 CR 32 NORTH ,'sae Legend Trent Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Trail Improvements Bicycle Improvements Sidewalk Improvements BikePed Improvements Page 3-19 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 3-20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 3.3 Section 3 WCR 48 to SH 392 COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Section 3 of the US 85 corridor extends from the Town of LaSalle, to the City of Evans, and through the 3 City of Greeley. The most populated and densely developed section in the corridor, Section 3 includes 4 at -grade intersection improvements in the Town of LaSalle and City of Evans, while the improvements 5 through the City of Greeley are primarily grade -separated interchanges. This section also includes the 6 system -to -system interchange of US 85 and US 34. The US 85 PEL is recommending multiple conceptual 7 layouts of the US 85/US 34 interchange. CDOT is currently undertaking a separate feasibility study to 8 address improvements at the US 85/US 34 interchange, which will advance the PEL concepts and 9 potentially add additional improvement options. 10 The portion of US 85 through Greeley has a series of interchanges, commonly referred to as Texas 11 Turnarounds. This grade -separated interchange requires a set of one-way frontage roads to fully 12 function. Figure 3.8 presents an example of a Texas Turnaround. This unique improvement is new to 13 Colorado and will provide dramatic improvements to the US 85 bypass in Greeley. The Texas 14 Turnarounds configuration provides the benefit of local, business access from the frontage roads, while 15 still increasing mobility by allowing the US 85 through traffic to move through the corridor without 16 stopping at traffic signals. This type of interchange fits into the context of the US 85 bypass because 17 there are several businesses that require access along this stretch and there is also partial existing 18 frontage roads or adequate space for new frontage roads. 19 As with the other sections, it should be noted that there are many cases where a road closure is 20 recommended, but the actual closure should not occur until an adjacent improvement is implemented. 21 Special care should be taken to the Summary Sheets in Appendix E to determine what other 22 improvements are required prior to access closures. 23 Figure 3.9 presents the recommended improvements for Section 3. 24 Figure 3.10 presents the conceptual recommendations for alternative mode facilities in Section 3. 25 Greeley Evans Transit (GET) provides existing fixed -route transit service; however, no GET routes use 26 US 85. 27 Interregional commuter bus service consistent with the North 1-25 EIS ROD is recommended. This 28 includes commuter bus connections in Section 3 at three locations: US 85 and 42nd Street (Evans), 29 8th Avenue and 24th Street (South Greeley), and US 85 (Bypass) and D Street (Greeley). The North 1-25 30 EIS ROD identifies the Evans Station to be located in the southeast corner US 85 and 42"d Street and to 31 include 30 parking spaces. The South Greeley Station is identified to be in the southwest corner of 32 8th Avenue and 24th Street and include 30 parking spaces. The Greeley Station is identified to be 33 located in the northwest quadrant of D Street and North 9th Avenue and to include 20 parking spaces. 34 Should the location of these commuter bus stations change, a change in location would also require a 35 revision to the North 1-25 EIS ROD. 36 The PEL recommended alternatives also include opportunities to maximize bicycle and pedestrian 37 facilities. This includes the following: 38 ► Sidewalk, pedestrian crossings, and streetscape improvements in LaSalle 39 ► Maintaining the grade -separated trail crossing under US 85 as a part of the South Platte River 40 Trail 41 ► A parallel bicycle route on Avenue (approximately 450 feet east of U S85 Bypass) from the 42 South Platte River Trail (near 37th Street in Evans) to the Cache La Poudre River Trail (near 8th 43 Street in Greeley) 44 ► Bicycle and pedestrian crossing enhancements at 22nd Street and 13th Street in the form of 45 sufficient sidewalks through the Texas -Turnarounds that connects to the parallel bicycle route 46 on 1s` Avenue. Page 3-21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Figure 3.8 Example Texas Turnaround Interchange v, v, V V J L Q FRONTAGE ROAD 2 3 v v U Q COLORADO Department of Transportation 0 U V "I r LA I — w O 1- w cc U Ln 85 FRONTAGE ROAD tri a U U Q r Page 3-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.9 Section 3 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations Section 3A UPRR Bridge South of LaSalle to North of 31st Street in Evans STANDARD EXPRESSWAY *Al than „4 Pe opportuntes to enhance tit pedestran rnvrowe t al t3 and across US lei as r+tersu.tion mprnwrrrits are mods ntia, refuses crosswalks, etc) 2nd fee •PRo ist fee rraffc ward Ml tre4 Prot • No Ana mantas ful 5th flue • Ns Komar fa nonevent 4th Aye •Reo 1st St • 514 OVXA1. Montan tirade Separated B4:elPedestror Cenurl WGR 521344 • Coupes Masucon 42nd St Lore slaters, Transit Station ® COLORADO i Dopaftwastot Transportation Section 3A UPRR Bridge South of LaSalle to North of 31st Street in Evans STANDARD EXPRESSWAY 51hSt Was fronts" fool per MP • Lane °Sons -Pv w" rMancenmts 31st St (Ant front" mods aril cm* per Kr • Lax tons • Pescht r fn tv Pedestrian O MKMLose aYtd 1`.iyi 3 23 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.9 Section 3 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations (Continued) Section 3B 31st Street to North of 5th Street in Greeley STANDARD EXPRESSWAY %t St - Clete frontar rodk and r=pre ttP & ith of 13rd St, dtarabs tass. vhn Section 3B 31st Street to North of 5th Street in Greeley AiMSt. to`MSt TOW. LLtWf skiriaatt • Comet rod to vt-wey Cortt�e and on east are IM q#desfar+ ennui u►a¢twrnes COLORADO Department of Transportation Pap' 3-24 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.9 Section 3 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations (Continued) Section 3C North of 5th Street to North of SH 392 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY • Wu unl connect towcgce New camtction fray mg 64 to v R to t%L cob noir Rh k DlTr COLOR A0O Department of Tramportai icn Section 3C North of 5th Street to North of SH 392 h ratnwtts to WGR Yi IV; b6 m wGR 16 ENHANCED EXPRESSWAY &I ?I rrufit rgrd ate erra ta:aru �2 O I2 S.Lt US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 3-26 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 3.10 Section 3 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements Existing Poudre River Trail Legend Transit Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Trail Improvements Bicycle Improvements Sidewalk Improvements Bike/Ped Improvements Parallel Bike Route South Platte River Trail WI - Grade Separated' u_Bike/PatuLcrolias Widen Sidewal with Streetscap n ancmen Poudre River Trail Parallel Bike Route Possible Queue Jumps Pedestrian Crossing Enhancments Page 3-27 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 3.3.1 US 85 / US 34 Interchange 2 The US 85/US 34 system -to -system interchange has an atypical configuration and has garnered interest 3 in its reconstruction for some time. As the region grows and traffic increases, the need to improve the 4 complex will be more pressing given its transportation challenges. 5 The US 85/US 34 interchange is in the cities of Greeley and Evans and in the town of Garden City. The 6 interchange incorporates US 34, US 85 Business, US 85 Bypass, and 8th Avenue (which connects Evans 7 and Garden City). The interchange area that was analyzed is bounded by 11th Avenue on the west 8 (signalized intersection), 31st Street on the south (signalized intersection), 26th Street on the northwest 9 (signalized intersection), 22nd Street on northeast (signalized intersection), and 1st Avenue on the east 10 (overpasses). US 85 carries north -south traffic between the greater Denver area and the North Front 11 Range, and US 34 carries east -west traffic between Loveland and the eastern plains. 12 Figure 3.11 shows the project location, and Figure 3.12 depicts its many deficiencies. 13 CDOT sponsored a design charrette as part of the US 85 PEL study. The charrette was intended to "set 14 the stage" for subsequent efforts in feasibility study and in designing the interchange complex by 15 identifying concerns and interests of affected stakeholders. The charrette was not necessarily intended 16 to develop a final solution as much as to identify important issues contributing to a preferred solution, 17 which will be completed in the subsequent steps; namely, a feasibility study that CDOT will initiate 18 soon. 19 On January 14, 2016, the charrette was held in the City of Evans at the Riverside Library and Culture 20 Center. A total of 28 representatives from several agencies signed -in, but many also attended and 21 participated without having signed -in; between 35 and 40 representatives participated in the session. 22 Agencies that were represented included: ► CDOT ► Weld County ► Greeley ► Evans ► Garden City ► LaSalle ► Eaton ► Gilcrest ► Platteville ► NFRMPO 23 Information about the current interchange configuration and technical information was presented on 24 the deficiencies. This included information on structural deficiencies, crashes, traffic projections, 25 traffic patterns, and non-standard signing. After the presentation on technical information about the 26 interchange's operational issues, participants were asked to offer their concerns as users or comments 27 heard from constituents in their jurisdiction. The following additional considerations were offered: 28 ► There is a lack of consistency in speed limits through the interchange. 29 ► The interchange contains too many short confusing weaves that contain abrupt lane drops, 30 especially associated with the loop ramps. 31 ► The inconsistent pavement surface (concrete and asphalt) can add to driver confusion in 32 certain areas. 33 ► The signal at 8th Avenue sometimes causes significant backups. 34 ► There is a strong desire to maintain 8th Avenue access into the interchange complex. 35 ► Pavement striping/marking is not clear at certain locations. 36 Page 3-28 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.11 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Setting 34la anuany t11 ! COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 3-29 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.12 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Deficiencies COLORADO Department of Transportation ≥ 25th Street 26th Street co -- a- Traffic Signalo WB through traffic signalized Eastbound Traffic left-hand 5gnaP exit r� Right tab Eastbound US34 to Southbound US 85 Business a Traffic Signal Short weave Missing movement Confusing Short left exit weave) Missing movement 0855 Traffic Signal u St • • Page 3-30 Southbound a Traffic Left-hand Signal i exit I c �85 ao Bypass Short weave Tight loop ramps 31st Street Tight loop ramps No Traffic s ,3 �i�l US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Given the criteria most important to the participants in updating the US 85/US 34 interchange, 2 participants were divided into five smaller work groups to brainstorm interchange configurations. Each 3 group, made up of elected officials, agency staff, and Project Team members, discussed and sketched 4 interchange layout ideas in response to the top ranked criteria. The groups presented their concepts to 5 the larger group. Figure 3.13 through Figure 3.17 present the concepts developed by each group. 6 CDOT has undertaken an additional study to consider the feasibility of implementing improvements to 7 the interchange. The timing of actual improvements to this interchange are dependent upon the 8 outcome of that study. CDOT will use these concepts as part of the separate feasibility study that will 9 examine in more engineering detail these concepts and others developed as part of that study. That 10 study will set the stage for advancing the design of the interchange. Page 3-31 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 3.13 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 1 3 m 34c, 25th Street 5ir=ral• F .n- r ,� "' _ Business r r z 31st Street LEGEND —r—s.— r-rrr- see - Ground Level - 2nd Level = Bridge Page 3-32 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 3.14 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 2 a/11143AV IV/1 25th Street ro z Business c 31st Street F85 . Bypass — Ground Level — 2nd Level = Bridge Page 3-33 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 3.15 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 3 25th Street C. -4 z ft 5 Business 17= -7r --1-j/_, r ..�a7, y cl tare' p: a I. assereieste 31st Street '85. Bypass aNS LEGEND - Ground Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level = Bridge = Delete Roadway Page 3-34 25th Street US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 3.16 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 4 w m !JY Business r" - • a -Or 31 sr Street LEGEND - Ground Level - 2nd Level = Bridge X= Delete Roadway Page 3-35 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 3.17 US 85 and US 34 Interchange Concept —Group 5 %34 _r: - Ground Level - 2nd Level = Bridge . VI` Page 3-36 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 3.4 Section 4 SH 392 to WCR 100 COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Section 4, the most northern section of the US 85 corridor, is primarily rural in nature and passes 3 through the towns of Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn. The roadway through these towns have either a 4 Main Street or an Arterial designation. The recommended improvements through this section all occur 5 as at -grade improvements, including signalization and closures. Figure 3.18 presents the conceptual 6 improvement recommendations. 7 Figure 3.19 presents the conceptual recommendations for alternative mode facilities for Section 4. 8 Existing fixed -route transit service is not provided in Section 4 and interregional commuter bus service 9 is not recommended in Section 4. The alternative mode improvement recommendations in Section 4 10 focus on improving the downtown sidewalks adjacent and crossing facilities in Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and 11 Nunn, as well as connecting these communities with a parallel bike route that meanders on the west 12 side of US 85. In Eaton, these alternative mode improvement recommendations support connections to 13 the existing Great Western Trail. 14 As with the other sections, it should be clearly noted that there are many cases where a road closure is 15 recommended, but the actual closure should not occur until an adjacent improvement is implemented. 16 Special care should be taken to the Summary Sheets in Appendix E to determine what other 17 improvements are required prior to access closures. 18 Page 3-37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study This page intentionally left blank. COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 3-38 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.18 Section 4 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations Section 4A South of WCR 70 to North of WCR 76 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Mfte "b rb :Wert E rya ?r lb.' St ea ..y F Sobrab frreatert Near tot flints t ner'Ovarrnt4 to WCR 10 Te Greet Western Trat . fume Renton Wt Nil St Pekasrflfe nit, efn em% b Neva reps bal sac. • arise Mr To Eaton Gonms &adrenn COLORADO Department of Transporutton Section 4A South of WCR 70 to North of WCR 76 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY Ma 'k Utn Su So .rraaN Nkomo lenwy wansma Opton • ism to se end Yuan Lbw ase.r ew M•K ;1 wrr..uco to Mg le ,J US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.18 Section 4 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations (Continued) Section 4B WCR 78 to North of WCR 84 STANDARD EXPRESSWAY 10 OptIV \—^--- Maim to O&M . 1w,raal Oran ---._..—.--- ----% COLORADO Department of Transportation Section 4B WCR 78 to North of WCR 84 "RC'RIEHWAY 1� US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.18 Section 4 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations (Continued) Section 4C South of WCR 86 to North of WCR 92 RURAL HIGHWAY Orton ono%to N.. .rte ,n.w, — ---- ARTERIAL MIro+knit* At • S_ yrdu yarn wina tal Patna, crossing a+e.rmente COLORADO Dayanment or Trnnsportft inr. Section 4C South of WCR 86 to North of WCR 92 MIIIMIkHIGHWAY OVUM • . it NAM - repro d Jort%----•- US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.18 Section 4 Conceptual Improvement Recommendations (Continued) Section 4D South of CR 94 to CR 100 RURAL HIGHWAY CPS to tier • trst'w Janet - --•---------•- 4.* COLORADO Departnentot Iansportatton Section 4D South of CR 94 to CR 100 • hem, to firm ..s+oa.J oagbc rick co ARTERIAL - aare Mir, ranted mom erten snt • aaa.mMtaany I';Jgc 3- I? 2 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Figure 3.19 Section 4 Alternative Mode Conceptual Improvements is U is 0 CR 104 den Sidewalk Streetscape Parallel Bike Route f` N CC U CR 90 Existin 9 Great Western Trail Parallel Bike Route Widen Sidewa ith Streetsca in M cc U CR 102 CR 100 CR 98 C R 96 CR 94 cc U Enhancements Widen Sidewalk with Streetscape iden Sidewalk' ith Streetscape Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Legend CR 78 R74 Nei S Transit Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Trait Improvements Bicycle Improvements Sidewak Improvements B1ke/Ped Improvements Page 3-43 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL 2 CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 3 Section 4 summarizes the environmental resources present in the study area, along with the types of 4 anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Recommended Alternatives. A 5 more thorough discussion of the affected environment can be found in the Corridor Conditions Report 6 (CDOT 2015). Data for environmental resources were derived from readily available data sources and 7 sites visits; field verification was not completed and quantification of impacts is not possible due to the 8 accuracy of the environmental data and the level of conceptual design. 9 As funding becomes available for implementation of the Recommended Alternatives, CDOT will 10 determine the appropriate level of NEPA study ranging from a categorical exclusion (CatEx), for actions 11 that do not individually or cumulatively result in significant impacts, to environmental impact 12 statements (EISs) for projects that are anticipated to have significant impacts and/or a high level of 13 controversy. Environmental assessments (EAs) will need to be prepared when there is insufficient 14 information to determine if a projects impacts warrant an EIS. Based on the level of NEPA study and 15 environmental context of each project, some or all the resources may need to be addressed. CatExs, 16 the most common level of study, do not require analysis of every resource discussed in this section; 17 there is a defined list of resources, which CDOT may augment if there is concern related to additional 18 resources that need to be documented. Cumulative impacts are not typically assessed for CatExs but 19 are included in both EAs and EISs. 20 4. I Parks and Recreation Resources 21 Parks and recreation resources within the study area include open space, greenbelts, conservation 22 areas, trails, and bike paths. Publicly owned recreational facilities open to the public are also 23 protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Section 4(f) mandates that 24 United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) agencies can only approve the use of land from 25 publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private 26 historic sites if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land and when the action 27 includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the project resulting from the use. Section 4.3 28 discusses Section 4(f) further. Some park and recreation resources are regulated under the Land and 29 Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965. The LWCF established a federal funding program to assist 30 states in developing outdoor recreation sites. Section 6(f) of the act prohibits converting property 31 acquired or developed with these funds to a non -recreational purpose without the approval of the 32 National Park Service (NPS). 33 Fifty-one existing and proposed parks and recreational facilities were identified in the study area. Most 34 parks and recreational facilities are located within cities and towns, as opposed to unincorporated 35 areas. Properties that are in an approved planning document as future public parks or recreational 36 facilities are afforded the same protection as those that are already in use. 37 4.1.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts 38 Of the 51 parks and recreational facilities identified within the study area, approximately 16 existing or 39 proposed parks and recreational facilities are located immediately adjacent to or cross US 85. Because 40 of this, they could potentially be impacted by future projects within the study area. There may be the 41 opportunity to provide enhanced connectivity or access during site -specific projects, which could be 42 considered a net benefit. 43 Table 4.1 identifies the locations of park and recreation resources that have the highest probability of 44 impact based on the alternative(s) recommended for further evaluation. Page 4-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Table 4.1 Parks and Recreation Resources Direct/Indirect Impacts Commerce City 104th Avenue Split Diamond (with 1-76) Alternative would impact a designated parks/open space, both located east of US 85 (First Creek Floodplain Park), and a trail located at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection (First Creek Trail). SPUI with Flyover Alternative would impact a designated parks/open space, both located east of US 85 (First Creek Floodplain Park), and a trail located at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection (First Creek Trail). Brighton Bromley Lane SPUI Alternative would impact the Bromley Lane Bike Path, which extends along South Main Street at the northeast quadrant and east to west along Bromley Lane east of US 85. 168th Avenue/WCR 2 SPUI Alternative would impact County Line Trail bike lane, which extends east to west along 168th Avenue. Platteville WCR 34 Diamond Alternative would impact a small portion of a proposed greenbelt located at the southeast quadrant of the US 85/WCR 34 intersection along Front Street. LaSalle 4th Avenue RI/R0 Alternative is adjacent to LaSalle Park located west of US 85 between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue. Greeley 8th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact the proposed Poudre River Trail, which extends east to west below US 85. Notes: 1-76 = Interstate 76 WCR = Weld County Road RI/RU = Right-in/Right-out SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange 2 4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts 3 Direct impacts to parks and recreational facilities resulting from the implementation of the 4 Recommended Alternatives can contribute to cumulative impacts to a resource when combined with 5 other past, present, or future actions. The overall number of parks and recreational facilities has 6 increased over time with new residential and community development throughout the corridor. 7 Because there may be direct effects to these resources, cumulative effects will need to be addressed 8 in future studies. 9 4.1.3 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 10 Because there may be a delay between the completion of this study and implementation of the 11 Recommended Alternatives, the most current land use and park/recreational plans should be reviewed Page 4-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 as discrete projects are implemented because new facilities or undeveloped parcels may have been 2 designated for future development of park and recreational facilities. During alternatives 3 refinement/design, the design team will need to use the most current information about parks and 4 recreational facilities to avoid and minimize impacts to these resources wherever possible. Should 5 direct impacts to a park or recreational facility result in a change of functionality of that property, it 6 will need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate level of NEPA study. Projects 7 with adverse effects to Section 4(f) and/or Section 6(f) properties can elevate the level of study. 8 4.2 Historic Resources 9 The term "historic" is generally used to refer to buildings, structures, sites, or objects that have been 10 determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Passed in 1966, the 11 National Historic Preservation Act (Act) established the framework for historic preservation in the 12 United States, creating the NRHP, National Historic Landmarks determination process, and State 13 Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Section 106 of the Act produced a regulatory framework, 14 mandating review of federally funded and permitted projects to determine any potentially adverse 15 impacts to historic resources. The Act requires projects to try to avoid impacts to National Register 16 eligible properties, and, if impacts cannot be avoided, to minimize and mitigate impacts. 17 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provides additional oversight for historic 18 resources. It stated that the FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from public 19 or private historical sites unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land and 20 unless the project includes planning to minimize negative impacts to the property whenever possible. 21 The US 85 corridor passes through the High Plains of northern Colorado, a region of rolling prairies. 22 Weld County is one of Colorado's most agriculturally productive counties. Its agricultural history dates 23 to the 1860s when cattle ranchers used the area for grazing. In the late 19t" and early 20t" centuries, a 24 series of towns were established along the transportation corridor to serve the surrounding agricultural 25 lands. The region experienced a second settlement boom in the early 20t" century with the 26 development and popularization of dry land farming techniques. 27 Transportation -related resources within the study area include a historic highway corridor, a historic 28 railroad corridor, and roadside facilities such as motels, garages, and gas stations. Community -related 29 historic resources within the study area include residences, commercial buildings, municipal buildings, 30 schools, and churches in the incorporated and unincorporated communities. Although not currently 31 identified, there is a high potential for the presence of agricultural Rural Historic Landscape Districts, 32 which would be identified through a comprehensive survey. Additionally, several features (farms, 33 ditches, buildings, etc.) have not been evaluated for eligibility and could potentially be historic. 34 There is a high concentration of historic commercial and residential properties near the highway in 35 most of the communities that it traverses that could be directly or indirectly affected. Greeley has the 36 highest concentration of resources listed on the National and State Registers or determined eligible for 37 listing. In Eaton, there is a collection of early 20t" century commercial buildings that border US 85. 38 Several grain elevator complexes are also near the highway. 39 Outside the communities, historic farms and ranches line the highway corridor. Road improvements are 40 likely to have an impact on the farms and ranches immediately adjacent to the highway but are not 41 likely to have an impact on farms and ranches that do not abut the highway. 42 Ten known designated or eligible historic resources located near US 85 could potentially be impacted. 43 Linear features, including the UPRR and ditches or canals that cross or parallel US 85, have a higher 44 potential to be directly impacted as do resources immediately adjacent to the road. Many resources 45 have potential to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and could be 46 affected by the recommended improvements and are presented in the next section. Page 4-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.2.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts 2 Table 4.2 identifies the locations and historic resources that have a higher probability of impact based 3 on the alternative(s) recommended for further evaluation. Indirect effects, including changes in visual 4 character, noise, or changes in traffic patterns or land use, will also need to be considered in the 5 determination of effects. 6 Table 4.2 Historic Resources Impacts Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Commerce City 104th Avenue Split Diamond (with 1-76) Alternative would impact: • A potential historic ditch that extends underneath US 85 north of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of the intersection SPUI with Flyover Alternative would impact • A potential historic ditch that extends underneath US 85 north of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of the intersection 112th Avenue SPUI Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of the US 85/112th Avenue intersection. Skewed SPUI Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of the US 85/112th Avenue intersection. 120th Avenue Tight Diamond Alternative would impact: • NRHP-eligible Fulton Lateral Ditch, which extends underneath 120th Avenue west of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection • A NRHP-eligible segment of the railroad located east of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection DDI Alternative would impact: • A NRHP-eligible ditch that extends underneath 120th Avenue west of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection • A NRHP-eligible segment of the railroad located east of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection. Brighton 136th Avenue SPUI Alternative would impact: • Potentially historic private irrigation laterals that extend through the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants of the US 85/136th Avenue intersection and underneath both US 85 and 136th Avenue • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of US 85 Page 4-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Bromley Lane SPl 11 Alternative would impact: • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of the US 85/Bromley Lane intersection • The potentially historic Fulton Lateral Ditch located east of the intersection 168th Avenue/WCR 2 SPUI Alternative would impact: • The potentially historic Fulton Lateral Ditch located east of the US 85/168th Avenue intersection • A potentially historic unnamed ditch west of the intersection • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of the intersection • Potentially historic parcels 50 years old or older located north of 168th Avenue Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Alternative would impact: • The potentially historic Fulton Lateral Ditch located east of US 85, which extends underneath WCR 6 • Several potentially historic parcels 50 years old or older located at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the intersection WCR 8 Interchange/Grade Separation/Hook Ramps Alternative would impact several potentially historic parcels 50 years old or older located at all four quadrants of the intersection. WCR 14.5/14th Street Junior Interchange Alternative would impact the Fort Lupton Historical Marker, a potential historic resource. Weld County WCR 18 SPUI Alternative would impact: • The potentially historic Platteville Ditch located at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants, which extends underneath both US 85 and WCR 18 • A potentially historic unnamed ditch that extends east to west along WCR 18 • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of US 85 • Potential historic parcels 50 years old or older located at the northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the intersection WCR 22 Diamond Alternative would impact: • Potential historic parcels 50 years old or older located at all four quadrants of the US 851WCR 22 intersection • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of the US 85/WCR 22 intersection Page 4-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 28 SPUI Alternative would impact: • Potentially historic Platteville and Platte Valley ditches located east of US 85 • Potentially historic Roland Miller Farm (Centennial Farm) located at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/WCR 28 intersection • A potentially historic railroad segment located east of the intersection Platteville WCR 34 Diamond Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of the US 85/WCR 34 intersection. SH 60 Diamond Alternative would impact potentially historic parcels 50 years old or older located at all four quadrants of the US 85/SH 60 intersection. Gilcrest WCR 44 Traffic Signal Alternative would impact potentially historic Western Mutual Ditch, which extends underneath WCR 44. WCR 46/WCR 35 Channelized-T with Closure on the East Side Alternatives would impact a potentially historic segment of US 85. LaSalle SH 394 Couplet Intersection Alternative would impact: • The potentially historic Latham Ditch segment located north of SH 394 • A NRHP-eligible ditch segment (historic resource) that extends underneath US 85 south of the US 85/ SH 394 intersection Evans 42nd Street Traffic Signal Alternative would impact the Evans Historical Marker located at the northeast quadrant of the US 85/42nd Street intersection and potentially impact NRHP-eligible Goetzel Residence (historic resource) at Idaho Street. Greeley 18th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact potentially historic parcels 50 years old or older located at all four quadrants of the intersection. 16th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located north of 16th Street. 0 Street Closure and Combine with Signal at WCR 66 Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of US 85. WCR 66 Traffic Signal Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of US 85. Page 4-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Eaton 5,„ Street Traffic Signal Alternative would impact the NRHP-eligible Great Western Railroad segment (historic resource), which extends east to west along US 85. WCR 76 Traffic Signal Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of US 85. Pierce CR 90 Traffic Signal Alternative would impact a potentially historic railroad segment located east of US 85. Notes: 1-76 = Interstate 76 SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange NRHP = National Register of Historic Places SH = State Highway WCR = Weld County Road 1 2 4.2.2 Cumulative Impacts 3 Cumulative impacts on historic properties and districts have occurred and will continue to occur in the 4 US 85 PEL study area due to the conversion of agricultural lands and farmsteads to urban/semi-urban 5 land uses and limited local historic preservation regulations. Over time, planned transportation and 6 development actions will likely result in the additional loss of historic properties that will alter the 7 historic character of small farming communities. These impacts will occur regardless of whether or not 8 the Recommended Alternatives are implemented. 9 Based on information identified during the US 85 PEL process for historic resources, it is not anticipated 10 that the Recommended Alternatives will substantially contribute to cumulative impacts when combined 11 with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 12 4.2.3 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 13 Many potentially eligible resources not previously assessed will need to be surveyed to determine their 14 eligibility during site -specific projects. The Historic Farms and Ranches of Weld County National 15 Register Multiple Property Submission will provide guidance in identifying and evaluating historic farm 16 and ranch properties. Multiple property documents may also be helpful in identifying and evaluating 17 resources in the study area, including "Railroads in Colorado," "Highway Bridges in Colorado," and 18 "Colorado State Roads and Highways" (http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/multiple- 19 property -submissions). Once alternatives are developed, assessor data should be checked with a field 20 survey and other supplementary research. Eligibility determinations should be made for the resources 21 within the Area of Potential Effect that will need to be established based on the site -specific 22 improvements. 23 The Recommended Alternatives should be refined, to the extent possible, to avoid direct and indirect 24 impacts to eligible or listed historic resources. Should impacts be unavoidable, Section 106 consultation 25 will be required. Unavoidable effects may be identified as not adverse or adverse. If effects are not 26 adverse, Section 106 consultation is completed Adverse impacts must be assessed to determine if 27 there are strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts because avoidance alternatives would need to 28 have already been deemed not to be prudent or feasible. Adverse effects are resolved on a project -by - 29 project basis, which usually includes project -specific memorandums of agreement. An adverse effect 30 will also trigger a Section 4(f) evaluation, as discussed in Section 4.3. Page 4-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The approach to merging the Section 106 consultation process with the NEPA process should occur at 2 the beginning of each site -specific project. Section 106 consultation and completion of the Section 4(f) 3 evaluation process can require more than a year if adverse effects are anticipated. 4 4.3 Section 4(f) 5 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is a regulation applicable only to projects 6 that receive funds from US DOT agencies. FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 7 implement Section 4(f) through 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774. Under this regulation, the 8 following resources are protected: 9 ► Parks and recreational areas of national, state, or local significance that are both publicly 10 owned and open to the public; 11 ► Historic sites of national, state, or local significance in public or private ownership; and 12 ► Publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are 13 open to the public to the extent that public access does not interfere with the primary purpose 14 of the refuge. 15 The study area includes dozens of park and recreational facilitates. Several historic resources are 16 present in the study area but no publicly owned wildlife or waterfowl refuges. Section 4.1 and 17 Section 4.2 discussed potential impacts to these resources due to implementation of the 18 Recommended Alternatives. 19 4.3.1 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 20 Properties potentially protected by Section 4(f) that could be impacted by the Recommended 21 Alternatives should be evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability. During alternatives refinement, the 22 avoidance and minimization of impacts to Section 4(f) resources will be required. Should impacts be 23 unavoidable, the appropriate level of Section 4(f) evaluation will need to be determined. Construction 24 impacts or other non -permanent impacts could be addressed through a temporary occupancy finding in 25 some instances. If the project were to result in a net benefit, use of an enhancement exception could 26 be applicable. If impacts are permanent and negative, either a de minimis finding or a full Section 4(f) 27 evaluation could be required. Full Section 4(f) evaluations require stakeholder comment and can take 28 more than a year to process because they require review and approval from not only CDOT and FHWA 29 but also the Department of Interior. 30 4.4 Section 6(f) 31 As noted in Section 4.1, recreation resources that have received funds from the LWCF prohibit the 32 conversion of the property acquired or developed with these funds to a non -recreational purpose 33 without the approval of the NPS and provision of replacement property of equivalent or higher value. 34 As the administrator of the program for the state, Colorado Parks and Wildlife must also be involved, as 35 well as the local jurisdiction. 36 Based on the most recent list of LWCF grants, the following Section 6(f) properties were identified 37 within the study area: 38 ► Veterans Park (Brighton) 39 ► Colorado Park (Brighton) 40 ► Pearson Park (Fort Lupton) 41 ► Fort Lupton School Community Park 42 The Recommended Alternatives would not have an impact on Section 6(f) parks identified within the 43 study area; therefore, impacts to Section 6(f) resources are not anticipated. Page 4-8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.4.1 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 2 Section 6(f) resources should be reevaluated during the NEPA process to identify any new resources or 3 changes in impacts. For Section 6(f) properties located in the areas of the improvements, alternatives 4 should be designed to avoid a conversion of these properties. If a conversion of land cannot be avoided, 5 efforts will be made to mitigate effects to these properties. CDOT, in cooperation with the local 6 government landowner, must identify replacement land of equal value, location, and usefulness before 7 a transfer of property under Section 6(f) can occur. This transfer must then be accepted by the NPS. 8 4.5 Traffic Noise 9 The study area contains many residential neighborhoods, parks, schools, and agricultural and 10 commercial properties. CDOT categorizes the sensitivity of noise receptors based on type of use. Land 11 uses that require serenity are the most sensitive, while commercial and industrial land uses are the 12 least sensitive. The sensitivity of residential receptors falls in between these categories. The 13 commercial and industrial development in the southern and central portions from Commerce City to 14 Greeley is denser than that in the northern portion between Eaton and Nunn. The central and northern 15 portions are more agriculturally oriented than the southern portion. The northern portion is the least 16 developed in relation to the southern and central portions. CDOT's process for assessing noise impacts 17 addresses sensitive resources within 500 feet. 18 4.5.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts 19 Table 4.3 lists the locations and noise sensitive receptors that have a higher probability of impact 20 based on the Recommended Alternatives. 21 Table 4.3 Noise Direct/Indirect Impacts Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Commerce City 104 Avenue Split Diamond (with 1-76) Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/1041/ Avenue intersection. SPUI with Flyover Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/104m'm Avenue intersection. Longs Peak Closure Alternative could potentially impact residential noise receptors east of US 85. 112: Avenue SPUI Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/1120, Avenue intersection. Skewed SPUI Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/112th Avenue intersection. Page 4-9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Intersection no e Alternatives. , 120th Avenue Tight Diamond Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection. DDI Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection. Brighton 136,1 Avenue SPUI Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/136th Avenue intersection. Bromley Lane SPUI Alternative could potentially impact commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/Bromley Lane intersection. 168th Avenue/WCR 2 SPUI Alternative could potentially impact commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/168th Avenue intersection. Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Alternative could potentially impact commercial and residential noise receptors at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/WCR 6 intersection. WCR 8 Interchange/Grade Separation/Hook Ramps Alternative could potentially impact residential noise receptors at the southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/WCR 8 intersection. WCR 14.5/14th Street Junior Interchange Alternative could potentially impact residential, commercial, and public facility noise receptors at the northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the US 85/WCR 14.5 intersection. Weld County WCR 18 SPUI Alternative could potentially impact commercial noise receptors at the northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the US 85/WCR 18 intersection. WCR 22 Diamond Alternative could potentially impact residential noise receptors west of the US 85/WCR 22 intersection. WCR 28 SPUI Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors at the southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/WCR 28 intersection. Page 4-10 1 2 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation }. Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Platteville SH 66 Channelized-T with SB Grade Separation Alternative could potentially impact commercial noise receptors west of US 85. WCR 34 Diamond Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/WCR 34 intersection. SH 60 Diamond Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors west of US 85. LaSalle SH 394 Couplet Intersection Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors at the southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/SH 394 intersection. Greeley 22nd Street Texas Turnaround Alternative could potentially impact commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/22nd Street intersection. 18th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/18th Street intersection. 16th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/16th Street intersection. 13th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative could potentially impact residential and commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/13th Street intersection. 8th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative could potentially impact residential, commercial, and community noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/8th Street intersection. 5th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative could potentially impact commercial noise receptors at all four quadrants of the US 85/5th Street intersection. Notes: DDI = Diverging Diamond Interchange SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange 1-76 = Interstate 76 SH = State Highway WCR = Weld County Road SB = Southbound Page 4-11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.5.2 Cumulative Impacts 2 Noise levels in the study area have increased over time as development has occurred. Noise comes 3 from many sources, including stationary sources, such as commercial industries, and mobile sources, 4 such as vehicular and freight traffic in the area. Noise levels are likely to continue to increase over 5 time as development increases and traffic volumes rise as a result. 6 4.5.3 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 7 For Type I site -specific projects, a noise assessment will be required to determine if the Recommended 8 Alternatives would have an impact on sensitive noise receptors. Type I projects are those that result in 9 the construction of a highway in a new location or projects that result in a significant change in the 10 vertical or horizontal alignment or increase the number of through lanes. CDOT includes any receivers 11 within 500 feet of the roadway in the analysis when determining if the noise analysis and abatement 12 criteria threshold will be exceeded. The noise assessment will need to model existing and future 13 conditions to determine if mitigation may be required. Noise assessments are not required for Type II 14 or Type III projects. 15 Mitigation measures for the impacted receptors, if applicable, will be considered based on CDOT noise 16 abatement criteria. For mitigation to be implemented, it must meet feasibility and reasonableness 17 criteria that include the assessment of mitigation benefits and costs, and the reduction in noise levels 18 that would be achieved. 19 4.6 Floodways and 100 -year Floodplains 20 Floodplains in the study area are located in the jurisdictional boundaries of Brighton in Adams County 21 and Fort Lupton, Greeley, Eaton, Pierce, and Nunn in Weld County. Specifically, the US 85 corridor 22 crosses eleven 100 -year floodplains associated with the South Platte River, First Creek, Second Creek, 23 Third Creek, Cache la Poudre River, Eaton Draw, the Mead Lateral, and Spring Creek and its tributary. 24 The study area contains two floodways: the South Platte River Floodway and the Cache la Poudre River 25 Floodway. 26 4.6.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts 27 Table 4.4 identifies the locations of floodplains that have a higher probability of impact based on the 28 Recommended Alternatives. 29 Page 4-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Table 4.4 2 COLORADO Department of Transportation Floodways and 100 -year Floodplain Direct/Indirect Impacts Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Commerce City Split Diamond (with 1-76) Alternatives would impact the First Creek floodplain at all four quadrants of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection. 104th Avenue SPUI with Flyover Diverging Diamond Partial Cloverleaf Brighton 136th Avenue SPUI Alternative would impact the Second Creek floodplain at the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants of the US 85/136th Avenue intersection. Northern SPUI Alternative would impact Second Creek floodplain at all four quadrants of the US 85/1361, Avenue intersection. 168th Avenue/ WCR 2 SPUI Alternative would minimize impacts to Third Creek and South Platte River floodplain west of US 85. Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Alternative would impact the South Platte River floodplain west of US 85. WCR 8 Interchange/Grade Separation/Hook Ramps Alternative would impact the South Platte floodplain at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/WCR 8 intersection. SH 52 Pedestrian Improvements Alternative has potential to affect the South Platte River floodplain west of US 85, depending on the extent of improvements. LaSalle SH 394 Couplet Intersection Alternative would impact the South Platte River floodplain located north of SH 394. Greeley 8th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact the Cache la Poudre River floodplain at all quadrants of the US 85/8th Street intersection. 5th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact the Cache la Poudre River floodplain at all quadrants of the US 85/5th Street intersection. Page 4-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation ntersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Eaton WCR 76 Traffic Signal Alternative would avoid impacts to the floodplain at all four quadrants of the US 85/WCR 76 intersection. Pierce CR 90 Traffic Signal Alternative would avoid impacts to the floodplain at all four quadrants of the US 85/CR 90 intersection. Notes: CR = County Road SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange 1-76 = Interstate 76 WCR = Weld County Road SH = State Highway 1 4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts 2 Over time, agricultural development and urbanization have impacted the South Platte River and the 3 Cache la Poudre River floodplains. Cumulative impacts to the floodplain would primarily result from 4 alterations to the floodplain caused by development already planned in the study area. The 5 Recommended Alternatives are not anticipated to contribute substantially to cumulative impacts when 6 combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 7 4.6.3 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 8 Changes in the floodways of either the First Creek, Second Creek, Third Creek, South Platte River or 9 the Cache la Poudre River could require consultation with the local agencies and a Conditional Letter 10 of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management 11 Agency. Floodplain modeling will be required to assess larger changes. Small changes may be 12 incorporated in the floodplain without triggering the CLOMR/LOMR process. 13 4.7 Wetlands and Waters of the US/Surface Water Resources 14 Water -related resources include lakes, ponds, rivers, draws, ditches, irrigation canals, and waters of 15 the US (WUS), such as navigable waterways and wetlands. These resources provide many important 16 functions, including irrigation to support agriculture, recreational opportunities such as fishing and 17 rafting, quality habitat for resident and migrating wildlife, filtration of pollutants and sediments, and 18 groundwater recharge. The 62 -mile US 85 corridor crosses 46 waterways including 2 rivers, 3 creeks, 19 several draws, and many irrigation ditches. Several waterbodies, such as lakes and ponds, are also 20 located near US 85. These waterbodies are generally located within the southern half of the study area 21 (adjacent to the South Platte River) and are likely associated with past or current gravel mining 22 operations. The few waterbodies located in the central and northern portions of the study area appear 23 to be water retention ponds associated with agricultural activities. 24 Page 4-14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Table 4.5 Wetlands/Waters of the US Direct/Indirect Impacts Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Commerce City 104m Avenue Split Diamond (with 1-76) Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/104m Avenue intersection • A ditch that extends underneath US 85 north of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection. SPUI with Flyover Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/104m Avenue intersection • A ditch that extends underneath US 85 north of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection DDI Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection • A ditch that extends underneath US 85 north of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection Partial Cloverleaf Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection • A ditch that extends underneath US 85 north of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection 120tn Avenue Tight Diamond Alternative would impact: • Fulton Ditch, which extends underneath 120m Avenue west of the US 85/120m Avenue intersection • Wetlands at the southwest quadrant of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection DDI Alternative would impact: • Fulton Ditch, which extends underneath 120th Avenue west of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection • Wetlands at the southwest quadrant of the US 85/120m Avenue intersection. Brighton 136`' Avenue SPUI Alternative would impact: • Private irrigation laterals that extend through the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants of the US 85/136m Avenue intersection and underneath US 85 and 136m Avenue • Second Creek (impaired stream) Page 4-15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation ntersection Recommended Alte f Impacts - , Bromley Lane SPUI Alternative would impact the Fulton Lateral Ditch located east of the US 85/Bromley Lane intersection. 168thAvenue/WCR 2 SPUI Alternative would impact: • Wetlands west of US 85 • Fulton Lateral Ditch located east of the US 85/ 168a, Avenue • An unnamed ditch west of the intersection Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Alternative would impact: • Wetlands west of US 85 • Fulton Lateral Ditch located east of US 85 that extends underneath WCR 6 WCR 8 Interchange/Grade Separation Alternative would impact the South Platte River west of US 85. i Weld County WCR 18 SPUI Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/WCR 18 intersection • The Platteville Ditch located at the northeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants that extends underneath US 85 and WCR 18 • Unnamed ditch that extends east to west along WCR 18 WCR 28 SPUI Alternative would impact: • Wetlands east of US 85 and • Platteville and Platte Valley ditches located east of US 85 Platteville SH 66 Channelized-T with SB Grade Separation Alternative could impact wetlands west of US 85, depending on the western extents of the project. Peckham WCR 44 Realigned Frontage Road Traffic Signal Alternative would impact Western Mutual Ditch, which extends underneath WCR 44. LaSalle SH 394 Couplet Intersection _ Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/SH 394 intersection • A ditch that extends underneath US 85 south of the US 85/SH 394 intersection Page 4-16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Greeley 8 . Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact: • Wetlands at the southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/8I, Street intersection • Cache la Poudre River Notes: DDI = Diverging Diamond Interchange SH = State Highway 1-76 = Interstate 76 SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange SB - Southbound WCR = Weld County Road 1 4.7.1 Cumulative Impacts 2 Before land cultivation for agriculture, the natural ecosystem was largely unaffected by human 3 activity. Agricultural development and urbanization have an impact on wetlands and surface waters. 4 Cumulative impacts on wetlands and surface waters primarily result from development already planned 5 in the regional study area. Development often results in the conversion of natural landscapes to 6 impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, roads, and rooftops. Water runs off these impervious 7 surfaces, often carrying pollutants directly into water bodies instead of allowing the natural filtering of 8 pollutants through the soil. Impacts include species loss, oxygen depletion, lower groundwater levels, 9 increased peak flows, and flooding. Impacts associated with additional impervious surface area are 10 typically mitigated through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), such as the 11 installation of permanent water quality ponds. 12 Implementation of the Recommended Alternatives could occur with future development along US 85, 13 consistent with future land use planning efforts, and would result in additional impervious surfaces as a 14 result of highway widening and interchanges. Future impacts on surface waters could arise from 15 maintenance activities, such as snow plowing, sanding, and deicing. The additional impervious surface 16 area would contribute minimally to surface water impacts when compared to what is expected from 17 planned development. These impacts on surface waters would be reduced by implementing 18 maintenance programs and BMPs in both construction and design. 19 Based on information identified during the US 85 PEL process for wetlands and surface waters, it is not 20 anticipated that the Recommended Alternatives would contribute substantially to cumulative impacts 21 when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 22 4.7.2 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 23 For projects that could impact WUS, wetland delineations will need to be completed. Should impacts 24 be expected to exceed 0.1 acre, a Wetland Finding Report will be required. Use of CDOT's Functional 25 Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) will also be required as a part of projects exceeding this 26 threshold. Impacts to WUS, including wetlands, will be permitted under a United States Army Corps of 27 Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide or Individual permit, depending on project size and scope. 28 Regardless of jurisdiction, CDOT requires a one-to-one mitigation of WUS impacts, which may be 29 accomplished on -site or by purchasing credits at a wetland mitigation bank. 30 Construction projects that disturb one acre or greater or are part of a larger common plan of 31 development within the CDOT or municipal MS4 permit area require a Colorado Discharge Permit 32 System (CDPS) Construction Stormwater Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and 33 Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) and a Stormwater Management Plan 34 (SWMP). The SWMP is prepared in the final design phase of a project submitting the CDPS construction 35 permit application to the WQCD at least 30 days before construction. Page 4-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.8 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species 2 In general, most of the study area is within a rural agricultural setting, with a mix of industrial, 3 commercial, agricultural, and residential development within the towns and cities along the US 85 4 corridor. The highly developed and modified nature of the study area provides minimal natural 5 habitats. As a result, much of the wildlife habitats within the study area are associated with the South 6 Platte River and the Cache la Poudre River riparian corridors and their tributaries, located in the 7 southern and central portions of the study area. 8 Special status species with the potential to occur in the study area are limited to Bald Eagles, black - 9 tailed prairie dogs (BTPD), Western Burrowing Owls, and Preble's meadow jumping mouse. The South 10 Platte River and the Cache la Poudre River riparian areas also provide suitable habitat for the Colorado 11 butterfly plant and Ute ladies' -tresses orchid. 12 Applicable federal and state regulations or policies protecting special status species include: 13 ► United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) 14 ► The Colorado Non -game, Endangered, and Threatened Species Conservation Act 15 ► CDOT 2009 Impacted Black -tailed Prairie Dog Policy 16 ► Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 17 ► Colorado Senate Bill 40 (SB 40) 18 ► Colorado Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Act of 2003 19 The MBTA places seasonal restrictions on construction activities during nesting season for occupied 20 nests. SB 40 resources include the waterways and riparian areas, as well as ditches and irrigation 21 canals. Noxious weeds that modify habitats can be found throughout the study area and are more 22 prevalent in previously disturbed areas. 23 4.8.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts 24 Table 4.6 identifies the locations of wildlife/threatened and endangered species that have a higher 25 probability of impact based on the Recommended Alternatives. 26 Page 4-18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Table 4.6 2 COLORADO Department of Transportation Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species Direct/Indirect Impacts Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Commerce City 104 Avenue Split Diamond (with I-76) SPUI with Flyover Alternatives could impact BTPD habitat at the southwest quadrant of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection and DDI potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for Partial Cloverleaf nesting. 112•1 Avenue SPUI Alternatives could impact BTPD habitat at the southwest Skewed SPUI quadrant of the US 85/104th Avenue intersection and potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. 120-I Avenue Tight Diamond Alternatives could impact BTPD habitat at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/1201'' Avenue intersection and at the southwest and northwest quadrants of the US 85/1241h Avenue intersection. Alternatives would potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. Alternatives would impact a small narrow fringe of riparian habitat at the southwest quadrant of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection, which could provide nesting opportunities for migratory birds. DDI Brighton 1241, Avenue Closure Alternative would likely avoid or minimize impacts to BTPD habitat in the southwest and northwest quadrants of the US 85/12O, Avenue intersection, as well as to Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. 144"h Avenue Closure Alternative would likely avoid impacts to BTPD habitat in the southeast quadrant of the US 85/144th Avenue intersection, as well as to Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. Bromley Lane SPUI Alternative could impact BTPD habitat in the southeast quadrant between US 85 and the railroad, as well as potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. 168th Avenue/WCR 2 SPUI Alternative would have the potential to avoid or minimize impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River to the west of US 85, which provides potential habitat for sensitive species, including nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Page 4-19 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Alternative would impact riparian habitat with nesting opportunities for migratory birds at the South Platte River crossing, west of US 85, and potentially impact BTPD habitat in the northwest quadrant, as well as Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. WCR 8 Interchange/ Grade Separation/Hook Ramps Alternative would impact riparian habitat with nesting opportunities for migratory birds, including raptors, at the South Platte River crossing, west of US 85, and potentially impact BTPD habitat in the southwest quadrant, as well as Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. SH 52 Intersection Improvements/Pedestrian Improvements Alternative would avoid impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River to the west of US 85, as well as potential habitat for sensitive species, including migratory birds. WCR 14.5/14th Street Junior Interchange Alternative would avoid impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River west of US 85. WCR 16 RI/R0 Alternative would avoid impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River to the west of US 85, as well as potential habitat for sensitive species, including migratory birds. Weld County WCR 18 SPUI Alternative would potentially avoid impacts to riparian areas and migratory bird habitat along the South Platte River west of US 85. WCR 20 RI/R0 Alternative would avoid impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River and Platte Valley Ditch. WCR 22 Diamond Alternative would have the potential to avoid impacts to riparian areas and migratory bird habitat along the South Platte River and Platte Valley Ditch west of US 85. WCR 28 SPUI Alternative would impact riparian habitat at the northwest quadrant, along an old oxbow of the South Platte River that provides potential habitat for sensitive species, including nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Platteville SH 66 Channelized-T with SB Grade Separation Alternative would avoid impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River to the west of US 85, as well as potential habitat for sensitive species, including migratory birds, due to the predominantly developed setting. Page 4-20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation LaSalle SH 394 Couplet Intersection Alternative would impact BTPD habitat in the southwest quadrant and potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. Alternative would have the potential to minimize impacts to riparian habitat along the South Platte River, which provides potential habitat for sensitive species, including nesting opportunities for migratory birds, due to the mixed use setting. Greeley 8th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact riparian habitat along the Cache la Poudre River, which provides potential habitat for sensitive species, including nesting opportunities for migratory birds. 5th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact BTPD habitat in the southwest quadrant and potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. Alternative would impact riparian habitat associated with the Cache la Poudre River to the west that provides potential habitat for sensitive species, including nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Nunn CR 98 Closure (East Side Only) Alternative would have minor impacts on BTPD habitat in the northwest quadrant and potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting. CR 100 Traffic Signal Alternative would have the potential to avoid impacts to BTPD habitat in the southwest quadrant and to potentially impact Burrowing Owls that could use BTPD habitat for nesting, due to localized improvement within the existing infrastructure. Notes: BTPD = black tailed prairie dog 1-76 = Interstate 76 SB 40 = Senate Bill 40 WCR = Weld County Road CR = County Road RI/RO = Right-in/Right-out SH = State Highway DDI = Diverging Diamond Interchange SB = Southbound SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange 1 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts 2 Past actions affecting wildlife distribution and movement corridors in the US 85 PEL study area include 3 commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural development, as well as road construction. These 4 activities have directly displaced wildlife habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and altered wildlife 5 movements. 6 Land uses that provide habitat for wildlife include agriculture, open space, parks, surface water areas, 7 and vacant lands. Residential and commercial land uses are less likely to provide habitat for wildlife 8 because they are more developed. Lands protected or enhanced for wildlife would help to offset some 9 of the impacts of overall habitat loss. Page 4-21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 General wildlife habitat in the US 85 PEL study area would be expected to decline with highway 2 expansion, continued residential and commercial development, and the decrease of open lands used 3 for agriculture. Residential and commercial development will also contribute to habitat fragmentation 4 and further reduce open areas used as movement corridors by wildlife. 5 Planned transportation and development actions could contribute to further loss and degradation of 6 wildlife habitat within the US 85 PEL study area. Losses would occur regardless of whether the 7 Recommended Alternatives are implemented, resulting in cumulative impacts on wildlife, wildlife 8 habitat, and other biological resources in the US 85 PEL study area. 9 Based on information identified during the US 85 PEL process for wildlife distribution and movement 10 corridors, the Recommended Alternatives are not anticipated to substantially contribute to cumulative 11 impacts when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 12 4.8.3 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 13 Habitat suitability assessments will be required for special -status species in proximity to Recommended 14 Alternatives project sites. Mapping of SB 40 resources will be required within project footprints, and 15 the appropriate level of certification will need to be determined. Mapping of noxious weeds will also 16 be required. Impacts will need to be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. CDOT has proven approaches, 17 outlined in their specifications, that will apply to construction timing for migratory birds and the 18 management of noxious weeds, which may necessitate the development of an Integrated Noxious Weed 19 Management Plan. 20 4.9 Hazardous Materials 21 Hazardous materials (hazmat) include substances or materials that Environmental Protection Agency 22 (EPA) has determined to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property. 23 Hazardous materials exist within the study area at facilities that generate, store, or dispose of these 24 substances, or at locations of past releases of these substances. Hazardous materials include asbestos, 25 lead -based paint, heavy metals, dry-cleaning solvents, and petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and 26 diesel fuels), all of which could be harmful to human health and the environment. 27 The study area has a mix of industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential development. The 28 northern part of the study area has the least density of commercial and industrial development; 29 however, hazmat facilities are dispersed throughout the entire study area and are generally centered 30 on the urban centers. US 85 is also a designated hazmat route north of Brighton; there is the potential 31 for past spills to have contaminated portions of the study area. 32 4.9.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts 33 Table 4.7 identifies the locations of hazardous materials that have a higher probability of impact based 34 on the Recommended Alternatives. 35 Page 4-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Table 4.7 Hazardous Materials Direct/Indirect Impacts Intersection Recommended Alternatives Impacts Commerce City 104m Avenue Split Diamond (with 1-76) Alternative would impact hazmat sites east of US 85. SPUI with Flyover Alternative would Impact hazmat sites east of US 85. 120th Avenue Tight Diamond Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the northeast quadrant of the US 85/120th Avenue intersection. Brighton 124th Avenue Closure Alternative would impact hazmat sites east of US 85. 136th Avenue SPUI Alternative would impact hazmat sites west of US 85. Bromley Lane SPUI Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at all four quadrants of the US 85/Bromley Lane interchange. Bridge Street/SH 7 Intersection Improvements/ Bus Slip Ramps to Station Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at all four quadrants of the US 85/Bridge Street interchange. Denver Street Closure Alternative would impact a hazmat facility at the northeast quadrant of the US 85/Denver Street intersection. 168th Avenue/WCR 2 SPUI Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at all four quadrants of the US 85/168th Avenue intersection. Fort Lupton WCR 6 Partial Cloverleaf Alternative would impact hazmat facilities south of WCR 6 and at the northeast quadrant. SH 52 Intersection Improvements/ Pedestrian Improvements Alternative would impact hazmat facilities east of the US 85/SH 52 intersection. WCR 14.5/14th Street Junior Interchange Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the US 85/ WCR 14.5 intersection. WCR 16 RI/R0 Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the southeast quadrant of the US 85M/CR 16 intersection. Weld County WCR 18 SPUI Alternative would impact hazmat facilities east of the US 85/WCR 18 intersection. Platteville SH 66 Channelized-T with SB Grade Separation Alternative would impact hazmat facilities west of US 85. WCR 32/Grand Ave Traffic Signal Alternative would impact hazmat facilities north of WCR 32. SH 60 Diamond Alternative would impact hazmat facility at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/SH 60 intersection. Page 4-23 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Gilcrest Elm Street 3/4 Access Alternative would impact a hazmat facility at the northwest quadrant of the intersection. Main Street Channelized-T Alternative would impact hazmat facilities east of US 85. WCR 44 Traffic Signal Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants of the US 85/ WCR 44 intersection. LaSalle 1st Avenue Traffic Signal Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the US 85/ 15 Avenue intersection. 2nd Avenue RI/R0 Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/2nd Avenue intersection. 5th Avenue Channelized-T, with RI/R0 (West Side) Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/5th Avenue intersection. Evans 42nd Street Traffic Signal Alternative would impact a hazmat facility at the southwest quadrant of the US 85/42nd Street intersection. 37th Street Traffic Signal Alternative would impact a hazmat facility at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/37th Street intersection. 315t Street Traffic Signal Alternative would impact hazmat facilities east of US 85. Greeley 22nd Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact hazmat facilities west of US 85. 18th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at all four quadrants of the US 85/18th Street intersection. 16th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at all four quadrants of the US 85/16th Street intersection. 13th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at the southwest and southeast quadrant of the intersection. 8th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact at hazmat facility at the northwest quadrant of the US 85/8th Street intersection. 5th Street Texas Turnaround Alternative would impact hazmat facilities at all four quadrants of the US 85/5th Street intersection. Eaton 5th Street Traffic Signal Alternative would impact hazmat facilities west of US 85. Notes: CR = County Road SB = Southbound 1-76 = Interstate 76 RI/R0 = Right-in/Right-out SPUI = Single Point Urban Interchange WCR = Weld County Road Page 4-24 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.9.2 Cumulative Impacts 2 Based on the near -term planned development, it is expected that the general pattern of urbanization 3 will continue along the US 85 corridor and more agricultural land will be converted for commercial and 4 residential uses, which will include hazmat facilities. This pattern of growth is expected to occur 5 regardless of whether the improvements considered in the US 85 PEL study are implemented. 6 The construction of the Recommended Alternatives will not contribute noticeably to cumulative 7 hazmat impacts in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and 8 other roadway improvements. CDOT has policies and mandates to remediate contaminated areas 9 acquired for transportation purposes that could contribute to cleaning up certain areas. Providing safer 10 facilities could also reduce future spills due to crashes or operational issues. 11 4.9.3 Next Steps and Proposed Mitigation Strategies 12 Hazardous materials could be encountered during ground -disturbing activities during implementation of 13 the Recommended Alternatives. Avoidance of hazardous materials or contaminated sites is a primary 14 goal but often not feasible. During project planning, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 15 or CDOT Initial Site Assessment should be conducted to determine the potential to encounter hazardous 16 materials and develop an appropriate Materials Management Plan, if applicable. 17 4.10 Other Resources 18 Several resources were not addressed at this preliminary planning stage as this study focused on those 19 that have regulatory requirements in addition to NEPA (for example, the Endangered Species Act, 20 National Historic Preservation Act) and those that are known to be of interest to stakeholders, such as 21 noise. The following subsections discuss resources not examined in this study that may need to be 22 addressed during the NEPA process, which will be initiated once discrete projects and funding have 23 been identified. 24 4.10.1 Air Quality 25 The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) and its subsequent amendments regulate emissions through National 26 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants and the Hazardous Air Pollutants 27 (HAP) program, which includes Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). Specific requirements are placed on 28 the transportation planning process in air quality nonattainment areas that do not meet the NAAQS 29 emissions limits and in areas that have been reclassified from nonattainment to attainment/ 30 maintenance areas. For transportation projects, the primary pollutants of concern are those associated 31 with vehicle emissions, road dust, and secondary pollutants formed because of direct emissions. There 32 are also issues related to road construction that are temporary impacts. Most of the study area is 33 within the Denver Metropolitan nonattainment area for eight -hour ozone. 34 Projects deemed regionally significant need to be in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan 35 and Transportation Implementation Plan, which are fiscally constrained, before a NEPA decision 36 document can be signed. Local conformity also needs to be assessed by determining whether 37 projected, future traffic conditions could cause an exceedance of NAAQS. 38 Project -level conformity for specific projects may require a hot -spot analysis (for carbon monoxide) for 39 intersection(s) with a LOS D or worse and are in a non -attainment or attainment/maintenance area. 40 Page 4-25 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 4.10.2 Environmental Justice 2 In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, Environmental Justice (EJ) 3 populations occur where either: 4 ► The minority or low-income population of the affected area exceeds 50%. 5 ► The population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 6 population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographical 7 analysis. 8 EJ populations are likely within the study area. During site -specific projects, CDOT procedures for 9 identifying EJ populations should be followed. The potential for disproportionately high or adverse 10 impacts to be borne by EJ populations when compared to the non-EJ populations will need to be 11 determined. Additionally, the opportunity for EJ populations to participate fully in the decision -making 12 process must be provided. The denial, reduction, or delay of receipt of benefits by minority and 13 low-income populations cannot occur. 14 4.10.3 Archaeological Resources 15 Archaeological resources must be addressed during the planning and implementation of transportation 16 projects with a federal nexus, such as funding, in accordance with the Prehistorical and Archaeological 17 Resources Act of 1973 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. An archaeological survey in 18 compliance with Section 106 should be conducted to determine if there are potential archaeological 19 resources in the study area. Archaeological resources potentially impacted during construction will 20 need to be evaluated and appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures put in place if impacts are 21 anticipated. 22 4.10.4 Paleontological Resources 23 Paleontological resources must be addressed during the planning and implementation of transportation 24 projects with a federal nexus, such as funding, in accordance with the Prehistorical and Archaeological 25 Resources Act of 1973. A paleontological survey should be conducted to determine if there are 26 potential sensitive geologic units in site -specific study areas. If geologic units are likely to contain 27 paleontological resources, the potential for impact during construction will need to be evaluated and 28 appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures put in place if impacts are anticipated. 29 4.10.5 Prime and Unique Farmland 30 Prime and unique farmlands are protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act, administered by 31 the US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Impacts to prime and 32 unique farmlands need to be evaluated when the impacted area is in use or designated as a farmland. 33 Areas with prime and unique soils that are developed or slated for development do not need to be 34 evaluated. 35 Most anticipated impacted areas are within transportation ROW or in developed areas. However, there 36 are areas that may be impacted outside ROW that are in use as farmlands, particularly in the less 37 developed parts of the study area in the north. For projects impacting farmlands, Form AD -1006 will 38 need to be completed; this form results in a rating based on the severity of impact. Scores of 160 or 39 more require submittal to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 40 Page 4-26 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 4.10.6 Social Resources COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Social resources span a wide range of resources used by a community and often affect the quality of 3 life for people. Issues such as community cohesion and values, as well as public services and facilities, 4 should be considered in the refinement of the Recommended Alternatives. Evaluations are often 5 qualitative and based on readily available data, such as community plans, but also stakeholder input. 6 There may be opportunities to enhance or complement social resources with improved access, safety, 7 or multimodal connectivity. 8 During substantial site -specific projects (EAs or EISs), social resources in the study area will need to be 9 identified and assessed for potential impacts, both positive and negative. Smaller projects often do not 10 require a social analysis unless there is a sensitive resource that could be affected. 11 4.10.7 Economic Resources 12 Economic studies are required when projects could have an impact on the economic profile of a 13 community. Economic impacts specific to property or business owners may also be associated with the 14 acquisition of ROW. Economic impacts may also be positive and could result from improved access, 15 mobility, and safety. Transportation improvements may support the goals of local agencies regarding 16 economic vitality and growth. 17 During substantial site -specific projects (EAs or EISs), economic resources in the study area will need to 18 be identified and assessed for potential impacts, both positive and negative. Smaller projects often do 19 not require an economic analysis unless a sensitive resource could be affected. 20 4.10.8 Land Use 21 The compatibility of discrete projects with current and future land uses and zoning will need to be 22 evaluated on a project -by -project basis. Local municipalities and counties have approved land use 23 plans that will need to be obtained and reviewed for larger projects. Local land use plans have been 24 reviewed as part of the US 85 PEL project. These plans have been utilized to determine consistency 25 with the Recommended Alternatives CatExs usually do not examine land use unless there is a protected 26 use (i.e., park land). Of interest is whether a transportation project could have the indirect effect of 27 influencing land use by changes in density or use patterns. Agencies managing local land use can 28 address potential impacts through zoning and their land use plans. The Recommended Alternatives 29 have been thoroughly vetted with local agencies; coordination during site -specific projects should build 30 on these efforts. 31 Page 4-27 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC 2 INVOLVEMENT COLORADO Department of Transportation 3 FHWA and CDOT committed to involving federal, state, and local agencies and the public throughout 4 the US 85 PEL process. This includes the involvement of federal, state, and local government 5 representatives; regional transportation planning entities; railroad operators; community groups; 6 businesses; property owners; and residents. 7 This project built on the agency coordination and public involvement previously conducted along the 8 corridor and for other major transportation studies in the project area. The foundation for the US 85 9 PEL coordination and outreach was the US 85 Access Control Plan (1999), which resulted in an Inter - 10 Governmental Agreement (IGA) among CDOT and 16 local agencies from 1-76 to WCR 80. Many agencies 11 continue to meet as a part of the Highway 85 Coalition. The Highway 85 Coalition recognizes the value 12 of US 85 as a regional transportation corridor and as a backbone to northern Colorado. The Coalition, 13 formed in 2009, meets monthly to discuss ongoing efforts related to the corridor. 14 Desired outcomes of the coordination and outreach effort included: 15 ► Stakeholder input contributing to the PEL study's information base, findings, and 16 recommendations; 17 ► Stakeholders that are well-informed about the study; 18 ► Meaningful input by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Executive Committee (EC), and 19 the public to help CDOT make sound and publicly supported decisions; 20 ► An understanding and documentation about what decisions were made during the study and the 21 rationale for them; and 22 ► An understanding about how the PEL study will move forward and how stakeholders will be 23 involved. 24 5.1 Agency Coordination 25 The Project Team prepared an Agency Coordination and Public Outreach Plan for the US 85 PEL study 26 at the beginning of the study. This plan set forth the public involvement process for the US 85 PEL 27 study and described the agency coordination and public outreach intent, initiatives, responsibilities, 28 and tasks to be carried out as part of the study. The plan defined the various roles, responsibilities, 29 issues, and guidelines for a successful outreach effort. The plan also described how CDOT would 30 provide multiple opportunities for public involvement during the PEL study to inform its decision 31 making. It identified specific public involvement activities and established time frames for them to be 32 carried out. Appendix F contains the information presented and summaries of the various agency 33 coordination meetings throughout the US 85 PEL. 34 5.1.1 Technical Advisory Committee 35 CDOT worked closely with the corridor's local communities and other agencies throughout the study 36 process. Coordination largely occurred through the TAC, which was made up of technical staff from the 37 following agencies: ► Adams County ► City of Brighton ► City of Commerce City ► City of Evans ► City of Fort Lupton ► Town of Ault ► Town of Eaton ► Town of Garden City ► Town of Gilcrest l crest ► Town of LaSalle Page 5-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study ► City of Greeley ► DRCOG ► FHWA ► NFRMPO ► Town of Nunn ► Town of Pierce ► Town of Platteville ► Weld County COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The TAC assisted in the PEL study process and served as a sounding board for the technical aspects of 2 the project. All project analyses, evaluations, and recommendations were vetted through the TAC 3 before being presented to the public, elected officials, or before being posted on the project website. 4 TAC members also kept their respective organizations, community groups, and elected officials 5 updated on the study's progress and findings. 6 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings 7 The Project Team met with the TAC frequently throughout the study. Table 5.1 identifies the meeting 8 dates and major topics. 9 Table 5.1 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings t . ' • TAC Role • Public Involvement Plan Input March 11, 2014 • Data collection Update • Visioning Workshop Effort • Schedule • Inventory Update • No Action Projects April 8, 2014 • Travel Demand Forecasts • Summary of Stakeholder Interviews • Preliminary Discussion on Purpose and Need • Visioning Workshop Recap May 20, 2014 • Inventory and Analysis • Purpose and Need • June Public Meetings June 4, 2014 An update was emailed with materials for review, including the TAC #3 meeting notes, a draft Purpose and Need, and the June public meeting flyer • Public Meetings Summary • Refined Purpose and Need • Corridor Segmentation August 12, 2014 • Alternatives Screening Process and List of Alternatives • Preliminary Level 1 Screening Results • Level 2A Screening Criteria An update was emailed with materials for review, including revised Purpose and Need with the October 17, 2014 Railroad Proximity addition, revised Level 1 screening with Railroad Proximity, and revisions based on FHWA comments, Level 2 screening process graphic, Level 2A screening description and preliminary results Page 5-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Meeting Date Topic Discussed • Revised Purpose and Need • Overall Screening Process November 18, 2014 • Revised Level 1 Screening Results • Level 2A Screening Review and Discussion • Level 2B Screening Methodology and Results April 2015 (Held as four sectional • Level 3 Alternatives Development TAC meetings) December 2015 • Level 4 Alternative Refinement and Recommendations (Held as four sectional TAC meetings) • Prioritization 1 2 5.1.2 Executive Committee 3 The Project Team worked closely with the corridor's elected officials throughout the study process. 4 One or two elected officials from each community and county along the corridor made up this 5 committee. The EC provided policy -level guidance on the study. This group met at key milestones and 6 decision points in the project when the Project Team needed input and concurrence of the elected 7 officials to proceed. 8 Executive Committee Meetings 9 The Project Team met with the EC four times during the study. The EC usually met during the existing 10 time slot for the US 85 Coalition meetings, the second Thursday of the month at 6:30 p.m., with the 11 inclusion of Adams County and Commerce City. Table 5.2 identifies meeting dates and major topics. 12 Table 5.2 13 Executive Committee Meetings Meeting Date Topic Discussed • Visioning Workshop Recap • Public Meetings Summary September 11, 2014 • Existing and Projected Corridor Conditions • Purpose and Need • Alternatives and Screening • Revised Purpose and Need December 11, 2014 • Alternative Screening Process ■ Level 2 Screening Results • Review of Last Meeting (Level 2 Screening Results) June 11, 2015 • Progress Update • Initial Improvement Options Overview (Level 3, 4, and 5 Screening) • Progress Update February 11, 2016 • Recommended Improvements • Prioritization Page 5-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 TAC and EC Work Sessions COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 In addition to TAC and EC meetings, representatives from the Project Team met with local agencies on 3 a one-on-one basis from May to September 2015 to discuss the proposed improvements and solutions. 4 The work session format allowed the Project Team to focus on each community individually and to 5 discuss the improvements in detail at every location along the corridor. These work sessions were key 6 to establishing consensus and advancing the project. 7 5.1.3 Resource Agency Scoping 8 NEPA requires that there be an early and open process for determining the scope of the issues to be 9 addressed by a study. Resource agencies have specific technical expertise and regulatory oversight on 10 various environmental issues and potential impacts associated with the project. This PEL study 11 followed a similar scoping process to the NEPA scoping process. The Project Team invited various 12 resource agencies to participate in a review of the Corridor Conditions Report. Table 5.3 identifies the 13 contacted agencies and any comments received from the resource agencies. 14 5.1.4 Union Pacific Railroad 15 CDOT representatives met regularly with the UPRR starting in June 2015. These meetings compared 16 CDOT's future planning efforts with UPPR's future planning and operational efforts. Because the UPRR 17 parallels the US 85 corridor (in some cases, the two facilities are less than 50 feet apart), it was critical 18 that CDOT and UPRR coordinate their future planning efforts. CDOT anticipates to remain in close 19 coordination with UPRR as improvements are made to the corridor. Page 5-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 5.3 Resource Agency Correspondence Record COLORADO Department of Transportation Agency Name 1st Outreach: Letter Notification of PEL Agency Comments 2^d Outreach Letter Requesting Comment on CCR WSW Agency Comments 3rd Outreach Email Reminder of CCR Agency Comments All CDPHE - Air Pollution Control Division 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 Look forward to reviewing air quality impacts during NEPA process. 11/11/2015 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 11/11/2015 No Comments CDPHE - Water Quality Control Division 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments 11/11/2015 No Comments CPW - Northwest Region Denver 05/20/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 CCR has been forwarded to District Wildlife and Area Managers 11/11/2015 No Comments US EPA Region 8 05/19/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments 11/11/2015 Pg 5-20,154: 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 11/11/2015 No Comments Page 5-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Agency Name 1st Outreach: Letter Notification of PEL Agency Comments 2nd Outreach Letter Requesting Comment on CCR Agency Comments 3'a Outreach Email Reminder of CCR Agency Comments USACE - Denver Regulatory Office 05/20/2014 No Comments 07/22/2015 No Comments 11/11/2015 Notify this office (Corps of Engineers, Omaha District) if the proposed project 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 '07/22/2015 No Comments 11/11/2015 No Comments ' - Date submitted to CDOT for review and submittal to agency. CCR = Corridor Conditions Report CDOT - Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE - Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CPW - Colorado Parks and Wildlife EPA = Environmental Protection Agency NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act PEL = Planning and Environmental Linkages SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service Page 5-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 5.2 Public Participation 2 The Project Team conducted varying public outreach activities based on the type of feedback desired 3 and decisions that needed to be made. Appendix G includes all the outreach meeting materials and 4 summaries to document each activity. The following subsections describe the primary outreach 5 activities and engagement platforms. 6 5.2.1 Stakeholder Interviews 7 At the start of the project, the Project Team conducted individual interviews with key stakeholders in 8 February, March, and April 2014. All participating agencies were asked to describe US 85 and its role 9 through their community and to identify their top concerns regarding travel along the corridor. All the 10 feedback received by the Project Team helped inform the development of the project's Purpose and 11 Need, as well as the alternatives development and evaluation process. 12 5.2.2 Visioning Workshop 13 The Project Team conducted a Visioning Workshop with key stakeholders in May 2014. The purpose of 14 the workshop was to understand the vision for the future US 85 corridor. Attendees participated in a 15 series of activities to identify the corridor's role today, current problems, and potential solutions. 16 Results from this visioning workshop informed the development of the project's Purpose and Need. 17 5.2.3 Website 18 CDOT hosted a dedicated website for the project to provide information about the study and to enable 19 ongoing communication. The web page, https://www.codot.gov/projects/us85pel, explained what a 20 PEL study is, how the PEL process works, and what happens after a PEL is complete. The web page also 21 included information about the corridor, meeting announcements, and meeting materials. The web 22 page provided contact information for project team members, which enabled the public to contact the 23 Project Team with comments at any time. 24 5.2.4 Public Meetings 25 Public meetings were held in June 2014 and in 26 March/April 2016. Both rounds of public meetings 27 included three meetings at three separate 28 locations. Approximately 100 people attended 29 the public meetings. 30 The public meetings were advertised through 31 CDOT's (and local agencies') website and 32 newsletters, CDOT's social media accounts, a 33 press release, posting of flyers in local 34 communities (at the local agencies' discretion), 35 email distribution, and automated calls to all 36 land lines within 2 miles of the corridor. 37 The June 2014 meeting introduced the public to the study and existing corridor conditions. The Project 38 Team distributed questionnaires asking the public to characterize the role of US 85 through their 39 community, to identify their top concerns regarding travel on US 85, and to identify their expectations 40 of the study. Appendix G includes meeting materials, a meeting summary, and the questionnaire 41 summary. 42 Page 5-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 At the 2016 meetings, the Project Team received input on the interim and ultimate proposed 2 improvements, the prioritization process, and the project's next steps. The Project Team received 3 feedback from attendees through one-on-one discussions, sticky notes on the community maps, and 4 comment sheets. Appendix G includes meeting materials and a meeting summary. 5 5.2.5 Design Charrette 6 CDOT sponsored a design charrette as part of the study to specifically look at the US 34 and US 85 7 interchange complex, located between Greeley and Evans, adjacent to Garden City. The interchange 8 currently has an atypical configuration and required special consideration by the large number of 9 stakeholders given its importance to the US 85 corridor. Held January 14, 2016, the charrette was to 10 set the stage for subsequent efforts in planning and designing the interchange complex by identifying 11 the concerns and interests of affected stakeholders. The charrette was not necessarily intended to 12 develop a final solution as much as to identify important issues contributing to a preferred solution. 13 Results of the design charrette are included in Section 3.3.1. Page 5-8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 6.0 NEXT STEPS COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 Section 6.0 presents the overall next steps required to fully implement the Recommended Alternatives 3 Concept. In general, the Recommended Alternatives Concept, as presented in Section 3.0, cannot be 4 constructed as one project; it will be required to be completed in individual smaller projects or 5 phases. Regardless of the element that will be implemented, CDOT is required to follow specific steps 6 and processes. This section outlines these requirements. The prioritization found in Section 6.7 7 describes the various individual intersection locations based on the identified needs. Once these 8 elements are identified for advancement, the following items will need to be followed. 9 6.1 Update to the US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) 10 After the US 85 PEL study, some of the recommended improvements identified in this document will 11 require an amendment to the US 85 ACP. The US 85 ACP will continue to serve as the legally -binding, 12 governing document for the US 85 Corridor. Table 6.1 presents the recommended improvements 13 identified in the US 85 PEL, compares them to the recommendations in the US 85 ACP, and identifies 14 whether a formal amendment to the ACP is required. 15 A formal amendment request for changing the current ACP recommendations to match the US 85 PEL 16 recommendations is required, as identified in Table 6.1. As set forth in the US 85 IGA, when an 17 amendment to the ACP is requested, all parties to the IGA must approve the change in writing. 18 Amendments to the US 85 ACP will take place only when funding is available for the identified 19 improvement. This allows only amendments that are imminent to be brought for discussion, 20 recommended, and approved. The entities that are a party to the US 85 ACP have been consistently 21 included in the development of the US 85 PEL and are anticipated to provide support for the 22 amendment to the US 85 ACP. 23 It should be clearly noted that there are many cases where a road closure is recommended, but the 24 actual closure should not occur until an adjacent improvement is implemented. This commonly occurs 25 when a new interchange is identified and a nearby road is recommended for access closure because of 26 the proximity to the interchange. In these cases, the road access closure would not occur until the 27 interchange is implemented. Another occurrence are the closures that are incorporated between the 28 parallel roadways between WCR 18 and WCR 28. These access closures would not occur until the 29 parallel road systems are implemented. The parallel road system is identified in this document as a 30 common vision for the system, but the precise location can change, as development occurs. It was the 31 intent of the recommendation for the parallel road system to be built in whole or in part by CDOT, 32 Weld County, or private developers. Page 6-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Table 6.1 PEL Recommendations Compared to Access Control Plan Improvements Roadway lassification ICommunity Intersection j Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative trave l ACP Recommended Improvements eiliaillitilarlaiiiiihts PEL Recommended Improvements P ACP amendment required? • _ - denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Freeway Commerce City 104th Ave Safety Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Interchange (high priority) A partial cloverleaf was shown, but a tight diamond or a SPUI are also possibilities SPUI with a flyover,Safet Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI), partial cloverleaf, and split diamond (with access to 1-76) No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) Longs Peak Drive No issues Closure "Access will be removed in the future when the interchange at 104th Avenue is constructed or when a connection from the development to either Brighton Road or 112th Avenue is built" Closure No 112th Ave Safety Mobility Railroad proximity Alternative travel modes Signalize (medium priority) Interchange (long-term priority) Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) And Skewed SPUI No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) 120th Ave Safety Mobility Railroad proximity Alternative travel modes Signalized when warranted (high priority) P Y) Interchange (diamond) (high priority) Includes grade separation of railroad Tight diamond (from EA) And No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) Page 6-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements It PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Freeway c p, 'C m 124th Ave Mobility Railroad proximity Access Right-in/Right-out (RIRO) when interchanges are built at 120th and E-470 (medium priority) Then, closure if business access can be provided (long-term priority) Closure. This closure will not happen until access to the interchange at 120th Avenue is provided. No E -470 N/A Interchange (high priority) No change No 132nd Ave Railroad proximity Closure (long-term priority) once interchanges are built (E 470 and 136th or 144th) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with new interchangeat 136th Avenue. No 136th Ave Safety (and truck safety) Railroad proximity Access Signalized (medium priority) Interchange (long-term priority) Diamond was shown SPUI No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) 144n Ave Railroad proximity Access Alternative travel modes 3/4 configuration conversion (medium priority) Interchange (long-term priority) Diamond was shown Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at Bromley Lane. Yes Bromley Lane Safety Mobility Access Alternative travel mode Interchange (high priority) SPUI was shown in the ACP to minimize the taking of business property. This would require relocating several city streets SPUI No Bridge St / SH 7 Alternate mode Move frontage roads away from interchange and signalize ramp intersections (medium priority) Intersection improvements No Page 6-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification ›, a EIntersection o 0 Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified in the ACC Brighton Denver St Safety Full movement to RIRO intersection (high priority) y) Closure (long-term priority) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2. No WCR 2 Mobility Access Interchange (medium priority) SPUI was shown SPUI No WCR 2.5 No major issues Modified to 74 access (high priority) Closure with supporting frontage road connections (long-term priority) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2. No Weld County WCR 4 No major issues Modified to 3 access (high priority) Closure when interchanges are built at CR 2 and either CR 6 or CR 8 (long- term priority) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 2 and WCR 6. No Fort Lupton WCR 6 Safety Mobility Access Signalize (high priority) Interchange (long-term priority) Diamond shown Interchange, partial cloverleaf No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) WCR 6.25 No major issues Modified to RIRO (high priority) Closure when interchange is built at CR 6 (long-term priority) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 6. No WCR 8 No major issues Convert to Y4 (medium priority) Interchange (long-term priority) Diamond shown Junior , inlerchan e g hook ramps No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) Page 6-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Avunwwoa Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified In the ACP Freeway o a WCR 10 No major issues Not Addressed No action No SH 52 Mobility Signalize ramp intersections (medium priority) Intersection and pedestrian improvements No Freeway to Enhanced Fort Lupton WCR 14.5l14"h Street Safety Mobility Alternative travel mode Interchange (long-term priority) g g- A SPUI configuration was shown to result in the least disruption to nearby properties. Junior interchange No (an interchange was identified in the ACP) Enhanced Expressway Weld County WCR 16 Railroad proximity Access Convert to 3 configuration (medium -priority) Closure when interchange at 14.5 is constructed (long-term priority) RIRO in conjunction with WCR 14.5/14h Street improvements. Outcome at WCR 16 could be different depending on action taken at WCR 14.5/14rh Street. Yes WCR 18 Safety Railroad proximity Access Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) May be convened to RIRO or 3 for safety (long-term priority) SPUI (US 85 elevated). Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Yes WCR 18.5 Safety Railroad proximity Access Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) May be converted to RIRO or 3 for safety (long-term priority) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with the interchange at WCR 18. yes' Page 6-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Enhanced Expressway o :_) WCR 20 Safety Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) May be converted to RIRO or 3 for safety (long-term priority) RIRO. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28 Yes WCR 22 Safety Railroad proximity Access Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) May be convened to RIRO or 3'a for safety (long-term priority) Diamond interchange Yes WCR 22.5 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) May be converted to RIRO or 3/4 for safety (long-term priority) Closure. Closure would happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 22. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Yes WCR 24.5 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) Maybe converted to RIRO or 3& for safety (long-term priority) RIRO (west side) and closure (east side). Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Yes WCR 26 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) May be convened to RIRO or 3 for safety (long-term priority) RIRO. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Yes Page 6-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PE Recommended mprovements Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified In the ACP Enhanced Expressway Weld County WCR 28 Safety Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements (medium priority) Intersection of WCR 28 with WCR 25.5 and Main Street (frontage roads) needs to be relocated (long- term priority) SPUI. Would happen in conjunction with parallel road system between WCR 18 and WCR 28. Yes a.)priority) 5 a WCR 30 Railroad proximity Closure when new connection is constructed to the east of SH 66 (high Closure. Requires new parallel connection to WCR 32. No SH 66 Mobility Access Signal (high priority) Frontage road closure (medium priority) T with SB rCa grade -separation grade -separation Yes Standard Expressway Platteville Marion Ave No major issues RIRO (high priority) Intersection improvements, 3 movement Yes WCR 32, Grand Ave Mobilit y Railroad proximity Access (FR) Signal (Long-term priority) Frontage road closures Close frontage roads and add auxiliary lanes, if needed Improvements work in conjunction with parallel road to WCR 30 in Plattevilla. No WCR 34 Railroad proximity Signal (medium priority) Diamond interchange Yes Page 6-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation uoiteoIissel3 AeMpeoa Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? ' = denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Standard Expressway Weld County WCR 36 Railroad proximity Realigned to an angle of 75 degrees or more (long-term priority) Closure. Closure will happen in conjunction with interchange at WCR 34 and SH 60 Yes' SH 60 Mobility, Safety Southbound free -flowing right turn lane Flyover ramp for the northbound left turn (medium priority) Diamond interchange Yes WCR 38 Railroad proximity Realigned to an angle of 75 degrees or more (long-term priority) Closure. Closure happens in conjunction with improvements at SH 60. Yes' WCR 29/38.5 Railroad proximity Intersection should be simplified (long-term priority) West side access from CR 29 and CR 38.5 will be closed but the connection between these roads will remain. CR 29 will become RIRO on east side Closure Yes' U WCR 40 Railroad proximity Realigned to an angle of 75 degrees or more (long-term priority) Also relocate frontage road on west side Signal Realign frontage road Yes Elm St Access (FR) Signalize (medium priority) . access Yes Main St Access (FR) Closure (medium priority) Channelized-T Yes Page 6-8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements _ PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? "= denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Standard Expressway Gilcrest WCR 31/Ash St Access (FR) Close median (high priority) Move CR 31 on west side farther from US 85 and Railroad Street Maintain 3/4 access No WCR 42 Railroad proximity Realigned to an angle of 75 degrees or more (high priority) Intersection improvements to add EB left turn lane No Weld County WCR 33 Railroad proximity Access (alignment, FR) Closure (medium priority) WCR 33 from SH 256 to the railroad tracks can be vacated. A new connection from WCR 33 to WCR 44 will be needed east of the railroad tracks. Closure. (Improvements work in conjunction with WCR 44 improvements. No WCR 44 Say Railroad proximity Access (alignment) Realign to an intersection angle of 75 degrees or more (high priority) Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (shifted north) Interim improvements include signal in conjunction with WCR 33 improvements. Yes WCR 46/WCR 35 Railroad proximity Realign to an intersection angle of 75 degrees or more (long-term priority) Closure on east side. Channelized T with closure on the east side No WCR 48/ WCR 37 Railroad proximity Access (alignment) Realign for perpendicular approaches (long-term priority) Channelized-T with east side closure Yes Page 6-9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements p ACP amendment required? _ • =denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Standard Expressway La Salle 1,! Ave Railroad proximity No change; reconstruction took place in 1994; close access points, and rebuild sidewalk, as necessary to address safety concerns "Capacity of First Ave. may need to be increased by creating dual left turn lanes of the west approach" No action No F Ave Access No change; reconstruction took place in 1994; close access points, and rebuild sidewalk, as necessary to address safety concerns RIRO Yes 3 Ave • No major issues No change; reconstruction took place in 1994; close access points, and rebuild sidewalk, as necessary to address safety concerns No action No 4" Ave Access No change; reconstruction took place in 1994; close access points, and rebuild sidewalk, as necessary to address safety concerns RIRO Yes 5" Ave Access No change; reconstruction took place in 1994; close access points, and rebuild sidewalk, as necessary to address safety concerns No Action No s� 1 Street Access No change; reconstruction took place in 1994; close access points, and rebuild sidewalk, as necessary to address safety concerns 3/4 access Yes Page 6-10 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation c 0 3 CV H CC 0, Community h1 on r Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, Or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements AIL. PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = de identified the ACP Standard Expressway Weld County SH 3941 WCR 52 Safety Railroad proximity Realign to an intersection angle of 75 degrees or more (medium priority) Correct grade and auxiliary lane deficiencies Couplet intersection No In co �' 42nd St Safety Mobility Railroad proximity Alternative travel modes Signalization (high priority) Frontage road immediately west of US 85 should be relocated to the west Auxiliary lane additions, when needed No 37th St Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Close West Service Road intersection (medium to long-term priority) Auxiliary lanes additions, if needed; close frontage roads No 31M St Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Close West Service Road and the State Street intersections (medium to long-term priority) Auxiliary lanes additions, if needed; close frontage roads No US 34 Interchange N/A ACP Considered beyond the scope of the N/A N/A °' 2 o 22'a St Safety Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Relocation of frontage road away from US 85 (long-term priority) Texas turnaround. Requires parallel road connection to allow business access on the east side of the railroad. Yes 18h St Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Overpass (with US 85 being elevated) (long-term priority) Texas turnaround Yes Page 6-11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Standard Expressway c.5 16" St Safety Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Close 2nd Avenue intersection (frontage road) (long-term priority) Texas turnaround Yes 13" St Safety Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Close US 85 median (high priority) Creates RIRO of 13th Texas turnaround Yes g,' St Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Turn arrow indications (high priority) Split -diamond interchange (long-term priority) Texas turnaround Yes 5h St Safety Mobility Access Alternative travel modes Split -diamond interchange (long-term priority) Texas turnaround Yes 0 St Mobility Railroad proximity Overpass structure to carry 0 Street entirely over US 85 interchange (medium priority) Closure; new frontage road on east side; realign N 11th Avenue connection to WCR 66. Constructed in conjunction with a traffic signal at WCR 66. Yes' Page 6-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes SSP ACP Recommended Improvements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified in the ACP [Community WCR 66 Railroad proximity Signalize intersection (medium priority) Signal. Constructed in conjunction with closures at 0 Street. No co E o SH 392 Mobility Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as needed (medium priority) Auxiliary lane improvements No Weld County WCR 70 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate (medium priority) No Action No Main Street C LL, WCR 72 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate (medium priority) Closure (east side). Closure at WCR 72 in conjunction with new improvements in Eaton and full access maintained at WCR 70. Yes' Colorado Pkwy No major issues Signal (long-term priority) Signal No Orchard St No major issues N/A No Action No Collins St No major issues Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate No action No 1s' St Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate No action No 2'a St Railroad proximity Construct raised median; convert to RIRO (medium priority) No action Yes 3d St No major issues Construct raised median; convert to RIRO (medium priority) No action Yes Page 6-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Roadway Classification Community lir Intersection Known Problem(s) Based on the Purpose and Need: Safety, Mobility, Railroad proximity, Access, or Alternative travel modes ACP Recommended Itrovements PEL Recommended Improvements ACP amendment required? • = denotes new closure not identified in the ACP Main Street a O ,co 4'h St No major issues Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate No action , No 5'h St Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate Pedestrian crossing enhancements No 7'h St No major issues Converted to a 34 configuration when traffic conditions dictate (medium priority) No action Yes WCR 76 Railroad proximity Signalized, when warranted (long-term priority) Signal No Weld County WCR 37 Access Improvements to the auxiliary lanes, as necessary (medium priority) The intersection and at -grade railroad crossing will be closed and a connection will be built south to CR 76 Closure. Would happen in conjunction with signal at WCR 76. No Standard Expressway WCR 18 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate (medium priority) No action No WCR 80 Railroad proximity Auxiliary lane improvements, as appropriate (medium priority) No action No 1 Note: The US 85 Access Control Plan does not address improvements north of WCR 80. 2 Page 6-14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 6.2 General NEPA Requirements 2 This PEL study provides a framework for the long-term implementation of the transportation 3 improvements as funding becomes available and is to be used as a resource for future NEPA 4 documentation. This PEL study has identified issues, as presented in Section 4.0, that will require 5 additional evaluation in any future NEPA documentation. 6 Funding for the entire Recommended Alternatives Concept has not been identified at this time. 7 However, the identification of a Recommended Alternatives Concept for the entire corridor in this PEL 8 study is consistent with FHWA's objective of analyzing and selecting transportation solutions on a broad 9 enough scale to provide meaningful analysis and avoid segmentation. During the PEL process, phasing 10 the Recommended Alternatives Concept served as the basis for alternative development and allowed 11 maximum flexibility for individual project implementation. It is anticipated that most improvements 12 can be implemented at various locations as funding becomes available. Fiscal constraint requirements 13 must be satisfied for FHWA and CDOT to approve further NEPA documentation. Before FHWA and CDOT 14 can sign a final NEPA decision document (Record of Decision, Finding of No Significant Impact, or 15 programmatic or non -programmatic CatEx), the proposed project, as defined in the NEPA document, 16 must meet the following specific fiscal -constraint criteria (FHWA 2011): 17 ► The proposed project or phases of the proposed project within the time horizon of the Regional 18 Transportation Plan (RTP) must be included in the fiscally -constrained RTP, and other phase(s) 19 of the project and associated costs beyond the RTP horizon must be referenced in the fiscally - 20 unconstrained vision component of the RTP. 21 ► The project or phase of the project must be in the fiscally -constrained Transportation 22 Improvement Program (TIP), which includes: 23 • At least one subsequent project phase, or the description of the next project phase (For 24 project phases that are beyond the TIP years, the project must be in the fiscally - 25 constrained RTP and the estimated total project cost must be described within the 26 financial element of the RTP and/or applicable TIP). 27 • Federal -aid projects or project phases and state/locally funded, regionally significant 28 projects that require a federal action. 29 Full funding is reasonably available for the completion of all project phase(s) within the 30 time period anticipated for completion of the project. 31 In cases where the entire corridor improvements are implemented in more than one phase/project, 32 care must be taken to ensure that the transportation system operates acceptably at the conclusion of 33 each phase/project. This is referred to as "independent utility" —the ability of each phase/project to 34 operate on its own. It must also be demonstrated that air quality conformity will not be jeopardized. 35 Any mitigation measures needed in response to project impacts must be implemented with the 36 phase/project in which the impacts occur, rather than deferred to a later phase/project. 37 The establishment of smaller individual projects during NEPA for the Recommended Alternatives 38 Concept is required to meet the following criteria: 39 ► Independent Utility/Logical Termini — Each smaller individual project should have 40 independent utility and logical termini to the extent that the smaller individual project 41 provides a functional transportation system even in the absence of other phases or projects. 42 ► Elements of Purpose and Need — Each smaller individual project should contribute to meeting 43 the Purpose and Need for the entire corridor. 44 ► Environmental Impacts — Individual smaller projects should avoid the introduction of 45 substantial additional environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. Page 6-15 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Once funding is secured, the environmental planning process can be initiated. The environmental 2 process will build on the environmental work, public outreach, and agency outreach conducted by this 3 PEL study. 4 To carry out any or all the recommendations from this PEL, CDOT has committed to applying NEPA. 5 Resources likely impacted include property to be acquired for ROW, parks and recreation resources, 6 historic resources, Section 4(f) resources, wetlands/WUS, floodplains, wildlife/threatened & 7 endangered species, etc. (see Section 4.0). The NEPA processes that would be anticipated for any 8 individual project would likely be either a CatEx or an EA. 9 CatExs are the most common NEPA document and are for actions that do not individually or 10 cumulatively have a significant environmental impact, are excluded from the requirement to prepare 11 an EA or an EIS, and do not have substantial public controversy. CatExs are defined in 23 CFR 771.117, 12 meet the definition from the CEO in 40 CFR 1508.4, and are based on experience with similar actions of 13 FHWA. 14 An EA would be prepared and submitted through the successive review processes of CDOT Region 1 or 15 Region 4, CDOT Environmental Programs Branch, and FHWA. The public would have 30 days to review 16 and comment before FHWA makes its final decision. CDOT will consider use of a streamlined EA 17 template for this project to accelerate the timeline for the environmental process, while still allowing 18 appropriate agency coordination and public involvement. 19 If, at any point in the EA process, FHWA determines that the action would likely have a significant 20 impact on the environment, that EA process would stop and the preparation of an EIS would be 21 required. 22 If FHWA agrees the action would have no significant impacts on the environment, FHWA would prepare 23 a Finding of No Significant Impact to serve as the decision document for the proposed action. 24 Commerce City provided CDOT with two letters (Appendix F) requesting the inclusion of an alternative 25 for 104th Avenue that was not evaluated in the PEL, an evaluation of the intersections from 104th Avenue 26 to 124th Avenue as one complete system, and the desire to fully evaluation all community and 27 environmental effects of the improvements in Commerce City. CDOT has initiated a separate NEPA and 28 Preliminary Design Project addressing the US 85 Corridor between 104th Avenue and 124th Avenue. That 29 project will accommodate Commerce City's requests. 30 6.3 Preservation/Acquisition of Property for Right -of -Way 31 The limits of the existing ROW for the planned improvements will be determined from record 32 information and field surveys. The preferred or final design alternatives will then be overlaid on the 33 ROW base to determine impacts that will require additional ROW fee or easement acquisitions. When 34 acquisitions are necessary, a title report is ordered and used to prepare property descriptions, exhibits, 35 and ROW plans to support the acquisition process. Once these documents clearly define the impact, 36 property appraisal is then ordered to determine the value of the property to be acquired. The 37 acquisition process will commence after all this information has been compiled. Typically, the 38 timeframe between identification and transfer of ownership takes about 18 months to meet all the 39 requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act. However, it may be possible to obtain possession earlier 40 based on project needs. In worst cases, if the property is rendered unusable or if it is a total take, 41 relocation services may be necessary. 42 6.4 RoadX 43 CDOT has recently adopted a new technological program called RoadX. RoadX is Colorado's bold 44 commitment to customers to be a national leader in using innovative technology to improve Colorado's 45 transportation system. The RoadX Vision is to transform Colorado's transportation system into one of 46 the safest and most reliable in the nation by harnessing emerging technology. The RoadX Mission is to Page 6-16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 partner with public and industry partners to make Colorado one of the most technologically advanced 2 transportation systems in the nation and a leader in safety and reliability. The RoadX program will use 3 a multi -pronged DO -IT (deployment, operations, innovation, technology) approach with the objective 4 of being the most efficient, agile, and flexible system for bringing transportation technology to market. 5 The RoadX program will implement several efforts along the DO -IT spectrum in 2016-2018. CDOT plans 6 to partner with private industry and others to deploy advanced technology to reduce the cost of 7 transporting goods by 25 percent; to turn a rural state highway into a zero death road; and to improve 8 congestion on Colorado's critical corridors. 9 Intelligent mobility (IM) is a new way of thinking about how to use technology and data to connect 10 people, places, and goods and to reimagine infrastructure across all modes of transportation. IM takes 11 advantage of technology and innovation to improve transportation safety, efficiency, and reliability to 12 prolong the life of existing infrastructure and maximize new infrastructure. RoadX is CDOT's program 13 to leverage IM to improve travel on Colorado's highways. CDOT and stakeholder agencies can take 14 advantage of the US 85 PEL's needs assessment to identify opportunities to apply IM approaches to 15 either eliminate or defer the need for physical improvements. By applying IM strategies to capital 16 projects, the result can be improved safety, efficiency, and reliability. 17 Some IM concepts have been identified, based on the needs identified in the PEL, as potential early 18 action items to improve mobility along US 85. Some initial concepts include the following: 19 ► Improved traffic signal operations that are more responsive to environmental conditions and 20 specific traffic demands, such as the presence of commercial vehicles 21 ► Variable speed limits to respond to environmental and traffic conditions 22 ► Use of dynamic signs and lighting to help prevent wrong -way driving 23 ► Application of transportation systems management and operations (TSM&O) concepts in the 24 planning, design, operation and ongoing management of US 85 25 When projects that are identified in the PEL are advanced for further planning, design, and 26 construction, the stakeholders can continue to gain value by incorporating IM components. 27 As individual Recommended Alternatives Concept elements are advanced, RoadX elements should be 28 considered for implementation. 29 6.5 Scoping, Preliminary, and Final Engineering Design 30 After project funding has been identified and the project is included in the TIP, a planning level 31 estimate is prepared to determine how much funding is needed for each project phase: ROW, Utilities, 32 Environmental, Design and Construction. 33 A project scoping meeting can be held before or after the selection of a project delivery method to 34 establish the project objectives; to identify the design standards, funding sources and amounts, 35 resources required to complete the project, and schedule; and to complete the preliminary survey 36 request. 37 Once the project goals and constraints are defined, the delivery schedule, complexity, and innovation 38 opportunities can be used to determine the appropriate project delivery method. These methods may 39 include Design -Bid -Build (DBB), Design -Build (DB), and Construction Management/General Contractor 40 (CM/GC). A risk assessment will be conducted given each delivery method's opportunities and 41 obstacles. Once the delivery method is selected, the level of design, contractor selection process, and 42 participation can be initiated. 43 If the project delivery method is DBB, after the design level survey is received, the preliminary design 44 phase of the project begins. A conceptual level of engineering design (approximately 15 percent) was Page 6-17 I US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 prepared for the Recommended Alternatives Concept elements (Appendix C) for the purposes of this 2 PEL study. A Field Inspection Review (FIR) meeting is held to review the site conditions with 30 percent 3 plans complete. The plans are reviewed with all the specialty units, the local governments if 4 applicable, and representatives from the utility companies to identify the tasks needed to complete 5 the project. The preliminary cost estimate is developed and compared to the available budget. Once 6 the design is at the stage that the ROW limits can be identified, plans can be prepared and acquisition 7 initiated. Final Design proceeds until the Plans, Specification and Estimate package is 95 percent 8 complete. A Final Office Review (FOR) meeting is then conducted to complete the review process. 9 Project funding is then obligated and authorized once all clearances are obtained and then the project 10 is advertised for construction. 11 If the project delivery method is DB and if the owners can perform the design effort, the plans are 12 developed to approximately the 30 percent level to be used to select a DB team of designers and 13 contractors to complete the project. An engineering firm may be contracted to develop the 30 percent 14 design plans. Factors used in the selection of the DB team include qualifications, duration, price, and 15 innovation. 16 Finally, if the project delivery method is CM/GC, the agency contracts separately with a designer and a 17 construction manager. The agency can perform design or contract with an engineering firm to provide 18 a facility design. A contractor is selected to provide construction management input during the design 19 process and to perform construction management services and construction work. The CM/GC 20 contractor will negotiate with the agency for a mutually agreeable contract amount. If the CM/GC 21 contractor and agency cannot reach a mutually agreeable negotiated contract amount or they choose 22 not to negotiate, the project will be advertised for competitive bid. 23 6.6 Construction 24 Construction delivery options include DBB, DB, and CM/GC. CM/GC and DB typically provide shortened 25 delivery times. These two delivery methods usually start the procurement process during the end 26 stages of the environmental planning processes. The three delivery methods have different allocations 27 of risk between the owner and contractor. 28 In the CM/GC process, CDOT contracts directly with the engineering consultant and, therefore, has 29 more control over the design of the project, but also requires more robust coordination among CDOT, 30 stakeholders, the engineer, and the contractor. 31 In the typical DB process, CDOT releases most of the risk to the contractor in designing the project but 32 also establishes a stricter contracting process, leading to a longer procurement time. In DB, the 33 engineering consultant is a member of the contractor's team. 34 6.7 Prioritization 35 Potential improvements were prioritized with respect to identifying areas of greatest need. The 36 process involved rating needs in three distinct Purpose and Need categories: Mobility, Safety, and 37 Railroad Proximity. Measures were developed for each intersection or area along the corridor within 38 these three categories and used a rating scale of 1 to 5 to assess the need for improvement by category 39 (with 5 representing the greatest need to 1 representing the least need). 40 6.7.1 Mobility Prioritization 41 For Mobility, scores were based on LOS calculations developed for current and future No Action AM and 42 PM peak hour conditions. The measure reflects an average of these four peak hour LOSs. The various 43 LOSs were given the following scores: LOS F = 5, LOS E =4, LOS D = 3, LOS C = 2, and LOS A and 44 LOS B= 1. This allowed the immediate need and future mobility needs to be combined into a single 45 score to gauge the overall mobility need. Page 6-18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 6.7.2 Safety Prioritization 2 To prioritize with respect to Safety, a rating score was developed from the accident frequency and the 3 intersection accident rate. Both a frequency and rate were determined, converted into a score of 1 4 through 5, and then averaged. Crash severity was included in the scoring by converting all crashes to a 5 property -damage -only (PDO) equivalent based on typical costs incurred to society. An injury crash was 6 found to be equivalent to 8.7 PDO crashes in terms of overall costs, while a fatality accident was 7 equivalent to 161.3 PDO crashes. This PDO-equivalent value was used to calculate frequency and rate, 8 each then being given a score based on the following: 9 ► Equivalent PDO Frequency: 10 • More than 15 crashes per year: 5 11 • 10 to 15 crashes per year: 4 12 • 5 to 10 crashes per year: 3 13 • 2 to 5 crashes per year: 2 14 • Less than or equal to 1 crash per year: 1 15 ► Equivalent PDO Crash Rate (crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection) 16 • 4 or more: 5 17 • 3to4: 4 18 • 2to3: 3 19 • 1to2:2 20 • Less than or equal to 1: 1 21 The final scores in the Safety category simply average the frequency and crash rate equivalent PDO 22 scores. 23 6.7.3 Railroad Proximity Prioritization 24 Separating highway operations from railroad operations is the third Purpose and Need category in 25 which an intersection location was scored. The Volume -to -Distance ratio previously described was used 26 to prioritize locations with railroad and highway interaction. The Volume -to -Distance ratio provides a 27 general sense of the interaction between railroad and highway operations; the higher the volume and 28 the shorter the distance, the greater this ratio becomes. 29 The scale used in developing the measure includes: 30 ► Greater than 30: 5 31 ► Between 20 and 30: 4 32 ► Between 10 and 20: 3 33 ► Between 5 and 10: 2 34 ► Less than 5: 1 35 Generally, a location ratio of 10 or more is at risk for at least some interaction between highway and 36 railroad operations. Any location in which the rail line is within 50 feet of the highway was 37 automatically increased one point because this distance is not adequate to accommodate an oversized 38 vehicle, regardless of volume. A score using existing daily traffic was averaged with that using a 2035 39 No Action daily traffic projection. 40 Page 6-19 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 6.7.4 Prioritization Results COLORADO Department of Transportation 2 The following summarizes the prioritization results by Purpose and Need category and then by 3 combination of all three categories. Table 6.2 through Table 6.5 summarize the results of the 4 prioritization analysis 5 Mobility 6 Table 6.2 shows the prioritization analysis results associated with Mobility criteria for the entire 7 62 -mile corridor. The results show the top intersection mobility needs. 8 Table 6.2 Mobility Prioritization Analysis Results 9 Intersection Mobility Prioritization Result WCR 32 (Platteville) 4.5 31st Street (Evans) 4.5 104th Avenue (Commerce City) 4.25 112th Avenue (Commerce City) 4.25 Bromley Lane (intersection recently improved) (Brighton) 4.25 120th Avenue (Commerce City) 4.25 12th Avenue (Brighton) 3.75 WCR 2 (Brighton) 3.5 SH 66 (Platteville) 3.5 WCR 14.5/14th Street (Fort Lupton) 3.5 16th Street (Greeley) 3.5 Page 6-20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Safety 2 Table 6.3 shows the top intersection needs with respect to Safety. 3 Table 6.3 Safety Prioritization Analysis Results COLORADO Department of Transportation Intersection Safety Prioritization Result 104th Avenue (Commerce City) `? WCR 14.5/14th Street (Fort Lupton) S 37th Street (Evans) 5 144th Avenue (turn restrictions have since been implemented) (Brighton) 5 WCR 100 (turn lanes have recently been added) (Nunn) 5 Bromley Lane (intersection recently improved) (Brighton) 4.5 120th Avenue (Commerce City) 4.5 WCR 18 (Weld County) 4.5 WCR 44 (Weld County) 4.5 4 Railroad Proximity 5 Table 6.4 presents the top intersection needs with respect to railroad interaction. 6 Table 6.4 Railroad Proximity Prioritization Analysis Results 7 Intersection Railroad Proximity Prioritization Result Bromley Lane (Brighton) 5 120th Avenue (Commerce City) 5 SH 392 (Lucerne) 5 WCR 42 (Gilcrest) 4.5 SH 14 (Ault) 5 112th Avenue (Commerce City) 5 WCR 66 (Greeley) 5 124th Avenue (Brighton) 4.5 104th Avenue (Commerce City) 4 Page 6-21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Combined Factors 2 Several intersections are listed as top needs in each of the three categories, as shown in Table 6.5. 3 Table 6.5 Combined Factors Prioritization Results Intersection Combined Prioritization Result Bromley Lane (Brighton) 13.75 104th Avenue (Commerce City) 13.25 120th Avenue (Commerce City) 13.25 124th Avenue (Brighton) 12.25 WCR 32 (Platteville) 11.5 WCR 14.5/14th Street (Fort Lupton) 11 37th Street (Evans) 11 315t Street (Evans) 11 4 Table 6.6 shows the final intersection prioritization scoring for each category. Also included in the 5 table are the CDOT region, MPO, county, and municipality, which allows users to sort intersections or 6 locations. Specifically, sorting could be conducted by one of the category scores by CDOT region, 7 County, MPO, or municipality. This allows flexibility in sorting needs depending on the nature of 8 available funding. Page 6-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1 Table 6.6 US 85 Recommended Prioritization COLORADO Department of Transportation Community CDOT Region MPO County Intersection Signalized or Unsignalized Overall LOS Rating Overall Safety Rating Overall RR Interaction Rating Sum of Ratings Commerce City 1 DRCOG Adams 104"' Avenue Signalized 4.25 5 4 13.25 1 DRCOG Adams Longs Peak Drive Unsignalized 1 2 0 3 1 DRCOG Adams 112"' Avenue Signalized 4.25 1.5 5 10.75 1 DRCOG Adams 120"' Avenue Signalized 3.15 4.5 5 13.25 Brighton 1 DRCOG Adams 124"0 Avenue Signalized 3.75 4 4.5 12.25 1 DRCOG Adams E-470 Interchange 0 0 0 0 1 DRCOG Adams 132na Avenue Unsignalized 3 1 0 4 1 DRCOG Adams 136'n Avenue Signalized 1.5 3.5 3.5 8.5 1 DRCOG Adams 144U, Avenue Unsignalized 1.25 5 2 8.25 1 DRCOG Adams Bromley Lane Signalized 4.25 4.5 5 13.75 1 DRCOG Adams Bridge Street NB Roundabout 3 0 0 3 1 DRCOG Adams Bridge Street SB Roundabout 4.25 0 0 4 25 1 DRCOG Adams Denver Street Unsignalized 1.75 1.5 0 3.25 4 DRCOG Weld WCR 2 Signalized 3.5 4 2 9.5 4 DRCOG Weld WCR 2.5 Unsignalized 1.25 2 0 3.25 Weld County 4 DRCOG Weld WCR 4 Unsignalized 2 1.5 1 4.5 4 DRCOG Weld WCR 6 Signalized 3 1.5 1 5.5 4 DRCOG Weld WCR 6.5 Unsignalized 1 1 0 2 Page 6-23 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community CDOT Region MPO County Intersection Signalized or Unsignalized Overall LOS Rating Overall Safety Rating Overall RR Interaction Rating Sum of Ratings fort Lupton 4 DRCOG Weld WCR 8 Unsignalized 3.25 3 0 6.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 10 Unsignalized 1 25 0 0 1.25 4 UFR Weld SH 52 NB Signalized 2 0 0 2 4 UFR Weld SH 52 SB Signalized 2.25 0 0 2.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 14.5/14" Street Signalized 3.5 5 2.5 11 4 UFR Weld WCR 16 Unsignalized 1.25 2.5 1.5 5.25 Weld County 4 UFR Weld WCR 16.5 Unsignalized 1.25 0 0 1.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 18 Unsignalized 2.75 4.5 1.5 8.75 4 UFR Weld WCR 18.5 Unsignalized 1.25 1.5 1 3.75 4 UFR Weld WCR 20 Unsignalized 1.25 1 1 3.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 22 Unsignalized 2 3 3.5 8.5 4 UFR Weld WCR 22.5 Unsignalized 1.25 1 2 4.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 24 Unsignalized 1.25 1 2 4.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 24.5 Unsignalized 1.25 1 2 4.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 26 Unsignalized 1.25 1 2.5 4.75 4 UFR Weld WCR 28 Unsignalized 1.25 3 4.5 8 75 Platteville 4 UFR Weld WCR 30 Unsignalized 1.25 1 2.5 4 75 4 UFR Weld SH 66 Signalized 3.5 3 0 6.5 4 UFR Weld Marion Avenue Unsignalized 1.5 1 0 2.5 4 UFR Weld WCR 32 Signalized 4.5 4 3 11.5 4 UFR Weld WCR 34 Unsignalized 1.25 1 1 3.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 36 Unsignalized 1 1.5 2 4.5 Page 6-24 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community CDOT Region MPO County „ _....FIL.,.. Intersection --- ,..., Signalized or Unsignalized Overall LOS Rating Overall Safety Rating -ate Overall RR Interaction Rating Sum of Ratings a- :fl Weld County 4 UFR Weld SH 60 Unsignalized 3 1.5 0 4.5 4 UFR Weld WCR 38 Unsignalized 1 1.5 2.5 5 4 UFR Weld WCR 29/38.5 Unsignalized 1 1 2.5 4.5 Gilcrest 4 UFR Weld WCR 40 Unsignalized 1.25 1 1 3.25 4 UFR Weld Elm Street Unsignalized 1.25 0 0 1.25 4 UFR Weld Main Street Unsignalized 1.25 1.5 0 2.75 4 UFR Weld WCR 31/Ash Street Unsignalized 1.75 1.5 1 4.25 4 UFR Weld WCR 42 Signalized 1.5 1.5 4.5 7.5 Weld County 4 UFR Weld WCR 33 Unsignalized 1 1 1 3 4 UFR Weld WCR 44 Unsignalized 1 4.5 3.5 9 4 UFR Weld WCR 46/WCR 35 Unsignalized 1 1.5 4 6.5 4 NFR Weld WCR 48/WCR 37 Unsignalized 1 1 2.5 4.5 4 NFR Weld 15 Avenue Signalized 2 1.5 2.5 6 4 NFR Weld 2nd Avenue Unsignalized 1 1 0 2 La Salle 4 NFR Weld 3nd Avenue Unsignalized 1 0.5 0 1.5 4 NFR Weld 4thAvenue Unsignalized 1 1 0 2 4 NFR Weld 5d' Avenue Unsignalized 1 2 0 3 4 NFR Weld SH 394 Unsignalized 1 2 2.5 5.5 Evans 4 NFR Weld 42nd Street Signalized 2.75 3.5 3.5 9.75 4 NFR Weld 37th Street Signalized 3 5 3 11 4 NFR Weld 31M Street Signalized 4.5 4 2.5 11 4 NFR Weld US 34 Interchange Interchange n/a 0 0 n/a Page 6-25 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation --------- - --- Community — CDOT Region - ilir MPO County Intersection Signalized or Unsignalized Overall LOS Rating Overall Safety Rating Overall RR Interaction Rating Sum of Ratings - - Greeley 4 NFR Weld 22nd Street Signalized 3.25 4 2.5 9.15 4 NFR Weld 18'h Street Signalized 2.5 3.5 2 8 4 NFR Weld 16'h Street Signalized 3.5 3.5 2 9 4 NFR Weld 13th Street Signalized 2 2 1.5 5.5 4 NFR Weld 8th Street Signalized 2.75 3 1 6.75 4 NFR Weld 5th Street Signalized 2.5 2.5 1 6 4 NFR Weld O Street NB Unsignalized 1 1.5 2.5 5 4 NFR Weld O Street SB Unsignalized 1 2.5 0 3.5 4 NFR Weld WCR 66 Unsignalized 1 1.5 5 7.5 Lucerne 4 NFR Weld SH 392 Signalized 3 5 5 13 4 NFR Weld WCR 70 Unsignalized 1.5 1.5 2.5 5.5 4 NFR Weld WCR 72 Unsignalized 1.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 4 NFR Weld Colorado Parkway Unsignalized 1 0.5 0 1.5 4 NFR Weld Orchard Street Unsignalized 1 1 0 2 Eaton 4 NFR Weld Collins Street Signalized 2 1.5 2.5 6 4 NFR Weld 1st Street Unsignalized 1 1 1 3 4 NFR Weld 2nd Street Unsignalized 1 1 2.5 4.5 4 NFR Weld 3'a Street Unsignalized 1 0.5 0 1.5 4 NFR Weld 4th Street Unsignalized 1 0.5 0 1.5 4 NFR Weld 5th Street Unsignalized 1 1 2.5 4.5 4 NFR Weld WCR 76 Unsignalized 1.5 3.5 4 9 Page 6-26 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Community COOT Region MPO County Intersection Signalized or Unsignalized Overall LOS Rating tili-- Overall Safety Rating Overall RR Interaction Rating Sum of Ratings i at Weld County 4 NFR Weld CR 78 Unsignalized 1 1 1.5 3.5 4 UFR Weld CR 80 Unsignalized 1 2 1 4 Ault 4 UFR Weld SH 14 Signalized 1 1.5 5 7.5 4 UFR Weld 2nd Street Unsignalized 1 1 0 2 4 UFR Weld 3rd Street Unsignalized 1 1 2 4 Weld County 4 UFR Weld CR 84 Unsignalized 1 2 2.5 5.5 4 UFR Weld CR 86 Unsignalized 1 2 1 4 Pierce 4 UFR Weld CR 88 Unsignalized 1 2.5 1 4.5 4 UFR Weld Main Street Unsignalized 1 1 1 3 4 UFR Weld CR 90 Unsignalized 1 1.5 4.5 7 Weld County 4 UFR Weld CR 92 Unsignalized 1 1 2 4 4 UFR Weld CR 94 Unsignalized 1 1 2 4 4 UFR Weld CR 96 Unsignalized 1 2 2 5 Nunn 4 UFR Weld CR 98 Unsignalized 1 1.5 2 4.5 4 UFR Weld 4d Street Unsignalized 1 1 1 3 4 UFR Weld CR 100 Unsignalized 1 5 1 7 CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation CR = County Road DRCOG = Denver Regional Council of Governments MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization NB - Northbound NFR = North Front Range RR = Railroad SB = Southbound SH - State Highway UFR = Upper Front Range WCR = Weld County Road Page 6-27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank. Page 6-28 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 7.0 REFERENCES 2 Adams County. 2012. Imagine Adams County Comprehensive Plan. December. 3 Adams County. 2012. Imagine Adams County Transportation Plan. December. 4 Allery, B., & Kononov, J. 2011. Level of Service of Safety and Diagnostic Analysis - Colorado. Retrieved 5 October 6, 2014, from http://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/projident co.aspx. 6 January 1. 7 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010. Highway Safety Manual. 8 City of Brighton. 1999. Amended 2009. The City of Brighton 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 9 City of Brighton. 2005. City of Brighton South Sub -Area Plan. July. 10 City of Commerce City. 2002. Commerce City Highway 85 Corridor Study. April. 11 City of Commerce City. 2010. Commerce City Comprehensive Plan. May. 12 City of Evans. 2004. City of Evans Transportation Plan. March. 13 City of Evans. 2010. City of Evans Comprehensive Plan. 14 City of Fort Lupton. 2004. Getting Down to Business: The Fort Lupton Business Corridor Plan. 15 September. 16 City of Fort Lupton. 2007. Fort Lupton Comprehensive Plan. 17 City of Greeley. 2006. Sunrise Neighborhood Study Plan. December. 18 City of Greeley. 2009. 2060 Comprehensive Plan. 19 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 1999. US 85 Access Control Plan: 1-76 to WCR 80. 20 December. 21 CDOT. 2011. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. 22 CDOT. 2013. CDOT Region 4, US 85 FASTER Intersection Prioritization Study. 23 CDOT. 2014. Colorado Statewide Intercity and Regional Bus Network Plan. 24 CDOT. 2015. US 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report. 25 Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2011. 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation P/an 26 (MVRTP). February. 27 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Supplement to January 28, 2008 "Transportation 28 Planning Requirements and Their Relationship to NEPA Process Completion". February. 29 INRIX. 2015. Traffic Information. 30 LaSalle. 2010. Transportation Plan. August. 31 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). 2011. North Front Range Regional 32 Transportation Plan 2035 Update. 33 Town of Ault. 2008. Ault Comprehensive Plan. 34 Town of Eaton. 2013. Eaton Transportation Plan. Page 7-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 Town of Gilcrest. 2003. Town of Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan. 2 Town of Nunn. 2008. Nunn Comprehensive Plan. 3 Town of Platteville. 2010. Town of Plattevi/le Comprehensive Plan. October. 4 Town of Platteville. 2013. Town of Platteville Comprehensive Plan. Amended. May. 5 Travel Time Reliability. n.d. Retrieved October 6, 2014, from 6 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/tt_reliability/brochure/ttr_brochure.pdf 7 United States Census Bureau. 2011 and 2012. U.S. Census American Community Survey Five -Year 8 Estimate. 9 Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region. 2008. Upper Front Range 2035 Regional 10 Transportation Plan. 11 Weld County. 2011. Weld County 2035 Transportation Plan. May. Page 7-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 8.0 SIGNATURE PAGES 2 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 3 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 4 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 5 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 6 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 7 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 8 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 9 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 10 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 11 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 12 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 13 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 14 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 15 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 16 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 17 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 18 to facilitate improvements to this area. 19 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 20 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 21 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 22 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 23 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 24 interested parties. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 City of Commerce City 35 Date Page 8-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 City of Brighton 34 Date Page 8-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 City of Fort Lupton 34 Date Page 8-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Platteville 34 Date Page 8-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Gilcrest 34 Date Page 8-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of La Salle 34 Date Page 8-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 City of Evans 34 Date Page 8-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Garden City 34 Date Page 8-8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 City of Greeley 34 Date Page 8-9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Eaton 34 Date Page 8-10 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Ault 34 Date Page 8-11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Pierce 34 Date Page 8-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Town of Nunn 34 Date Page 8-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Adams County 34 Date Page 8-14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Weld County 34 Date Page 8-15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Denver Regional Council of Governments Date 34 Page 8-16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Date 34 Page 8-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region Date 34 Page 8-18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Union Pacific Railroad 34 Date Page 8-19 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 1 Date 34 Page 8-20 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 Date 34 Page 8-21 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CDOT Environmental Programs Branch 34 Date Page 8-22 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation 1 The public agencies that were engaged in the preparation of this Planning and Environmental Linkages 2 (PEL) study for US Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (1-76) and Weld County Road 100 have 3 expressed their support of the vision set forth in this plan, as defined in this report, dated April 2017. 4 ► The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation 5 (CDOT) agree that this study fits the criteria for the FHWA PEL process. Through this process, 6 the evaluation and findings of the PEL study can be more readily applied to subsequent 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Resource agencies with jurisdiction 8 in the interchange area have expressed support for the process and a willingness to work 9 cooperatively on future NEPA processes for individual interchange improvements. 10 ► CDOT, with the support of the appropriate local agencies, will work to complete the NEPA 11 requirements for specific improvements for individual projects along the US 85 corridor. After 12 future NEPA approval, the local agencies will work cooperatively with CDOT to support applying 13 funding for and implementation of the improvements. 14 ► The local agencies will strive to develop collaborative transportation partnerships to support 15 the improvement recommendations through the Denver Regional Council of Governments 16 (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) planning process 17 to facilitate improvements to this area. 18 ► While this PEL is not a legally -binding document, it presents the vision for the US 85 Corridor. 19 The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) is the current legally -binding document and the ACP will 20 be amended as funding becomes available for the improvements identified in this document. 21 Your signature below as a representative of a participating public agency represents that the US 85 PEL 22 was developed with the participation of your agency and information was made available to all 23 interested parties. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Date 34 Page 8-23 connecting and enhancing communities 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 I Centennial, CO 80111 I tel 303.721.1440 www.fhueng.com US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Appendix A. Corridor Conditions Report (CD Only) US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.1 Study Location and Description 1.1 1.2 Relevant Transportation Studies and Plans 1.1 2.0 LAND USE 2.1 2.1 Current Land Use and Demographics 2.1 2.2 2035 Land Use 2.7 3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 3-1 3.1 Roadway Characteristics 3-1 3.2 Travel Characteristics 3.7 3.3 Traffic Operations 3.7 3.4 Transit 3-12 3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian 3.14 4.0 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 4-1 4.1 No Action Alternative 4.1 4.2 2035 No Action Conditions 4.1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW 5-1 5.1 Parks and Recreational Resources 5.1 5.2 Historic Resources 5.2 5.3 Section 4(f) 5.8 5.4 Section 6(1) 5.9 5.5 Traffic Noise 5-10 5.6 Floodways and 100 -year Floodplalns 5.11 5.7 Wetlands and Waters of the US/Surface Water Resources 5.13 5.8 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species 5.17 5.9 Hazardous Materials 5.19 5.10 Other Resources 5.20 6.0 CORRIDOR SECTIONS 6-1 6.1 Section 1 6-1 6.2 Section 2 6.1 6.3 Section 3 6.1 6.4 Section 4 6.1 7.0 REFERENCES 7.1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Mapbook LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Study Corridor and Vicinity Map 1.2 Figure 1.2 Access Control Plan Recommendations 1.3 Figure 2.1 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 2.2 Figure 2.2 Population Over 65 Years of Age 2-3 Figure 2.3 Disabled Population 2.4 Figure 2.4 Federal Poverty Level 2-5 Figure 2.5 Households Without a Vehicle 2.6 Figure 2.6 Density of Household Growth 2.8 Figure 2.7 Density of Employment Growth 2-9 Figure 3.1 Existing Through Lanes and Right -of -Way 3.2 Figure 3.2 Existing Cross Sections 3.3 Figure 3.3 Access Categories on US 85 3.4 Figure 3.4 Railroad Proximity 3.6 Figure 3.5 Existing Level of Service on US 85 at Signalized Intersections 3.9 Figure 3.6 Posted Speed Limits 3.10 Figure 3.7 Average Travel Speeds 3.11 Figure 3.8 Average Travel Times (Northern Section) 3-12 Figure 3.9 Average Travel Times (Southern Section) 3.12 Figure 3.10 Safety 3-13 Figure 3.11 Existing Transit Services 3-17 Figure 3.12 Regional Bicycle and Trail Corridors 3.18 Figure 4.1 Volume to Planning Level Capacity Comparison 4.3 Figure 4.2 Existing and 2035 No Action Level of Service 4.4 Figure 4.3 Average Speed on US 85 during Peak Hour 4-5 Figure 4.4 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Northern Section - Northbound) 4-6 Figure 4.5 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Northern Section- Southbound) 4-6 Figure 4.6 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Southern Section - Northbound) 4-6 Figure 4.7 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Southern Section - Southbound) 4.6 Figure 5.1 Parks and Recreational Facilities within the Study Area 5-3 Figure 5.2 Floodplains Intersecting US 85 Within the Study Area 5-14 Figure 5.3 US 85 Stream Crossings Within the Study Area 5.16 Figure 6.1. Corridor Sections 6.2 COLORADO Dupartmont of Tranaponanon Page I US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 Existing Households and Employment 2.1 Table 2.2 Demographics 2.1 Table 2.3 Household and Employment Growth 2-7 Table 3.1 2008-2012 Travel Characteristics 3.7 Table 3.2 Human Service Providers 3-15 Table 4.1 Projects Included in the No Action Alternative 4.1 Table 4.2 Planning Level Capacities (Per Lane, 4-2 Table 5.1 Existing and Proposed Parks, Open Space and Recreational Facilities within the Study Area 5-1 Table 5.2 Resources Within the Study Area Previously Designated or Determined Eligible for Listing 5-5 Table 5.3 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria 5.10 Table 5.4 Number of Noise Sensitive Receptors by Category and Location 5-11 Table 5.5 Floodways and 100 -year Floodplains Crossing US 85 5-12 Table 5.6 Waterways Crossing US 85 5-15 Table 5.7 Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study Area 5-17 Table 5.8 Hazardous Material Facilities within the Study Area 5-19 ® COLORADO 1 Department of Transportation Page II US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study C® COLORADO Department of Transportation Acronyms and Abbreviations ACP Access Control Plan ACS American Community Survey ADA APE AST BMPs CDOT CDPHE CDPS CERCLA CERCLIS CFR CNHP CPW CR CRS CWA CWCB dBA DOT DRCOG EIS EO EPA ESA E -X FACWet FASTER FAT FEMA FHWA FTA GET GIS HCM 1.76 IGA INJ Americans with Disabilities Act Area of Potential Effects aboveground storage tank Best Management Practices Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Discharge Permit System Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Code of Federal Regulations Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado Parks and Wildlife County Road Colorado Revised Statutes Clean Water Act Colorado Water Conservation Board decibel Department of Transportation Denver Regional Council of Governments Environmental Impact Statement Executive Order Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Expressway Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 Fatality Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Greeley -Evans Transit geographic information systems Highway Capacity Manual Interstate 76 Intergovernmental Agreement Injury IPaC LEP LOS LUST LWCF META MOU mph MPS MS4 MVRTP NAC NEMT NEPA NFIP NFRAP NFRMPO NHD NPDES NPL NPS NR -A NR•B NRHP OHWM P84 PCB PDO PEL PLSS RCRA RIRO ROW RRFB RTD SB 40 SOWA SH SHPO Information, Planning and Conservation System limited English proficiency Level of Service leaking underground storage tank Land and Water Conservation Fund Migratory Bird Treaty Act Memorandum of Understanding miles per hour Multiple Property Submission Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Denver Regional Council of Governments 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan Noise Abatement Cntena Non -Emergency Medical Transport National Environmental Policy Act National Flood Insurance Program No Further Remedial Action Planned North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization National Hydrology Dataset National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Priority List National Park Service Non -Rural Regional Highway Non -Rural Arterial National Register of Historic Places Ordinary High Water Mark Programmatic Biological Assessment polychlonnated biphenyts property damage only Planning and Environmental Linkages Public Land Survey System Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Right -In, Right -Out nght-of -way Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Regional Transportation District Senate Bill 40 Safe Drinking water Act State Highway State Historic Preservation Officer Page iii US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study SRS STIP SWAP SWMP TAZ TDM TIP TIPID TPR UDFCD UFR UNC UPRR U.S. US 85 USACE USFS USFWS USGS UST vpd WCR WQCD WUS Senior Resource Services Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Source Water Assessment and Protection Stormwater Management Plan Transportation Analysis Zone Travel Demand Management Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Improvement Plan Identification Number Transportation Planning Region Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Upper Front Range University of Northern Colorado Union Pacific Railroad United States United States Highway 85 United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA Forest Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey underground storage tank vehicles per day Weld County Road Water Quality Control Division Waters of the United States ®COLORADO Department of Transportation Page iv US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) Is conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) 1 study for the segment of United States Highway 85 (US 85) between Interstate 76 (I-761 and Weld County Road 4 (WCR) 100. The objective of the US 85 PEL study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 that addresses safety, ▪ mobility, and access concerns. The goals of the project are to: ► Identify the transportation needs along US 85 a r Create a vision for development improvements that address the needs e r Determine the short-term and long-term transportation priorities ir ► Position the corridor for successful and streamlined implementation of improvements ii Short-term and long-term Improvements will be identified and prioritized through a collaborative process with u stakeholders and the public along the corridor. The US 85 Access Control Plan (ACP) (1999) serves as a foundation 13 for the PEL study. 14 As part of the US 85 PEL study, this Corridor Conditions Report documents current and anticipated future corridor is conditions with regard to land use, the transportation system, and environmental resources. The information I6 presented in this report will be the basis for developing and evaluating possible transportation improvements for 1, the corridor. to 1.1 Study Location and Description u The US 85 PEL study area includes approximately 62 miles of US 85 between 1.76 in Commerce City and WCR 100 in ro the Town of Nunn. US 85 is a north -south expressway under the jurisdiction of COOT. This stretch of US 85 passes r1 through 13 municipalities (Commerce City, Brighton, Fort Lupton, Platteville, Gilcrest, LaSalle, Evans, Greeley, u Garden City, Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn), 2 counties (Adams County and Weld County), and 3 regional planning z1 organizations: Denver Regional Council of Governments IDRCOG), North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization INFRMP01. and Upper Front Range (UFR) Transportation Planning Region (TPR). Figure 1.1, Study Corridor and Vicinity Map, shows the study area and the municipal, county, and regional boundaries. 1.2 Relevant Transportation Studies and Plans zr Regional planning agencies, coalitions, counties, and municipalities have developed a number of transportation rn studies and plans that relate to the project corridor in various capacities. The following subsections summarize the is plans related to the US 85 corridor. x, 1.2.1 Regional Planning Agencies 31 Colorado Department of Transportation .1! US 85 Access Control Plan (1999) 3, COOT (Region 4) completed the US 85 ACP in 1999. The ACP includes US 85 from 1.70 to WCR 80. It is a long-range 34 plan that addresses how each access along this segment should be treated, the cost for the recommended access as modifications, and the relative priority of the improvements. The ACP was adopted through an Intergovernmental 16 Agreement (IGA) among CDOT and the corridor towns, cities, and counties. The ACP serves as a blueprint for er improvements along the corridor. All parties in the IGA must agree to any changes to the plan. Figure 1.2 3e identifies the ACP generalized recommendations. a S4 1,„ COLORADO Departmont of Trannportailon US 85 FASTER Intersection Prioritization Study (2013) .;: In 2011, CDOT identified 10 intersections along US 85 from WCR 18.5 rear Fort Lupton to State Highway (SH) 394/WCR 52 just north of LaSalle as candidates for safety improvements under COOT's Funding Advancements .; for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 (FASTER). The US 85 FASTER Intersection Prioritization Study evaluated each intersection based on safety, access, benefit/cost, and clearance and then assigned a relative prioritization. The study focused on unsignalized intersections along this section of the US 85 corridor. The proposed projects focused on low to moderate cost improvements that could be implemented in the c. immediate future without significant impacts to environmental resources, right-of-way (ROW), or utilities. The following locations were ranked as high priority: " ► US 85 and County Road (CR) 44 Et 33: Addition of signal at CR 44, reconfiguration of CR 33 access, and improvement of existing auxiliary lanes - Adding the signal, reconfiguring CR 33 access, and improving the existing auxiliary lanes provide both safety and operational benefits for the highest accident location in the study area. ► US 85 and SH 394 5 CR 52: Addition of southbound right -turn deceleration and addition of eastbound to northbound left -turn acceleration Lane - Adding the auxiliary lanes and extending the southbound left turn deceleration lane provide both safety and operational benefits for a location with high truck turning volumes. 6 Denver Regional Council of Governments The 2035 DRCOG long-range regional plan, the 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (MVRTP), was used to address the challenges and guides the development of Denver's multimodal transportation system over the next 25 years. MVRTP recognizes the importance of US 85 as one of the main thoroughfares between Denver and fa: northeast Colorado. DRCOG has released the 2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) since the : US 85 PEL was substantially completed. It was determined that the modeling and analyses performed in the US 85 6, PEL would not be updated to the 2040 RTP. However, the following does recognize the improvements from the 6, 2040 RTP. The 2035 MVRTP Fiscally Constrained Plan lists the following projects related to the US 85 corridor: 6; ► 104th Avenue -US 85 to SH 2 - Locally funded capacity project (roadway widening) 6'. 6e. 6: tz 69 'C ► US 85 - 104'" Avenue Intersection Operations (Completed Project -2015, Transportation Improvement Plan Identification Number [TIPID] 2003.135) US 85 — New Interchange at Bromley Lane (Ongoing Project, TIPID 2005.137) Additionally, the DRCOG 2040 RTP identified the following projects relating to the US 85 Corridor: 104"" Avenue from Grandview Ponds to SH 2 - Widen from two to four lanes (Listed as three projects in the RTP) r East Bromley Lane -US 85 to Sable Boulevard - -Widen from four to six lanes SH 7 -Riverdale Road to US 85 - Widen from two to four lanes North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization NFRMPO's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Update 12011) is a corridor -based long-range plan that prioritizes r+ corridors in the North Front Range Planning Area. The Plan identifies US 85 from WCR 48 on the south to WCR 10 on 36 the north (including US 85 Business Route through Greeley and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPPR]) as a regionally significant corridor with the following goals: ► Increase mobility - Construct intersection and interchange improvements such as traffic signals, auxiliary lanes, and roadway improvements I Support commuter travel by expanding transit usage and initiating travel demand management (TDM) - Expand transit service coverage and provide improved transit amenities ► Increase travel reliability with a focus on supporting commuter travel and increased freight transport Page 1-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.1 Study Corridor and Vicinity Map COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 lenne ww--d AfFUr U: n• left. FORT LVPTON WCR 6 WCR 74 WCR 84 WCR 44 WCR 32 bask- WCR 22 Virg tOg era:naary 104th AVE Ies DaCOG awp &W,aw, WCR 8 _DAyEt NE Rn BRIGNT(N) BROMLEY LN Stir WY COMMERCE fp CITY 9601 AVE 120th AVE.. Jl ovnvr7.County I r DENVER Legend US 85 Roads Railroad 0 Rivers/Streams s C d L.J O Lakes DRCOG MPO Boundary NFRMPO Boundary UFR TPR Boundary DRCOG Model Boundary NFRMPO Model Boundary City Boundaries County Boundary Study Area n 2 4 Miles Page 1-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 1.2 Access Control Plan Recommendations WCR 100 Appucant ar,o -PO.: .:.O. Ica., Request: Existing Main St fv... planted for dints., m_ . ,.i as rigM•4vrlght•out Detrnp"e Yee. on f)4 C'or.T Applicant Colorado Hotarcal Society Sponsor Town of PlattayJh' Request. Accolaahun 43.1111t0 Petlwm: ,,warn Sc':... mnvemantn Decision' Yes on 1(:^002 Applicant and Sponsor. Town of Fort Luyl. Raqueal. WCR 1?, ?wtnalUahnn Applicant: Metro Waste Wirer Sponsor City of Brighton Request. WCP 2 to WCR 6 W Franlaga Rd Removal rlecalcrr Yee on rf_ti,2(112 Applicant and Sponsor. City of &tgnta' Request SH7 roundabouts on nit rank: Decreron Yr.• or. NM*, ApplwJaol. folio,, DAL!, t - Sponsor: City of Brighton Request. 132nd Ave Mastoid ditch road to roma,' nn-'-nlnn Nen on oi11:'nn• Applicant and Sponsor Commerce City Request 1.70 new rgM•avnght•out Decision: Yen on 11;261; 104th AVE WCR 90 MILLIKEN TTEVILLE WCR 74 ue;r WCR 32 "rrra' WCR22 a , ESG_—yr --- Wetd Coun j Adamount ty y GH•4. BROMLEY LN 1201h AVE Denver Cc.Arty I TIC tiVE.rt (COLORADO Department of Transportation Applicant and Sponsor Town of Eaton Request. 2nd St tweetmdel Rlgnmmright-oul ecceas to remain where a full movement proposed to be cloned Decaron Yes on 11/2004 Applicant'. Lepnno Foods Sponsor City of Cite Wy Rootlet Signalize 13th S1 ettareactan proP0M4 Tot rlpf•1t✓neht out in the fistae Declslon: Yes (conditional • development •,.t pm; loci on 11,s -1)A Legend Signalization, • Improvement, or Realignment New or Improved Interchange RIRO. Median Closure, or Conversion to 3/4 Intersection Auxiliary Lane Improvements • Intersection Closure US 85 Roads Railroad �.� Rivers/Streams Se Lakes County Boundary O Study Area NORTH 2 4 Page 1-3 If. IR )I, n 11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region The UFR TPR is one of 15 TPRs In the state. A fiscally constrained plan was developed as a part of the Upper Front r Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan to identify those highest priority projects that are likely to be funded by the year 2030 based on the projected financial resources available to the region. The fiscally constrained plan identified the following US 85 projects: r. 9 r ► Intersection Improvements at US 85 and SH 60 in Platteville ► Traffic Signal and Intersection Improvements at US 85 at WCR 42 in Gilcrest Traffic Signal and Intersection Improvements at US 85 at WCR 74 in Easton ► Intersection Improvements (Right-in/Right-out (RIRO) or V. movements) at US 85 at WCR 2.5, WCR 4, and WCR 6.25 ► Corridor Improvement Plan on US 85 from WCR 40 to WCR 42 in Gilcrest !, 1.2.2 Highway 85 Coalition ti The Highway 85 Coalition was created via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2009 among Weld County and In Ault, Brighton, Eaton, Evans, Fort Lupton, Gilcrest, Greeley, LaSalle, Pierce, and Platteville. This effort is in partnership with CDOT and UPRR. The Coalition desires to continue Implementing the vision of the ACP so that the vitality of the corridor can be preserved for future improvements. The Coalition intends to expand the efforts of the ACP and incorporate not only transportation but also land use and sustainability resources. 1.2.3 Counties Two counties are active in the progress and development of US 85. Adams County is the southern end of the study corridor. Most of the study area lies within Weld County. Both counties have their own distinct characters, industries, housing. and associated growth patterns. Each county is discussed relative to its transportation planning surrounding US 85. n Adams County Adams County identified US 85 as a regional strategic road corridor as a part of their Comprehensive Plan (2012) and Transportation Plan (2012). According to these plans, mobility is the predominant function for this corridor, and access will be limited to provide safe and efficient through travel. The Transportation Plan will Incorporate the recommendations from the US 85 PEL study for multiple intersections within Adams County, including US 85 at 104" Avenue, 112" Avenue, 120" Avenue, 136" Avenue, and 144" Avenue. Weld County ir Weld County's 2035 Transportation Plan is a needs -based plan that summarizes existing transportation conditions and recommends policy, funding, and roadway development for Weld County. This plan recognizes US 85 as a major a north•south route that provides regional mobility to and through their county. This plan mentions the importance +, of the Highway 85 Coalition, which is a direct follow-up to the IGA for the US 85 ACP. In 1.2.4 Municipalities r. Thirteen cities and towns along the study corridor have a vested interest in the decisions made for US 85. The it; corridor varies in character from community to community. It is urban in character as it passes through a number t, of communities. The highway serves as an integral part of the local transportation network in some communities. w In other communities, the corridor is primarily agricultural in nature and very rural. tt, Brighton nr. The City of Brighton cites US 85 in two planning documents. First, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan wants to manage n1 surrounding US 85 for the protection of prime farmland, working toward open space objectives and goals while COLORADO Department of Transportation allowing limited development to occur. In respect to transportation planning, the City of Brighton plans to r minimize environmental and quality of life disturbances while maximizing efficiency and multimodal opportunities. In the South Sub -Area Plan (2005), the City of Brighton discusses three roadway improvements that intersect US 85: ► SH 22 or 124'" Avenue would be closed to allow the development of an interchange at 120" Avenue and nr. US 85, as recommended by the US 85 ACP (1999). n ► 136'" Avenue would increase to a six -lane major arterial from US 85 to I-76. R ► 144'" Avenue would be reduced to a four -lane major arterial with dual left turns. 9 Commerce City 5? The City of Commerce City references US 85 in three City documents: the US 85 ACP (1999), the Highway 85 Corridor Study (2002), and the Comprehensive Plan (20101. The US 85 ACP and the Highway 85 Corridor Study recommend improvements at 104'" Avenue and at 120'" Avenue, as well as required multimodal improvements. The Comprehensive Plan identified US 85 as a priority corridor for appearance and way -finding enhancements. SA Eaton s, In their Transportation Plan (2013), the Town of Eaton adopted the US 85 ACP (1999) improvements for the cc following intersections: 5R ,9 E'. ► 5t" Street Signalize, improve bicyclist and pedestrian access, and install Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon IRRFB) ► Collins Street - Improve pedestrian crossing, install channelized right -turn lanes, and improve all turn lanes to meet state standards Evans The City of Evans has two documents that recommend improvements along US 85. The Comprehensive Plan 12004) recommends creating a US 85 business district since the highway divides east and west sides of the city rather than being a connector. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Plan (20041 describes access issues and operational deficiencies with US 85 throughout the city. As a way to look toward the future, the plan develops Go four goals for the City of Evans: 1. To ensure that adequate transportation facilities will serve new development RR 2. To support a variety of transportation choices 3. To develop a network of continuous and direct streets, walkways, and bicycle lanes m 4. To coordinate long-range land use and transportation decisions 11 Fort Lupton The City of Fort Lupton recognizes US 85 in their Comprehensive Plan (2007) and a Business Corridor Plan (2004). +: Both plans recognize the Importance of creating community gateways at major intersections, including the grade - /.1 separated Intersection of US 85 at Highway 52 (1" Street). r. Garden City it The Town of Garden City does not have a transportation plan: however, the Town is a stakeholder in the corridor. Page 1.4 3 4 1 n 9 10 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Gilcrest In 2003, the Town of Gilcrest developed their Comprehensive Plan, which adopted the ACP (1999) recommendations. The Comprehensive Plan also adopted goals to efficiently and economically service the existing and new businesses and to ensure an effective and safe transportation system for the town's citizens. In this plan, the Town of Gilcrest accepted and recommended the US 85 ACP 11999) Improvements. The related Improvements to US 85 include the following: ► Relocate Frontage Road (Railroad Street) farther away from US 85 ► Realign WCR 40 Realign and signalize Elm Street, WCR 31 (Ash Street), WCR 42 r Close intersection with Main Street .: Greeley US 85 crosses the City of Greeley through two distinct neighborhoods: 13 ► Sunrise 14 r University of Northern Colorado (UNC) 19 Each neighborhood has its own plan that discusses issues regarding US 85. 16 The Sunrise neighborhood Is located between the UPRR to the east and US 85 to the west and is bordered on the v north by 5" Street and on the south by 16°' Street. Their neighborhood plan (2006) notes the relatively low traffic 1n despite being adjacent to US 85 and the desire to improve maintenance activities for their local street network. 20 n For the UNC Neighborhood Plan (2004), the neighborhood is located northwest of the intersection of US 34 and US 85. It is noted as being a neighborhood in transition with improvements sited for streetscapes, infrastructure, code enforcement, and street maintenance. ii From a broader perspective, the 2060 Comprehensive Plan (2009) aims for a transportation goal that optimizes ]3 safe, efficient, and pleasing movement of people, goods, and services into and throughout the community through ra a comprehensive local and regional interconnected transportation system. In 2013, the City of Greeley developed the Parks and Open Lands Plan, which indicates that the city plans to create connective open spaces. This plan i, Illustrates a possible bike and pedestrian path crossing US 85. 11 LaSalle ex In 2010, LaSalle worked to develop and release their Transportation Plan. Proposed improvements related to US 85 79 Include the following: 30 ► Intersection signalization: WCR 46/WCR 35, WCR 48/WCR 37, Crystal River Road, WCR 3941WCR 52 3r ► Extending transit service to LaSalle (Greeley -Evans Transit [GET]) n i Intersection Improvements: WCR 48/WCR 37, Sunset Drive, 1" Avenue, WCR 46/WCR 35, WCR 394/WCR 52 3a Platteville ®COLORADO Dopartm■ntof Trarw ortauon The Town of Platteville cites US 85 as a part of the Comprehensive Plan (2010) and Amendment (2013). In this plan, the Town of Platteville incorporated the recommendations of US 85 ACP (1999) as a part of their / Comprehensive Plan. The Town plans to continue to work with the Highway 85 Coalition to seek enhancements to a the US 85 corridor that complement the US 85 ACP. 4,, .11 .1 ae Town of Ault In their 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Ault describes the current conditions related to US 85. Most businesses on the US highway are auto -oriented, light industrial uses with nondescript architecture and limited landscaping. The railroad, running parallel to US 85, and the granary hold the biggest presence on US 85. The Town of Ault envisions developing a transportation plan, encouraging multirnodal transportation use, and coordinating with local and regional agencies such as the towns of Eaton and Pierce, cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, Weld and Larimer counties, Colorado Parks and Wildlife ICPW 1, USDA Forest Service (USFS), and the NFRMP0. Town of Nunn 4$ K9 The Town of Nunn completed a Comprehensive Plan (2008) that seeks to find new economic development revenue streams and to promote the town as a historic tourist destination and as a tounst connection to the Pawnee National Grasslands. The Town of Nunn plans to seek regional coordination with the development of the High Plains Loop Trail with Fort Collins, Greeley, Wellington, Cheyenne, and other communities along US 85. Town of Pierce The Town of Pierce does not have a comprehensive plan or a transportation plan; however, the Town has been consistently involved in the Highway 85 Coalition. Page 1.5 1' US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 2.0 LAND USE Chapter 2 describes the existing and future land uses along the US 85 corridor. The study area traverses three planning regions: DRCOG, NFRMPO, and the UFR TPR. Figure 2.1 shows the boundaries of these regions. The two MPOs, DRCOG and NFRMPO, have regional transportation models that cover the study area (Figure 2.1 displays the boundaries) and are divided into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). Each TAZ has existing and 2035 projected socioeconomic variables, including population, household, employment, and income to be used for local and regional planning purposes. Both MPOs incorporate a wide variety of variables in their estimates and projections, including, but not limited to, overall regional growth. each jurisdiction's potential share of future growth, and current and long-range development plans. For this study, land use forecasts were analyzed within a 2 -mile buffer of the US 85 corridor. Figure 2.2 shows the 2 -mile land use analysis buffer and TAZs that fall within the 2 -mile buffer color coded according to their respective MPO. Given that the long-range planning horizon was transitioning from 2035 to 2040 at the time of this study and 2040 land use projections from the MPOs had not yet been released, outreach was conducted with each municipality along the corridor to solicit updates to their respective land use, both existing and projected. The purpose of this outreach was to ensure that the study accounted for current land use forecasts in the corridor. In general, the major change was the movement of households within the 2 -mile buffer zones of Greeley to other Greeley zones outside the area while employment from other Greeley zones outside the area were moved into zones within the 2 -mile buffer. Other changes included increases of both future households and employment in Platteville, an increase of future employment in Fort Lupton, and a decrease of household growth in Brighton. Compared to the original MPO models, changes resulted In existing households being unchanged and future households increasing by 1.5 percent, while existing employment decreased 5 percent and future employment increased 11.6 percent. 2.1 Current Land Use and Demographics 2.1.1 Household and Employment Table 2.1 shows existing households and employment for the TAZs within the 2.mile buffer area. The base year for existing land use in the NFRMPO model area is 2009. while the base year for the DRCOG model area is 2010. Table 2.1 Existing Households and Employment NFRMPO 2 -Mite Buffer TAZs 33,401 41973 DRCOG 2-Mte Buffer TA2s 25.645 25.924 Total for TAZs within 2 -Mile Buffer 59,046 67,897 Source DRCOG Cycle 2 2013 -Modified per mun/apat input and NFRMPO Spring 2012-Modfied per trumpet input Approximately 59,000 households and 67,900 jobs are in the TAZs within the 2 -mile buffer of US 85 in the study area for the base years. The majority of both households 157 percent) and employment 162 percent) are within the NFRMPO model area (north of Platteville). Jobs outnumber households within the NFRMPO's 2 -mile buffer TAZs, while this comparison is nearly equal for the DRCOG 2 -mile buffer TAZs. The lower households to jobs ratio for the NFRMPO 2 -mile buffer TAZs and for the combined NFRMPO/DRCOG model areas suggests many workers commute from outside the corridor to work within the area, especially in the northern portion of the study area. v. 2.1.2 Demographic Characteristics COLORADO Department of Transportation 30- Demographic characteristics can help determine transportation needs, such as the demand for transit services. Based on the Colorado Department of Local Affairs demographic forecasts, Weld and Adams counties are expected to experience a 111.1 percent and a 51.6 percent growth in population between 2013 and 2040, respectively. Both growth estimates are higher than the statewide average of 47.1 percent growth. The percentage of residents age 65 and older in Weld and Adams counties is expected to grow 180 percent and 173 percent, respectively, over the e. I same time period, higher than the statewide average of 120.5 percent growth. As shown in Table 2.2. Weld County r.; has higher than statewide average percentages of populations below the federal poverty level, those with limited English proficiency. and those with disabilities. Adams County has a higher than statewide average percentage of r.' populations below federal poverty level and those with limited English proficiency. The disability data are inclusive a'. of all ages and all types of disabilities as reported through the American Community Survey. 11 tR m Table 2.2 Demographics Locate 181) Poplflslfofl.BeloWkadsnl Psi Lail . 2011 Limited English Proficiency 2012 Disabled Population 2011 l % 2012 AdamsCounty 60,147 140 53.932 136 41,53' I 95 Weld County 33.351 13 8 16,715 7 3 25.610 102 Statewide 601727 12 5 264.397 5 7 487.297 9 8 Source 2011 and 2012 U.S Census Amencan Community Survey Five -Year Eshmate Figure 2.2 through Figure 2.5 present U.S. Census American Community Survey demographic data for the corridor . on the Census tract level to provide a more localized analysis. 4: Figure 2.2 shows the percentage of the population that is 65 and over. The higher percentages of people 65 and over within the study area tend to be in the more rural areas, most notably between Evans and Fort Lupton and between Pierce and Greeley, with some areas within Greeley also having a higher percentage. Tracts just to the east of the Greeley portion of the study area have the highest percentage of age 65 and over. Figure 2.3 shows the percentage of the population that is disabled. Similar to the population that is 65 and over. the highest percentages tend to be in the more rural portions of the study area, specifically surrounding Fort Lupton, in the rural areas north of Greeley and south of Evans, and within select portions of Greeley. Figure 2.4 shows the percentage of the population that is below the federal poverty level. The highest percentages occur within the Greeley and Evans portion of the study area, with other Census tracts north of Fort Lupton and in northern Brighton also having a higher percentage compared to other Census tracts. Figure 2.5 shows the percentage of households without a vehicle. Census tracts with the highest percentage are generally within the northern portion of Greeley west of US 85, within a portion of Evans, and in areas just north of Fort Lupton. Page 2-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.1 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) COLORADO Department of Transportation ICC $7' h /h1 v4 u. VIS r 421 Oft h42 ,:t J -A 4)9 1T •s4 -it WCR 100 t,M 4040 WCR 90 glom 40$ NUNN eu 6,4 4N n" w ; E'A fs, WCR 74 ate (f 4' • 34 1-GREELEV wcR str MIL! IKEN� :'161 WCR 6 2'69 N; 614 ii, 4!1 Olt.CRFS i r. 217 PORT urn /' tLUPTON WCR 84 611 WCR 4{ WCR 32 ""w'w" WCR 22 WCR I BASELINE RIZe Weld Ca4mU AdamsCrTuruy 120th Ati. [Denver County _ DENVER 1 Legend .J O US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes NFRMPO 2 -Mile Buffer TAZs DRCOG 2 -Mile Buffer TAZs City Boundaries County Boundary 2 -Mile Buffer 0 4 MMus Page 2-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.2 Population Over 65 Years of Age Li KEN 0% - 5% Age 65 Plus 5% - 10% Age 65 Plus 10% - 15% Age 65 Plus 15% - 20% Age 65 Plus Greater Than 20% Age 65 Plus US 85 Roads Railroad .r..-- Rivers/Stre ,f Lakes City Boundary County Boundary 0 Study UREELEc EV S WCR 74 COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 2-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.3 Disabled Population 0% - 5% Disabled 5% - 10% Disabled 10% - 15% Disabled 15% - 20% Disabled Greater Than 20% Disabled US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams Lakes City Boundary County Boundary Study Area COLORADO Department of Tn-nspoflation A1 ON WCR 74 WCR 32 WCR 22 BROMLEY IN 120th AVE _ ._ Page 2-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.4 Federal Poverty Level 0% 10% Below Poverty Level 10% - 20% Below Poverty Level 20% - 30% Below Poverty Level 30% - 50% Below Poverty Level Greater Than 50% Below Poverty Level US 85 Roads Railroad -"r- Rivers/Streams Lakes City Boundary County Boundary Study Area 0 COLORADO Department of Transportation NORTH 2 4 Miles Page 2-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.5 Households Without a Vehicle COLORADO Department of Transportation Page 2-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 2.2 2035 Land Use 2.2.1 Household and Employment Growth Table 2.3 shows the projections (or household and employment growth in the TAZs that fall within the 2 -mile buffer. Table 2.3 Household and Employment Growth At.. 2009 (N/rF�R�M/�(P�O/])12010 (DRCOG) Households NFRMPO 2 -Mile Buffer TAZs 33 401 50000 16.599 50% 16% DRCOG 2-Mle Buller TAZs 25645 54,768 29,123 114% 3.1% Total for TAZs within 2-Mle Buffer 59 046 104.768 45,722 77% 2 3% Employment NFRMPO 2 -Mile Buffer TAZs 41,973 79,391 37,418 89% 2 5% DRCOG 2 -Mb Buffer TAZs 25,924 37,834 11.910 46% 1 5% Total for TAZs within 2 -Mile Buffer 67,891 117,225 49 328 73% 2 2% Source. DRCOG Cycle 2. 2013 -Mod fled per munropal input and NFRMPO Spring 2012 -Modified per mun'Gpel input 7 Approximately 104.800 households and 117,200 jobs are projected for 2035 in the 2 -mite buffer TAZs of U5 85 N within the study area, an increase of nearly 45,800 households and 49,300 jobs from the base year. Nearly two-thirds of the household growth is expected to occur within the DRCOG model area, while three -fourths of the in employment growth is expected to occur in the NFRMPO model area. This trend will likely result in a balancing of commuter travel demand for employment access along the corridor; that is, more people will commute from the southern portion of the corridor to the Greeley area for work. Figure 2.6 illustrates the density of household growth in each 2 -mile buffer TAZ, while Figure 2.7 illustrates the ;e density of employment in the same TAZs. The greatest increase of households per acre generally occurs in the southern portion of Eaton, a few TAZs in Greeley and Evans east of US 85, the northwest corner of Platteville, and ir• throughout the eastern portions of Brighton and Commerce City. The greatest Increase of employment per acre / generally occurs in Greeley, especially near the US 85/US 85 Business interchange and in small TAZs close to US 85 IA in south/south-central Greeley. la Salle and a couple TAZs in Commerce City also see substantial employment 114 growth per acre. 'COLORADO Department of Trampartaticat Page 2-7 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.6 Density of Household Growth WCR 100 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 w— Revers/Streams Lakes County Boundary 2 -Mile Buffer WCR 90 PIERCE GREELEY Gil ORES FT VILi.E lMtki County 8th AVE ELUNE RD '`t FATON WCR 74 Adams County BROMLEY LN COLORADO Department of Transportatton Page 2-8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 2.7 Density of Employment Growth COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 :aa7 Legend No Growth 0.0 - 0.01 Jobs per acre 0.01 - 0.5 Jobs per acre 0.5 - 1.0 Jobs per acre > 1.0 Jobs per acre US 85 Roads Railroad ter^ Rivers/Streams .I Lakes ;,J County Boundary O 2 -Mile Buffer WCR 74 WCR 64 ryi WCR 44 WCR 22 Wet/ County Adams County BROMLEY LN 130th AVE_,, rCenve%counry L r DENVER 0 NORTH 2 4 MIIO Page 2-9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Chapter 3 documents the existing transportation system in the study area, including roadway charactenstics, travel characteristics, traffic operations, transit services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 3.1 Roadway Characteristics This section presents the existing US 85 roadway characteristics, including existing typical cross sections, ROW widths, access categories, and roadway facilities that parallel US 85. 3.1.1 Typical Cross Sections and Right -of -Way s Within the project limits of the US 85 PEL corridor (1.76 to Nunn), the cross sectional characteristics of US 85 vary considerably. US 85 consists of two-lane and four -lane sections with ROWs ranging from 60 feet at its narrowest in 1c the northern section just south of Nunn, to as wide as 530 feet at the south end of the project. Typical ROW along 1: the corridor is between 150 feet and 200 feet, varying as described below and shown in Figure 3.1. 11 13 14 15 It: 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S From I-76 to 120th Avenue and from 124" Avenue to just north of 144th Avenue, the ROW widths appear to extend approximately 530 feet. A portion of US 85 in Gitcrest, from WCR 40 to WCR 31 /Ash Street, has frontage roads on both east and west sides of US 85. The ROW is consistent at 200 feet in this section. In LaSalle, the ROW is constricted to 100 feet. In a stretch of highway through the Evans/Garden City/Greeley area, the ROW varies from 200 feet to 280 feet. A frontage road is on the west side of US 85 between US 34 north to 13'' Street and on the east side from 8t" Street north to 5th Street. North of 8th Street, the ROW measures a consistent 300 feet until 0 Street, where it narrows to a width varying between 150 feet and 200 feet. Through Eaton, the ROW narrows to 100 feet. This portion of US 85 also is a more urban section, with on -street parking adjacent to curb and gutter with attached sidewalks. North of Eaton, the ROW varies between 80 feet and 100 feet. Through a considerable portion of the corridor, the UPRR is just to the east of US 85. In many areas, US 85 is on an easement within UPRR ROW. it US 85 is predominantly asphalt pavement, except for the section between the US 85/US 34 interchange and 2/ 5th Street through Greeley, which was recently reconstructed in concrete pavement. Most of the corridor consists of 28 four lanes divided by a depressed median. Many of the depressed median sections are raised at the intersections. 29 One section of the corridor from Brighton north to Platteville has cable barrier along the median, while the section 30 on the bypass route around Greeley has been fully built out with a paved median and barrier rail. i i The cross section from Pierce through Nunn consists of two lanes and minimal shoulder. Urban sections exist 3i through Eaton and kilt, consisting of four lanes divided by a paved median (which is occasionally raised), with H on -street parking and curb and gutter with attached sidewalks on both sides. 44 Figure 3.2 shows typical cross sections, along with the corridor constraints and deficiencies that the project team is has rioted. Because of differing auxiliary lane configurations, both Inside and outside shoulder widths vary it, significantly along the corridor. Auxiliary lanes exist at signalized, stop -controlled, and uncontrolled intersections ii for turning, acceleration, and deceleration movements. Analysis of each intersection revealed that approximately Ks 35 auxiliary lane configurations are represented in the corridor. e,. 3.1.2 Access Categories 4c CDOT assigns state highways one of eight categories that define roadway characteristics, such as auxiliary lanes 4: and access spacing on the highway. The existing roadway may not meet the category standards but will when 4: improvements are designed. COLORADO Department of Ttanzportation i.: Three access categories are assigned to US 85 within the study area: Expressway (E -X) - Most of the corridor is categorized as E -X, which Is assigned to highspeed and high - volume highways that act as connectors across the state. Typical Intervals for full accesses, streets, and t r highways are 1 -mile spacing. :a Non -Rural Regional Highway (NR -A) - The NR -A category is used for medium to high speeds and traffic volumes and is assigned to small sections at Eaton and Ault. Full movement accesses are permitted at 0.5 -mile spacing. Non -Rural Arterial (NR -B) - Other sections of US 85 in LaSalle, Eaton, Ault, and Nunn are categorized as NR -B, which is used for medium speeds and medium to high volumes. Full movement accesses are permitted at 0.5 -mite spacing. Figure 3.3 shows the locations of the access categories along the corridor. The US 85 ACP was completed in 1999 for the US 85 corridor from the 1.76 interchange to WCR 80. The ACP b recommends a variety of improvements along the corridor, including upgrading existing interchanges, adding new Interchanges, closing or restricting movements at existing accesses, reconstructing and reconfiguring several intersections, as well as improving auxiliary lanes. v The US 85 ACP resulted in an IGA signed by all municipalities along the corridor and by CDOT. The IGA solidified the recommendations from the study and requires all signatories to agree to any changes from the ACP. Because of this, the US 85 ACP may not fully match the access categories. ,V 2 sr 59 /U u /3 /4 /b /1 /x 11, so / 3.1.3 Parallel Roadway Facilities Many roadways parallel US 85 providing alternative routes to US 85 for north -south travel. Some of these facilities currently provide relief to US 85 for regional and local area trip -making. Others have the potential of being improved to further relieve traffic loadings along US 85. The regional and local parallel facilities are described below. Regional Parallel Facilities I-25 1.25 is the spine for north -south travel through Colorado and extends well beyond the entire 62 -mile length of US 85. 1-25 provides six lanes south of SH 66 and four lanes to the north. The facility is located approximately 9 miles west of US 85 south of Platteville and 16 miles from Greeley. Regionally, 1.25 is a competing route with US 85 for trip -making between Greeley and Denver. One of the recognized growth areas is western Greeley, and the 1-25 corridor will continue to be significant in serving north -south demand of trips to/from that area. Weld County Road 49/Ilrnboden Road WCR 49, an arterial roadway that starts at US 34 just east of Greeley, extends approximately 20 mites to 676 (between Hudson and Keensburg). When considered in combination with 1.76, the facility parallels approximately 39 miles of US 85. Many trips between Denver and eastern Greeley already use this route today to avoid the signals along US 85 and Weld County. Weld County has completed an ACP for WCR 49 in the interest of preserving its functionality as development occurs, and improvements to several intersections are due for completion in the near future to improve safety. Ultimately, the County plans to widen WCR 49 to four lanes and extend it north to SH 14. These enhancements will continue to attract regional traffic that otherwise would use US 85, and additional enhancement could further relieve US 85. Imboden Road in Adams County is planned for additional improvements that will extend WCR 49 further south through Adams County, which will create a more direct north -south connection through Adams County. Page 3-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.1 Existing Through Lanes and Right -of -Way COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend xx' Approximate Right-ot•Way ©-© Cross Section Location (refer to typical aoss sections, Figure 3 2) 2 Through Travel Lanes 4 Through Travel Lanes WCR 100 WCR 90 (85 15� r 1 1 100 I T GREELEY .1 WCR 54 MILLIKEN B WCRB 104th AVE S 8 150 150' WCR 74 300' ROW- &CIE(=i E \ • EVANS se 'S ALLE WCR 64 EP% WCR4I REST 85 04 TTEVILLE FORT LUF1ON WCR B V.Hu WCR 32 c -"'"'s WCR 22 .JASELINE.R.Q t<.: d c,:: - JT." f, JJ.'•, BRIGHTON OW 46th .VJt BROMLEY LN 120th AVE_ 11 L )eme, County I DENVER 0 2 4 Milan Page 3-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.2 Existing Cross Sections Yarn 17' 17 Teri If Sloan tnnl teeNMlara rdiw-lianllan ! t t tt: 17 t VT win I7 I7 9G1Wi dniirnl Tinilla - II:wilan rrb vain h&s rin "i 17 IY Yrin s* tar " IlMtor' _ iiY3io 4 4 JEINS- Ion/ IPA. t Vann Latin 1 17 WIN to' t CORRIDOR CONSTRAINTS and DEFICIENCIES • Sections of narrow median • Narrow shoulders • Frontage roads • Median safety feature absent except between Fort Lupton and Platteville • No median • Narrow to non-existent shoulders • Constrained ROW • Some sight distance issues • Irrigation ditch adjacent to the west side of road • Median safety feature absent YaAn • Sections of narrow median ir ieta. tbiri+t Slanar • Urban setting t sits • Buildings close to roadway • Median safety feature absent r` • Raised median only In certain sections dui; YNr/ t Vinn loan law l Vein Warn II Tow I.Nr t VOA • Sections of narrow median • Raised median in 45 mph and above section becomes a hazard • Narrow shoulders COLORADO Department of Tranoportation Page 3-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.3 Access Categories on US 85 Legend Access Category E -X = Expressway, Major Bypass NR -A = Non -rural Regional Highway NR -B = Non -rural Arterial MILLIKEN GREELWV TTEVILLE .BASELINE RD COMMERCE 104 , . A CITY 310thAVE NR -A NR -A WCR 64 mace. WCR 32 hrnu WCR 22 BROMLEY LN 120th AV!(_ Denver Coltnty DENVER COLORADO Department of Transportation S Page 3-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Local Parallel Facilities Starting from the south and working north, the following sections describe local parallel routes to US 85. Sable Boulevard Sable Boulevard parallels US 85 from I-76 to Brighton, where It fs referred to as 4th Avenue. This two-lane facility extends over 5 miles. When considered in combination with I.76 or SH 2, the facility parallels approximately G 8 miles of US 85. Ultimately, this roadway has the potential of being widened to a six•lane arterial facility (four i through lanes with turning lanes) as growth in the southern Brighton area occurs. Plans prepared by Brighton and 8 Adams County show the future alignment of this roadway to potentially shift east (south of 136"' Avenue) and v interchange with E-470. to Brighton Road 11 Brighton Road extends north to the study area as the western 1.76 frontage road, paralleling US 85 to its west along it the South Platte River (approximately 0.5 mile). Brighton Road extends north to Bromley Lane in Brighton, a extending further north as the US 85 frontage road (referred to as Kuner Road within the City), paralleling l4 approximately 8 miles of US 85. The roadway is currently two lanes wide and provides access to all the adjacent 15 land use; turn lanes and/or traffic signals exist at the busier cross -streets. County and City planning have identified lb Brighton Road to be a minor arterial, possibly widened to include four lanes at some point in the future. / Main Street/Weld County Road 27 (Brighton to Fort Lupton) n Main Street within Brighton begins at Bromley Lane, at which point multiple lanes lone northbound through lane i, and two southbound through lanes) extend as far north as Skeet Street. From this point north, Main Street provides u two through lanes (one each way) through town, where it becomes WCR 77 and eventually Denver Avenue within t i Fort Lupton. Denver Avenue extends through Fort Lupton as a two-lane roadway, eventually serving as US 85's a eastern frontage road at 14th Street (WCR 14.51 north of town continuing to WCR 16. The total length is over 23 11 miles. The Fort Lupton Transportation Plan identifies this facility as an artenal road outside city limits and a 24 "retail" street within city limits. 2, Weld County Road 23 16 Located roughly 1.5 miles west of US 85, WCR 23 is a north -south county road that is continuous from WCR 6 to 21 beyond SH 66. This paved two-lane roadway parallels approximately 12 miles of US 85. Fort Lupton's 28 Transportation Plan identifies WCR 23 as an arterial road as far north as WCR 18 as part of a loop arterial system n around the city. 30 SH 80 31 SH 60, also referred to as Two Rivers Parkway, intersects US 85 between Platteville and Gilcrest at the point where 32 US 85 curves to the northeast. Approximately 5.5 miles north of US 85, SH 60 turns west toward Milliken and 33 Johnstown. Two Rivers Parkway turns east and curves into WCR 27.5 and eventually 83i0 Avenue in Greeley. The 34 NFRMPO identifies this facility as a Tier 3 Regionally Significant Corridor, and Greeley's Transportation Plan shows 35 Two Rivers Parkway as a four -lane major arterial within the City urban growth area. Weld County's Transportation 36 Plan also shows this road facility as an arterial roadway. Two Rivers Parkway provides a more direct connection 31 between US 85 to the south and the western portions of Greeley. 3s ate Avenue (Greeley) In 8th Avenue, a four -lane roadway facility, serves as Business Route US 85 through Greeley, passing through the 40 downtown area. 8"' Avenue, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the main US 85 highway, parallels the highway 4i for approximately 4 miles. u Weld County Roads 33, 39, and 37 43 These two-lane county roads extend north from 0 Street in Greeley. WCR 33 extends as far north as the Town of 44 Pierce, where it intersects with US 85. This road is a county two-lane paved road with little to no shoulders along its entire length. Its continuity is significant, extending approximately 13 miles to the west of US 85. 1 ®COLORADO Department of Trancponatton WCR 35 is similar and extends from AA Street north to the Town of Ault, approximately 9 miles. WCR 37 is also similar and extends from 0 Street to Eaton, roughly 5 miles in length. s Many other municipal and county roadways parallel US 85 for shorter distances, are removed too much from US 85 9 to offer meaningful relief, and/or are unimproved roadways that do not attract significant traffic. o 3.1.4 Railroad Proximity The UPRR parallels US 85 for the entire length of the corridor, and the rail and the highway are close to each other In many locations, as shown on Figure 3.4. The proximity of US 85 to the UPRR impacts traffic operations along US 85. The impact tends to be the greatest where the two facilities are closest and where cross -street traffic volumes are relatively high. The combination of these two components translates into the degree of the railroad's impact on highway operations. The UPRR tracks along US 85 serve between 15 and 20 trains per day. 6 The close proximity is prevalent in the corridor north of Greeley and between Greeley and Fort Lupton. Between / Brighton and 1.76, the distance between the railroad and US 85 is greater than many other sections, but because s many of the cross -streets carry a greater level of traffic south of Brighton, the rail's impact on the highway is still y an issue. There are 37 intersections along the entire corridor that are less than 200 feet from the railroad. Twenty - o seven intersections are between 200 and 800 feet from the railroad in that same area. Only four intersections (not including Greeley) are over 800 feet from the railroad. r The vast majority of the US 85 cross -street intersections cross the railroad at -grade, and a substantial queue can d build when a train is present. There are also locations in which the train blockage duration of the US 85 cross - 4 street can be substantial, and vehicles attempting to enter, exit, or simply cross US 85 queue substantially. This s difficulty is further compounded by a heavy large -truck presence; up to 30 percent of the traffic at some locations along US 85 is made up of trucks. / As such, many intersections along the corridor are not adequate to safely accommodate the significant queues that a form between US 85 and the UPPR. as well as along the highway when a train is present. One large truck can e overwhelm the available distance between them, resulting in the truck trailer overhanging the railroad tracks o while waiting to turn on to (or cross) US 85. Because of the difficulty entering or crossing US 85 during peak hours 1 of traffic, the rear of a truck may sit on the tracks for a long period, or it may be forced to encroach into traffic on 2 US 85. The lack of separation has resulted in train and truck crashes at several locations. 2 3 4 S 1t 1S 16 11 8 /-9 0 31 Locations where rail/traffic activity has Impacted each other the most include: ► 104t" Avenue ► 112th Avenue ► 120t" Avenue ► 124'" Avenue 136th Avenue ► Bromley Lane ► WCR 22 Bridge Street (stopped trains back traffic up along the off -ramps) ► WCR 28 ► WCR 42 ► WCR 46/35 ► 42'" Avenue in Evans ► WCR66 ► SH 392 ► Minn Street in Pierce As growth continues along the corridor, traffic volumes will increase. Potentially, daily train movements will increase as well. The combination will worsen the rail -traffic interaction situation at the above cross -street locations. In addition, other cross -street locations that are functioning acceptably today relative to railroad Interaction will become issues in the future given projected growth. CDOT is currently developing master agreements with UPRR and other railroad companies. CDOT is working on contract templates for typical project types and a flow chart of railroad processes with associated timelines. It is anticipated that the master agreements will be implemented in 2016. Page 3.5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.4 Railroad Proximity COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 Legend Railroad Crossing Distance • 0' - 200' from US 85 201' - 800' from US 85 • > 800' from US 85 US 85 Roads Railroad -"-- Rivers/Streams Lakes j County Boundary (� Study Area NN WCR 90 Via. GREELEY TTEV1LLE ;SORT CE T ON WCR 74 tea+ WCR 32 's"'+"° WCR 22 BROMLEY LN DENVER 0 2 4 Melee: Page 3-6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 3.2 Travel Characteristics Table 3.1 shows travel charactenstics of study area residents broken out by Adams County, Weld County, and the total for the entire corridor. The included data are from census tracts within a 2•mile buffer of the study area. The travel characteristic information was extracted from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data. The AG, an ongoing annual survey conducted by the Census Bureau, covers vanous demographic and economic indicators, including information such as where residents work, length of commute, and means of transportation. Table 3.1 2008-2012 Travel Characteristics Adams County Weld County Total Study Area (Adams and Wald Counties) Primary Means of Transportation to Work Car/Truck (alone) 81 0% 74 9% 78 0% Carpool 111% 141% 126% Public Transit 1 8% 0 8% 1 3% Bike 01% 15% 0.8% Walk 13% 34% 24% Other 4 7% 5 3% 5 0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Commute Time 0-14 Minutes 18 3% 33 5% 25 9% 15-29 Minutes 32 3% 33 5% 32 9% 30-59 Minutes 42 1% 24 3% 33 2% 60+ -Minutes 7 3% 8 7% 8 0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Vehicle Availability OVehides 21% 29% 25% 1Vehide 144% 201% 173% 2 Vehicles 44 0% 35 5% 39 8% 3. Vehicles 395% 415% 40.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Workers by Time Leaving Home 500AMto559AM 125% 130% 128% 600AMto659AM 231% 208% 220% 700AMto759AM 270% 244% 257% 8.00AMto8.59AM 114% 108% 111% Olken 260% 310% 285% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% COLORADO s �7 Departmanl of Transportation Adams County Weld County Total Study Arta (Adams and Weld Counties) Placa of Work In County of Residence 47 7% 73 7% 60 7% Outside County of Residence 514% 24 4% 37 9% Other (Outside State of Residence) 0 9% 1 9% 1 4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Data extracted from census tracts within a 2.mile buffer iu of the US 85 corridor study area. 1. In both Adams and Weld counties, over 75 percent of residents commute to their jobs by driving alone. Weld v County sees a higher number of residents carpooling (14.1 percent) when compared to Adams County u (11.1 percent). Conversely, the use of public transit is higher in Adams County (1.8 percent) than in Weld County l4 (0.8 percent). Weld County has a proportionately higher number of residents biking and walking to work compared 1•i to Adams County. The "Other" category includes those who commute by taxi or by motorcycle, as well as those u. who work from home. When looking overall at how residents within the entire corridor commute to work, nearly r 78 percent dnve alone, just over 12 percent carpool, 1.3 percent take public transit, and just over 3 percent bike a and walk to work. 1`. Within the entire study area, nearly 60 percent of residents' commutes are 30 minutes or less. However, when u looking at the counties individually, 42.1 percent of Adams County residents commute between 30 and 59 minutes, while Weld County has only 24.3 percent in this time category. The time that residents leave home for work is consistent across both Adams and Weld counties with the largest percentage of commuters (25.7 percent) leaving home between 7:00 AM and 7:59 AM. ti 4 S b 3a 35 Comparing Adams and Weld counties, there is disparity between where residents work. In Weld County, nearly 74 percent of employees work in their county of residence, while only 47.7 percent of residents work in their county of residence in Adams County. Most households (80.3 percent) in the study area have two or more vehicles, and less than 3 percent have no vehicle at all. 3.3 Traffic Operations This section presents existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, intersection levels of service (LOS), travel speeds, and crash data analysis on US 85. 3.3.1 Traffic Volumes The existing traffic volumes along US 85 range from 5,400 vehicles per day (vpd) to nearly 39,000 vpd. The highest levels of traffic are on the southern section of US 85 through Commerce City, Brighton, and Fort Lupton, where the volumes range from 29,000 to 39,000 vpd. From Fort Lupton through the Greeley area, the traffic volumes fluctuate between 17,000 and 25,000 vpd. North of Greeley, the traffic volumes decrease considerably, going from 14,000 vpd south of Eaton to 5,400 vpd at the north end of the study area near Nunn. 3.3.2 Intersection Geometry and Level of Service To analyze the current conditions of US 85, Synchro 8 traffic analysis software was used to create a traffic model. The project team conducted field visits to inventory roadway geometry along the corridor. Traffic volumes and turning movement counts were collected in spring 2014 at signalized intersections and intersections of regional significance. CDOT provided signal timing data. Page 3.7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Geometry US 85 is a four -lane highway from the 1.76 interchange to Ault and a two-lane highway from Ault to WCR 100 with v auxiliary lanes throughout. Auxiliary lanes provide a space for motorists to accelerate and decelerate when a entering and exiting the freeway. respectively, without interrupting traffic flow. The storage lengths in most locations meet the minimum code requirements. However, due to the length of heavy vehicles, slow rate of e acceleration, and large traffic volumes during peak -hour periods, the turning lanes queue extends beyond their storage length into the through -travel lane. Lang queues at traffic signals extend beyond the length of turn bays s and as a result, drivers use shoulders to access turn lanes. In some locations, the auxiliary lanes are too short or non-existent. leading to substandard acceleration and deceleration lanes. This also becomes an issue at is intersections with adjacent railroad crossings. If a train is blocking through -traffic on a cross street. vehicles i'. turning onto that street experience longer delays and storage bays fill up faster, potentially blocking through traffic along US 85. I+ Within the study area, there are five interchanges along US 85: US 34, SH 52. Bridge Street, E-470, and 1.76. The to ramp junctions on Bridge Street have roundabouts. Signalized intersections are common in urban areas, and there are a total of 25 signals along US 85 within the study area. Most intersections on US 85 (90 of 115) are two-way It. stop -controlled. Model Calibration tF After all the geometry, traffic counts, and signal timing data were entered into the model, the model was in calibrated to ensure the model accurately depicted the current corridor conditions. The travel times collected Io along the corridor were used to compare with the travel times simulated in the model. Based on engineering n judgment, small changes, such as increasing turning speeds or slightly changing auxiliary lane lengths to match // queue lengths observed in the field, were made. 1 Summary of Existing Conditions Analysis The Synchro 8 model output provides an analysis for all signalized and unsignalized intersections using the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 IHCM) methodology. The amount of delay at an intersection experienced by motorists determines the overall quality of service of the intersection, according to the HCM. The LOS letter grade iA through Fl provides a service measure to describe facility performance. LOS A, the best possible grade. describes intersections with low control delay and a favorable progression of signals. LOS F, the worst possible grade. describes intersections with very high delays often due to oversaturation, high congestion, long cycle lengths. and/or poor progression of traffic signals. For this study, LOS D or better was considered acceptable. 3! For signalized Intersections, the LOS is determined based on the average delay for all movements through an intersection. The existing LOS for signalized intersections on US 85 was analyzed for AM and PM peak hours and is shown in Figure 3.5. Most areas operate at LOS D or better. However, a few intersections in Commerce City, IA Brighton, Platteville, and Evans are LOS E or F during one or both peak hours. • r 3.3.3 Travel Speeds and Travel Times F COLORADO Department of Transportation Speed limits on US 85 vary throughout the corridor, from 35 miles per hour (moh) to 65 mph, as seen in Figure 3.6. Lower speed limits are located as the highway travels through towns. while higher speed limits generally are located in the long rural stretches in between towns. From Commerce City to Fort Lupton, speed limits maintain 65 mph except around traffic signals, where they drop to 55 mph to prepare drivers to stop at the signals. Travel time runs were completed for two sections of the corridor: a northern section and a southern section. The northern section began at O Street in Greeley and ended at 1" Street in LaSalle. The southern section began at East 168'" Avenue in Brighton and ended at East 104'" Avenue in Commerce City. The travel time runs found that the speeds during peak periods are lower than posted speed limits, as shown in Figure 3.7. The urban areas experience the most congestion due to heavy traffic volumes and signalized intersections. Traveling northbound between Bromley Lane and East 168'" Avenue during the peak hour. the travel speed can be as low as 27 percent of the posted speed limit. In the northern section of US 85, near Evans and Greeley, motorists experience similar delays due to poor signal progression. Page 3.8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.S Existing Level of Service on US 85 at Signalized Intersections COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend X/X AM/PM Level of Service f1 Signalized Intersection • LOS A/B LOS C/D • LOS E/F WCR 100 WCR 90 4 797 WCR 54 WCR 6 40 II D/B 85 B/8 D/F B/B INCR 74 \C/C .AkRi.IC WCR 64 1 WCR 44 llir WCR 22 B/B " I B/C C/C 1470 C/B I B/B .NCR 6 IASCt INE RD O D/E BROMLEYLN D/D ' � C/C 1201h AVE. 85' DIE 104th AE/D 961h AVE 1470 rt, o17rtTj� NORTH 4 __TA 1 hies Page 3-9 f _ US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.6 Posted Speed Limits COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend gum 35-40 MPH — 45-50-55 MPH Elm 80-65 MPH US 85 Roads Railroad Rivers/Streams SD Lakes L. J County Boundary Q Study Area WCR 100 tot c° WCR @0 CE Ur; q. WCR 54 WCR6 N' _ 104th AVE ▪ 4' • GREELEY Yt IL. EST TTEVILLE ON WCR 74 WCR 64 eriar A LL E Sow WCR 44 Yin WCR 32 fin° WCR 22 Weld County_ rffamitounty 120th AVE__ I L.-, i__-S ,_ J 0 4 Miles Page 3-10 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.7 Average Travel Speeds COLORADO Department of Transportation Percent of Posted Speed Limit Existing Speed as a Percent of Posted Speed Lint itic<�t, Average Posted Speed Urnit Average Existing Speed Average No Action Speed' US 85 PEL Adams and wed Counties. CO Page 3-11 A US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study The disparity between posted speeds and travel speeds leads to differences in travel times. Due to the length of the corridor, most motorists do not travel the entire distance. However, they still experience heavy delays while using US 85 to travel in between towns. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 show the average travel times during the AM and PM peak hours in two sections where travel time runs were completed. If traveling end to end through either of these sections during a peak hour, approximately 3 to 8 minutes of delay is added to the same trip, which takes approximately 8 or 9 minutes at free -flow speeds. Figure 3.8 Average Travel Times (Northern Section) 16 E 10 F 8 2 0 i AM PM ■ Northbound • Southbound "Free -flow Speed n Figure 3.9 18 16 1.5• 14 m 12 i 10 8 A 6 4 2 a 0 Average Travel Times (Southern Section) AM PM ■ Northbound ■ Southbound • Free -flow Speed The high traffic volumes on US 85 during peak hours also cause large queues. The queues often back up into adjacent intersections. most notably during the PM peak hour. Vehicles are not able to move through intersections, It leading to longer delays at intersections. Signal timing and slow rate of acceleration of heavy vehicles also add to to delay and resulting queues at signals. 3.3.4 Crash Data Analysis u Five years of US 85 crash history (January 1. 2008, through December 31. 2012) was examined for the 62 -mile US 85 corridor. Figure 3-10 summarizes the results. See the corridor -specific safety assessment report for the highway 1F. for more detail. to 71 7t ' A 7f 30 3; 31 3, 3A 3S 3f 3/ 3A 34 ae I 1,1 ar. e; n5 St ;1 ,2 COLORADO Department of Transportation During the five-year period, 2,186 crashes were reported along the US 85 study corridor. Most (approximately 70 percent) were property damage only (P00) crashes. Approximately 625 of the crashes were injury, with 22 involving fatalities. Intersection crashes made up 48 percent of the total crashes, but only 32 percent of the fatal accidents occurred at intersection locations. With respect to crash types, rear -end collisions made up most of the accident types; nearly 54 percent of all the accidents were rear -ends (which mostly occurred at intersections). Fixed object crashes were the next highest pattern representing 36 percent of the total. Overturning vehicles and sideswipes made up 20 and 17 percent of corridor totals, respectively. Figure 3.10 shows "hot spots" along the corridor, with called out intersections and highway segments reflecting locations In which crash experience was higher than expected given the nature of the intersection/highway segment (based on statewide averages). By far, the intersection that experienced the greatest number of crashes was 104th Avenue in Commerce City with 115 total. The Bromley Lane intersection in Brighton was also active with 91 crashes. Intersection crash totals fall from this point with the next highest being 120th Avenue in Adams County and 22' Street in Greeley in which 67 and 49 crashes occurred, respectively. Two highway segments stand out as having experienced higher than expected crash experiences: The short segment at the southern end of the corridor, south of 104th Avenue to 1.76. Potentially. the transition from/to the freeway is a factor with this segment. A 5 -mile long section north of Fort Lupton in which 128 crashes occurred; 5 of which were fatalities. A more thorough review indicated that these crashes had no common cause. 3.4 Transit Transit service in the study area is limited to fixed -route and demand -responsive bus service provided by the Regional Transportation District (RiD) In the southern portion of the study area and by Greeley -Evans Transit (GET) in the Greeley and Evans area, leaving 46 miles of US 85 without transit access. Intercity bus routes also operate along the corridor, but these services operate on a limited basis and stop in Greeley only. An intercity bus station Is in Greeley just north of downtown. No interregional transit services currently operate on the corridor. Section 2.1 of this report noted population segments that are more likely to use transit service and depend on it as their primary form of transportation. Reasons relate to economics, ability, age, and whether individuals own or have access to a private vehicle. The two key markets for public transportation services in the study area are: 'Transit Dependent" riders who do not always have access to a private automobile. This group includes individuals who may not be physically for legally) able to operate a vehicle or those who may not be able to afford to own a vehicle. Transit dependency characteristics based on age include both youth (Individuals 18 or younger) and older adults (persons age 65 or older). Others who typically rely on public transit include people with disabilities, individuals with low income, zero -vehicle households, veterans, and persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). "Choice" riders are those who usually or always have access to a private automobile (by either driving a car or getting picked up by someone) but choose to take transit because it offers more or comparable convenience. For example, a choice rider may choose to add 10 minutes to his overall trip via bus to save a $10 all -day parking charge. A commuter may choose to take a bus if he can work along the way rather than focusing on driving. Another newer trend that has increased "choice" transit ridership over the last several years is the increase in the Millennial population using public transportation as a lifestyle choice. This generational shift is occurring across the United States as the Millennials and many other Americans are Increasingly choosing to use modes of transportation other than the private automobile, such as transit. carpools, vanpools, biking, and walking. The demographic maps in Section 2.1 of this report (Figure 2.2 to Figure 2.5) show that the study area includes older adults (age 65 and older), low-income populations. disabled populations. and households with no vehicle, all of which indicate a higher likelihood and need for transit service. Page 3-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.10 Safety COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend XX% XX% I • Intersections Identified with Safety Concerns Non -Intersection Segments with Higher than expected Crashes Crash Related to Truck Daily Truck Percentage Intersections Adjacent to Railroad Signalized Intersection Side -Street Stop Controlled Urban Segment Rural Segment P00 = Personal Damage Only INJ = Injury FAT = Fatality C WCR 14.5/14th St. • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 15 PDO 10 INJ 1 FAT 9 Approach Turn <10% 6.8- WCR 6 • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 4 PDO 2 INJ 0 FAT 5 Rear End <10% 7.6% Denver St. Seventy Predominant CrashType Truck Data 11 PDO 1 INJ 0 FAT 5 Fixed Object <10% 9 8''-; Bromley Lane • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 82 PDO BINJ I FAT 62 Rear End <10% 84. Ave. I.:.136th • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 29 PDO 6 INJ 0 FAT 21 Rear End 14% 8 2',: SH 22/12Oth Ave. • t.1' Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 26 POO 14 INJ 0 FAT 25 Rear End 13'x, 13._ 12Oth Ave. • Severity Predominant CrashTypc Truck Data 51 PDO 16 INJ 0 FAT 37 Rear End 12'o 13.2 SH 441104th Ave. • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 86 PDO 28 INJ 1 FAT 82 Rear End 33 Dark -Lighted 17% 151". WCR 100 YEARS: JAN. 2008 • DEC 2012 TOTAL CRASHES: 2,186 NON•INTERSECTION CRASHES: 1.137 POO. 789 INJ: 333 FAT 15 INTERSECTION CRASHES: 1,049 POO. 752 INJ' 292 FAT 7 t«•' +c WCR 6 104thSV MILLIKEN CE 'OREELEY OILEST TTEVILLE • 63.11 Miles • 112 Intersections • 24 Signalized • 57 Adjacent to Railroad Crossing • Urban Intersections 20 Signalized 16 Uns nahzed • Rural Intersections 4 Signalized 72 Unsignalized mess WCR 32 kea' North of Fort Lupton (mp 243.01) to CR 26 (mp 248.20) 84 Personal Damage Only 39 Injuries 5 Fatalities 17.500 vehicles per day 5 18 miles WCRB EuNE.StLT !BRIGHTON / CbMHdERC Vas, � -Zefalms Oun r: BROMLEY LN 1.76 (mp 226.8) to North of SH 44 (mp 227 47) 43 Personal Damage Only 10 Injuries 0 Fatalities 37.600 vehicles per day n A7 mica 'ER 5th St. • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 11 PDO 4INJ 0 FAT 10 Rear End 13% i7°. 13th St. • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 8 PDO 4INJ 0 FAT 5 Broadside 17% 1t)-' 16th St. • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 31 POO 10 INJ 0 FAT 15 Approach Turn 17% 105,. 18th St./US 34 • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 28 PDO 8 INJ 0 FAT 7 Fixed Object 19% 1V 22nd St. • Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 33 PDO 16INJ 0 FAT 28 Rear End 18% 8 1' 42nd St. Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 24 PDO 81NJ 0 FAT 23 Rear End 40% r, -,- WCR 52 M Predominant Truck Severity CrashType Data 4 PDO 7 Broadside 13% 4 INJ 6 8'. CI FAT VW i 2' Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 15 POO 13 INJ 0 FAT 27 Broadside 57% Vii' Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 4 PDO 6 INJ 0 FAT 7 Broadside 40% 6 8`, dill Severity Predominant CrashType Truck Data 10 PDO 131NJ 0 FAT 8 Approach Turn 13°'- 0 NORTH 2 4 Mlles Page 3-13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 3.4.1 General Public Transit This section provides an overview of the existing general public transit services in the study area: GET and RTD. Greeley -Evans Transit The City of Greeley operates GET, which provides fixed -route, call -n -ride, and paratransit service. Major transfer points for GET's fixed -route services Include downtown Greeley and the South Greeley Transfer Center at the Greeley Mall. GET operates six fixed•routes Monday through Friday from approximately 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM and on Saturdays from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM. The UNC Boomerang operates Monday through Friday during the school year from 7:45 AM to 2:30 PM. Regional Transportation District RTD transit services are available in northern Adams County and Include fixed -route, paratransit, and call -n -ride ,' services. The fixed -route services near the study area connect with a Park -n -Ride at US 85 and Bridge Street. The I/ following fixed -route services connect with the Park -n -Ride: I1 14 !n il, n Route 120 - US 36 E Broomfield Park -n -Ride Route 145X - Brighton/DIA Express Route R - Adams County Justice Center Route RC - Civic Center Station Route RX - Adams County Justice Center Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also requires RTD to provide complimentary paratransit service within a 0.75 -mite buffer of all fixed -routes. RTD also operates general public call -n -ride service in Brighton from 5:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday. The Brighton call -n -ride serves the City of Brighton with the service area defined by Baseline Road to the north, 1.76 to the east, Bromley Lane and Prairie Center to the south, and the South Platte River to the west. / ; 3.4.2 Intercity Bus Service 14 '. Jr. /0 If! I1 to IP Three Intercity bus operators provide service along and/or near the US 85 corridor. All the routes that operate along US 85 stop at the intercity bus station located Just north of downtown Greeley. Figure 3.11 Identifies Intercity bus services, along with general public transit service. Black Hills Stage Lines Black Hills Stage Lines, an Intercity operator, provides service in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska. and Wyoming. Black Hills Stage Lines operates three routes daily along the US 85 corridor: ► Route #881 Denver -Omaha (one in -bound and one out -bound trip per day). This route originates in downtown Denver at the Greyhound Bus Terminal and travels north to Highway 76 and on to Fort Morgan and Sterling with a final destination of Omaha, Nebraska. ► Route #883 - Denver -Greeley -Billings (one in -bound and one out -bound trip per day). This route originates in downtown Denver at the Greyhound Bus Terminal and travels along the US 85 corridor with a stop in Greeley and then continues on with several stops in Wyoming with a final destination of Billings, Montana. ► Route #884 - Denver -Greeley -Billings (one in -bound and one out -bound trip per day). This route originates in Denver but travels north to Longmont via 1.25 and then heads east to Greeley. This route then continues north on US 85 to Wyoming and Montana. Burlington Trailways 4o An intercity operator. Burlington Trailways provides service in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana. Iowa, Missouri, and 411 Nebraska. Burlington Trailways operates one route daily along the US 85 corridor: I, 14 r, COLORADO Department of Transportation ► Route #7096 Denver-Omaha•Chicago (one inbound and one out -bound trip per day). This route departs from the Greyhound Bus Terminal in downtown Denver and travels north to connect with 1.76 and continues on to Omaha and Chicago. El Paso -Los Angeles Limousine Express El Paso -Los Angeles Limousine Express provides service in Arizona. Colorado, California. New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, and Mexico. El Paso -Los Angeles Limousine Express operates one route daily along the US 85 corridor: ► Denver -Greeley (two in -bound and two out -bound trips per day). The route provides a morning and an evening trip both to and from Denver and Greeley. 3.4.3 Human Service Transportation Providers Human service agencies often provide transportation for medical trips, senior services, shopping trips and more. Table 3.2 describes the human service transportation services operating in the study area. 3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian The US 85 corridor currently has no designated bicycle facilities. While highway sections have shoulder widths of 4 feet or wider (which is considered a minimum width for bicycle accommodation), the shoulders are inconsistent and are non-existent in some corridor sections. Sidewalks exist along US 85 In spot locations, typically where US 85 acts as the Main Street through communities. including LaSalle, Evans, Eaton. and Ault. The vast majority of the 62 -mile corridor tacks pedestrian accommodation. US 85 passes through 13 communities and creates a barrier for bicyclists and pedestrians wanting to cross the highway. In several communities, US 85 splits the community, with most homes on one side of the highway while many community facilities such as schools and parks are on the opposite side. US 85 acts as a barrier to the community, making it inefficient and unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the highway. High traffic volumes and high travel speeds on US 85, paired with a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the corridor, create safety concerns (or bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along and across US 85. During the five- year period between 2008 and 2012, there were three vehicle/bicycle crashes and eight vehicle/pedestrian crashes on the corridor. Two of the three bicycle crashes involved an injury. Of the eight pedestrian crashes, one involved PDO, four involved injuries, and three involved fatalities. More than one bicycle• or pedestrian -related crash occurred at the following three intersections: ► US 85/Bromley Lane in Brighton (one bicycle crash, three pedestrian crashes; two fatal crashes) ► US 85/371h Street in Evans (two pedestrian crashes; one injury, one fatal) ► US 85/22n° Street in Greeley (one bicycle crash, two pedestrian crashes; three injury) While the history of bicycle and pedestrian crashes on US 85 demonstrates a safety problem at spot locations along the corridor, the condition for bicyclists and pedestrians on the entirety of US 85 is unsafe and discourages bicycling or walking as a viable travel option within and between communities. The study area contains short segments of shared use trails. The South Platte River parallels US 85 from the southern end of the corridor In Commerce City to Greeley. where it heads east. As shown on Figure 3.12. three sections of the Platte River Trail Currently exist: two segments within Adams County and one segment in the City of Evans. Several planning efforts, including the NFRMPO Regional Bicycle Plan, the Adams County Open Space. Parks E Trails Master Plan, and the Weld Trails Coordination Committee, have identified regional bicycle and trail corridors within the study area, as depicted on Figure 3.12. The South Platte River Trail is envisioned as the future alignment for the Colorado Front Range Trail and the American Discovery Trail. Other planned traits, including the Poudre River Trail, the Great Western Trail, and the Pawnee Pioneer Trail, bisect the US 85 corridor and are proposed to create a regional trail network in the area. Page 3.14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 3.2 Human Service Providers COLORADO Department of Tranoportatton Transit Provider Service Typo Service Ars Service Available For Cat Wheetchah Accessible Haws of Service Telsphau Minks Additional Information A -Lift Demand Response u n:,:. Adams County/Metro Denver Age 60 or Oder. Persons with Disabilities Donations Yes Monday - Friday 6.00 AM -6.00 PM 303 235 6972 ypvw a -hit orq or www &caame vim Service is available to urban Adams County residents for medical appointments, meal sites, grocery stores. and personal (rips American Cancer Society 'Road to Recovery" Volunteer Dnver (Medical Transport) Denver Metro Area - other Statewide service areas Cancer Treatments No Charge No Monday - Friday 8.00 AM - 4 CO PM 1 866 500 3272 )vwW 0enapr erg Volunteers provide transportation to and from treatment for people with cancer who do not have a ride or are unable to drive themselves Lonnecting Health Fixed -Route Complimentary shuttle service between medical facilities serving Fort Collins Loveland, and Greeley General Public No Charge No Monday - Friday 7 20 AM - 4 39 PM 970 495 8560 yew colunt ineheefth cprVvan Columbine Health Systems and University of Colorado Health partnership provides fixed -route service to Poudre Valley Hospital. Harmony Campus, Medical Center of the Roches Greeley Emergency and Surgery Center, and Greeley Medical Clinic First Transit Colorado - Non -Emergency Medical Transport (NEMT) Demand Response Adams and Weld counties (also serves Arapahoe. Boulder Broomfield Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and Latimer counties) Medicaid Eligible No Charge - need a valid Medicaid ID number Yes Trips Provided 2477 Scheduling Monday - Friday 8 00 AM - 5 00 PM 1 855 264 6368 Greeley -Evans Transit (GET) Call-n-Rde Demand Response Throughout the cities of Greeley and Evans General Pubic $3 00 one-way Yes Monday - Saturday until 9 00 PM Sunday 745 AM- 145 PM 970 350 9290 petoreeleyevansuanst corn Greeley -Evans Transit (GET) Paratransit Service Demand Response (Paratransit) Throughout the cities of Greeley and Evans ADA Certfied Onty $3 00 one-way Yes Monday - Friday 6 25 AM- 7 10 PM Saturday 8 25 AM - 5 10 PM WiWiseeleyevenseanelt corn Visit website for paratransit application Discounted single ride and monthly passes available NFRMPO • Smarttrips VanGo Vanpool US 85 from Greeley/Evans to Denver Vanpool Members Varies No Vanes by Vanpool 800 332 0950 Vegan Regional Transportation District (RID) Access -a -Cab Demand Response Adams County (Denver Metro) ADA Certified Only 52 up front. RTD pays next $12 rider pays remaining fare Upon Space Availability Tips Provided 24/7 Scheduling Monday - F nday 6:OOAM-900 PM 303 244 1388 yaw/ rid-denver cam Requires ADA certification through RTD before riding Page 3-15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLOR ADC Dopvtment o! Tranapor Tank PPM, Sinks Type Bentekea ServiceAvailableFat_ Cost Wheelchair Accessible Hours of Service Telephone SWIM Additional Information Regional Transportaton District (RID) Access -a -Ride Demand Response (Parahansd) Adams County (Denver Metro) ADA Certified Only 2 fines RID fixed- route fare Corresponds to RID fixed -route service hours 303 299 2962 Iry 303 299 2980 www riddenve• corn Requires ADA ce' if;a. :- through RTD before nd;rg Regional Transportation Dstnct (RTD) Brighton Call -n Ride Demand Response Serves the City of Brighton. north to Basekne Road, east to 1.76, south to Bromley Lane and Plane Center, and west to South Platte River General Public 51 10 - 52 25 one-way Yes Monday - Friday 530 AM - 700 PM 303 994 3549 www rid{ enver com Senior Resource Services (SRS) Volunteer Driver Weld County Weld County Senior Ct¢ens No charge No Office open Monday - Friday 900 AM -4 00 PM 970 352 9348 vii so norresourcosenacos info Schedule one week in advance Call for eligibility guidelines. for Weld County service area. end for further information Veterans Helping Veterans Now Volunteer Driver (Medical Transport) Boulder County to Denver end Greeley, and Fort Collins VA Clinks Veterans Donations No Vanescell for details 303.713.9144 PAM volunteersinechon mfQ Sociai worker referral preferred VIA Mdblity Services Demand Response Brighton (also serves Boulder County, Watkins, Bennett. Strasburg, Byers, Deer Trail, and Estes Park) Age 60 or older, Persons with Disebdibes, Low -bin $125 - $2.00 one•wey local; $4 ens•way kdaroity Yes Monday - Friday 7,30 AM - 5.30 PM Saturday - Sunday In Boulder and Longmont 303 447.2848 y_______ y Reduced tares available VIA provides mobility options and travel framing services Page 3-16 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.11 Existing Transit Services COLORADO Department of Transportation COLORADO Department of Transportation Legend Existing Intercity Bus Routes O Existing intercity Bus Station a Black Hits Stage 1884 (Denver Greeley -Billings) Black Hits Stage 8883 (Denver GteehyBelmgs) El Paso -LA Lino (Denver IS Greeley) Black Hits Stage Lines 189 (Denver -Omaha) 6urengton beltways 107098 a� (Denver -Omaha -Chicago) RTD Foca Bus Routes re Greeley Fued Bus Routes Greeley CalI-n•Rkfe Service Area Baghron Call -n -Ride Service Ana Amtrak Cektornia Zephyr Route VS 85 Roads Railroad +w Rrvars:Streams Lakes County Boundary Study Ayer, To Denver WCR 100 104th AVE if' so• to. WCR 90 MILLIKEN MERGE Clrt ON WCR 74 WCR 64 BROMLEY LN 120th AVE f L J Denver County I ._ OENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study To Omaha and Chicago To Fort Morgan, Sterling and JuIe.bur g 0 NORTH 2 4 Miler Page 3-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 3.12 Regional Bicycle and Trail Corridors COLORADO Depattmsnt of Tnnspoafation Legend Existing Corridor Alignment 1 t Envisioned Corridor Alignment Poudre River Trail Pawnee Pioneer Trail Great Western Trait South Platte / Amencan Discovery Trail / Colorado Front Range Trail 7 8 Greeley J LaSalle WCR 100 pi 104thAVE t; WCR SO MILLIKEN N OREELEY TTEVILLE BRUME RD. °1RMHTO}1 E Piwnes Matti) 11 :i Gra-. arms ON WCR 74 WCR 64 WCR 22 BROMLEY LN 0 NORTH 2 a Miles Page 3.18 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 4.0 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS The project team used the DRCOG and NFRMPO 2035 fiscally constrained regional travel demand models (including 3 refinements to the 2035 land use forecasts as described in Chapter 2) to develop the 2035 traffic forecasts. The 4 project team made minor modifications to the models to better reflect the existing and planned roadway network 5 along US 85. t, 4.1 No Action Alternative I The No Action Alternative is the alternative that would be selected if CDOT does not select a build alternative as 8 the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline comparison for alternatives development, screening, and environmental analysis. The No Action Alternative would leave US 85 as it currently is and would not to provide any improvements beyond the existing transportation system; however, the No Action Alternative would u include safety and maintenance activities required to sustain an operational transportation system. t2 For the purpose of travel demand forecasting and identifying resource impacts that are directly related to traffic 13 volume (such as noise), transportation projects currently planned in the vicinity of US 85 are included with the No 14 Action Alternative. Projects in the DRCOG and NFRMPO Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) and the is Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) were identified for inclusion in the No Action Alternative. 16 These transportation projects have identified or committed construction funds and would be built regardless of 1/ improvements identified as a part of this study. Table 4.1 presents the projects that are considered in the No to Action Alternative. 19 Travel demand forecasting predicts traffic conditions that are expected to occur on the transportation system in 20 the design year (2035). 21 4.2 2035 No Action Conditions I1 4.2.1 Corridor Traffic Forecasts and Capacity Thresholds 23 Figure 4.1 shows daily traffic forecasts along US 85 within the study area. The highest volumes remain between 14 I-76 and Fort Lupton, but other corridor sections are projected to experience a significant percentage growth. 25 Sections between Fort Lupton and Platteville are projected to see the largest percent increase in daily traffic, 2b estimated to be between 105 percent to 135 percent growth. Growth within the Greeley and Evans portion of US 85 2r is not expected to have as high of growth percentage but is still estimated to experience growth between 28 60 percent and 75 percent, with the exception of north of Greeley to SH 392 (projected to grow 95 percent). 29 Based on land use and traffic volume forecasts along the corndor, more travel is expected to occur between 3u Brighton and Platteville due to household growth in the Commerce City and Bnghton areas and employment growth 3t along the corridor within Fort Lupton and Platteville. Both household and employment along that stretch of US 85 31 drive localized high traffic growth in the Greeley and Evans area. Traffic growth just north of Greeley to SH 392 n can be attributed to an increased demand to travel to/from municipalities to the west, such as Fort Collins and 34 Loveland, along an alternative parallel route to US 34. 3s Existing and projected daily 2035 traffic volumes were compared against planning levet capacities of the corridor 3b derived from the DRCOG and NFRMPO regional model link capacities. The link capacities are based on the number 3/ of through lanes, the functional classification (which varies along the corridor), and the surrounding area type. 3a Table 4.2 shows the daily per lane capacities used for this analysis, which represent the design capacity —the 39 threshold between LOS D and E. Planning level roadway capacities were used to estimate when the travel demand 4u along US 85 would exceed the existing capacity, as shown on Figure 4.2. While the travel demands through the 4I southern portion of the corridor (from 1-76 to Bromley Lanel currently exceed the existing planning -level 42 capacities, several additional sections of the corridor are expected to have travel demands that exceed the 43 existing capacity by 2035. 4 COLORADO Department cl Tranatxrrtenon Four segments of the highway are projected to carry volumes in 2035 that are within the existing capacity: e,. r Between Fort Lupton and Platteville v r Between Platteville and Gitcrest la r Between Gilcrest and LaSalle 9 r 5t Street in Greeley to the northern study limits in Nunn Table 4.1 Projects Included in the No Action Alternative ID Project Neme Project Description Source SR45218 US 85 MP 236-242 Surface Treatment Pal DRCOGI CDOT SST68O3 073 Commerce City to Denver CBD Regional Bus Service Regional Bus Service DRCOG SR46601 US 85 and WCR 6 Region 4 Bndgo OH -System Pool DRCOG SNF5788 030 cop ementabon of Ass Control at the intersecton of US 85 and 37'' Street NFRMPO US 85 Access Control at 37" St (Evans) SNF5788 031 US 85 Access Control at 31' St (Evans) implementation of Access Control at theintersection of US 85 and 31' Street NFRMPO SR45218 105 US 85 Ault to Wyoming COOT Bridge On -System -IC Directed. FASTER -Safety Protects. Surface Treatment, Surface Treatment Pool Staging Program SR45218 148 US 85 Nunn to Can 288-300 Surface Treatment, Surface Treatment Pool Stagrig Program CDOT SR45001 009 US 85 Bypass Signals 22^' St - 50' St (Greeley)(4-13) MP 266-268 5 Regional Pnonty Program RAMP SR46606 021 US 85. URF Intersection Improvements (Venous Locations) FASTER Safety Allocation Staging Program. FASTER- Safety Protects CDOT SR47005 004 Carpool Lots (Fort Lupton US 85 - WCR 14 5 & Evans US 85/42,t Avenue) FASTER Transit Staging Program, Transit and Rail Statewide Grants COOT SST8103 028 R4 B -17 -DE US 85 Nunn Bridge over UPRR FASTER Bridge Enterprise Bond Issuance Proceeds Pool COOT SDR6754 999 Bromley Lane & US 85 Intersection National Highway Fund, Local Match Highway Safety Improvements Program DRCOG Page 4-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 4.2 Planning Level Capacities (Per Lane) Facility Type Area Type Design Daily Capacity (D/E Threshold) 1 Freeway Urban 16,000 Suburban 16,000 Rural 16,000 Expressway Urban 10,000 Suburban 10,800 Rural 11,200 Enhanced Expressway Urban 11,800 Suburban 11,800 Rural 12,400 Standard Expressway Urban 9,700 Suburban 9,700 Rural 10,600 Major Arterial Urban 7,600 Suburban 7,600 Rural 8,800 Minor Arterial Urban 4,800 Suburban 6,000 Rural 6,400 i' is In q to 11 U COLORADO Department of transportation 4.2.2 Intersection Operations Peak -hour intersection turning movement forecasts were developed for 2035 based on the 2035 No Action daily traffic forecasts and existing and future travel patterns along the corridor. The projected 2035 No Action traffic volumes were entered into the Synchro 8 model to evaluate future operations along the corridor. The LOS at signalized intersections was determined during the AM and PM peak hours and is presented in Figure 4.2, along with the existing LOS on US 85 for comparison. Whether or not operational improvements are made. traffic volumes along the corridor will continue to increase by 2035. If no changes are made to the corridor, the LOS of most intersections will be inadequate for efficient operations of the highway. Almost every intersection reaches LOS E or F during one or both of the peak hours. II 4.2.3 Travel Speeds and Travel Times If no operational improvements are made to the corridor, delays will increase and travel speeds will decrease. resulting in longer travel times. Figure 4.3 shows the existing travel speeds compared to the projected 2035 No Action travel speeds. In these sections of the corridor, it is not likely that vehicles will reach the posted speed limits in the AM or PM peak hours. Many of the signalized intersections are close to or over capacity, leading to large queues that impact operations at adjacent intersections. These congestion issues lead to an increase in travel times throughout the corridor. The projected traffic volumes in 2035 will double travel times during the peak hours. A trip that takes approximately 8 minutes in free•flow conditions and a maximum of 12 minutes in existing conditions will take over 30 minutes in 2035 No Action conditions. Figure 4.4 through Figure 4.7 show the travel times for existing, No Action, and free•flow speeds. Page 4.2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 4.1 Volume to Planning Level Capacity Comparison COLORADO Department of Transportation COLORADO Department of Transpartntlon Legend XXXX XXXX, XXXX 1990 Daily Traffic Vdumes Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 2035 Daily Traffic Projections WCR 6 IWithAVE i. r WCR ft RA3EW4ERR__ - wow L.-,;,, BRIGHTON OMMERCI CITY 9lth AVE ROMLEY LN t 1?s rr 6,zntly i • DENVER US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study r; 11 Mile: Page 4-3 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 4.2 Existing and 2035 No Action Level of Service COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 WCR 80 4 PIER AULT C/C Existing WCR 100 Legend X/X AM/PM Level of Service 8 Signalized Intersection LOS NB LOS CO • LOS E/F WCR f t WCR C la D/B e C/C B/B QRICR 85 C/C l BASELINE RD T I D/F B/C B/B A/B B/C WCR 74 WCR 14 B/C �l B/B C/C C/C - B/C Et 1� C/C /E �._ C/C C/C WCR F O/E f O/O • -C/CT 85 D/E •••-,11 104u) ' E/D Aro WCR 32 BROMLEY LN 120th AVE. WCR 44 WCR 22 MICR 0 C/C�` F/F F/F 85 No Action 2035 ',irk }_ WCR BASELINE RDRIGneoci F/F 1 BROMLEY LN 120th AVE. Page 4-4 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 4.3 Average Speed on US 85 during Peak Hour COLORADO Department of Transportation Percent of Posted Speed Limit Existing Speed es a Percent of Posted Speed L4nt Average Posted Speed Limit Average Existing Speed Average No Action Speed' US 85 PEL Adams and 14t.k./ Can ties, CO Page 4-5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study • Figure 4.4 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Tines (Northern Section- Northbound) to Projected Travel Time (Minutes} V AM PM Free -flow Speed • Northbound Existing ■ Northbound No Action Figure 4.5 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Northern Section - Southbound) [0 7 35 2 30 i i 25 0 20 f 15 110 d 5 AM PM Free -flow Speed ■ Southbound Existing ■Southbound No Action n I? 0 t� COLORADO Department of Transportation Figure 4.6 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Southern Section - Northbound) 40 j 35 c 30 2 E 25 20 t- 15 10 O s 5 0 AM PM " Free -flow Speed ■ Northbound Existing ■ Northbound No Action Figure 4.7 Projected 2035 No Action Travel Times (Southern Section - Southbound) 40 —y, 35 e 30 1.7 20 15 110 s AM PM • Free -flow Speed ■Southbound Existing ■ Southbound No Action Page 4 5 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 4.2.4 Alternative Modes Transit Two planning processes have identified the future need for transit in the US 85 corridor. In 2014, CDOT's Division of 4 Transit and Rail completed a Statewide Intercity and Regional Bus Network Study that identified key regional transit service needs and essential services routes along the US 85 corndor. The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision also Indicated the need for regional commuter service along the US 85 corridor. CDOT Intercity and Regional Bus Network Study a The 2014 CDOT Intercity and Regional Bus Network Study identifies the implementation of new regional bus service -; from Greeley to Denver in the mid-term planning horizon (2021-2028). The service plan shows service operating six to days per week with six round•trips per day. The study estimates annual regional ridership for the service at 62,200, 1. with annual operating costs of 5972,000 (2014 dollars). Regional bus service levels along the US 85 corridor are not u expected to increase in the long term. The study also identifies an essential services route fwhlch offers flexible routing) from Greeley to Denver in the t near•term planning period (2014-2020). Essential services focus on meeting the needs of residents in rural areas and typically provide infrequent service to access medical services and major activity centers. The service plan u: identifies an essential services route along the US 85 corridor operating five days per week with one round-tnp per 1) day. Annual essential services ridership is estimated at 3,150, with annual operating costs of 595,000 (2014 ie dollars). Service levels are not expected to increase in the mid or long term. t + North I-25 EIS Record of Decision to The North I.25 EIS Record of Decision also indicates new regional service along the US 85 corridor from Denver to ti Greeley. The US 85 commuter bus service identified in the Preferred Alternative wilt be implemented in Phase I. Al The identified bus service connects Greeley to downtown Denver with service operating every 60 minutes in the as peak and off-peak periods. The cost per revenue hour estimate for the service is 583.12 per revenue hour (2009 tr, dollars). Bicycle and Pedestrian 20 Several planning efforts, including the NFRMPO Regional Bicycle Plan, the Adams County Open Space, Parks & Trails 21 Master Plan, and the Weld Trails Coordination Committee, have identified regional bicycle and trail corridors 28 within the study area, as described in Chapter 3. The South Platte River Trail is envisioned as the future alignment 29 for the Colorado Front Range Trail and the American Discovery Trail. Other planned trails, including the Poudre w River Trail, the Great Western Trail, and the Pawnee Pioneer Trail, bisect the US 85 corridor and are proposed to 31 create a regional trail network in the area. Several communities along the corridor have identified the need for 31 improved bicycle and pedestrian crossings of US 85 to better connect their communities in the future. No funding 3s for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the corridor is currently identified. COLORADO Uapartmanl o! Tranaporta'ion Page 4-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW Chapter 5 identifies the environmental constraints known at this time within the study area. The study area is defined as the area located within 0.25 mile of the US 85 centerline, except for noise sensitive receptors, which are within 500 feet of the US 85 centerline. For the ease of the reader, some environmental resources are discussed by various portions of the corridor. This is r, to consolidate large amounts of information into easily understood discussions. These "portions" of the corridor include: N ► Southern portion - Includes Commerce City, Brighton. and Fort Lupton k Central portion - Includes Platteville, Gilcrest, LaSalle. Evans, and Greeley 1C ► Northern portion Includes Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn 1! c 1? The sections that follow provide additional information about the methodology for evaluating each resource. Appendix 1, the map book, shows the locations of the resources within the study area. Appendix 1 lists the environmental resources identified at intersections of US 85. t4 5.1 Parks and Recreational Resources 1'. Parks and recreational resources within the study area include open space, greenbelts, conservation areas, trails, it and bike lanes. Some park and recreational resources are regulated under the Land and Water Conservation Fund 1 r ILWCFI Act of 1965. The LWCF established a federal funding program to assist states in developing outdoor Is recreation sites. Section 6(f) of the act prohibits converting property acquired or developed with these funds to a i.r non -recreational purpose without the approval of the National Park Service (NPS). 20 Section 5.3 further describes procedural processes of Section 6If) resources. 2, 5.1.1 Methodology The following datasets were used to develop a list of parks and recreational facilities: 23 ► Adams County Parks and Open Space geographic information systems (GIS) dataset 24 ► DRCOG Open Space and Parks and Bike Paths GIS dataset 2$ ► NFRMPO Open Space and Trails GIS dataset /r, ► Available aerial photography (Bing Maps and Google Earth) n ► A field visit on May 13, 2014 2R Data from the above sources were compiled and a single GIS data file was created for parks and recreational 2n facilities within 0.25 mile of the US 85 centerline. 3c 5.1.2 Existing Conditions 31 Fifty-one existing and proposed parks and recreational facilities were identified in the study area (Table 5.1, 32 Figure 5.1). Most parks and recreational facilities are located within cities and towns, as opposed to 3? unincorporated areas. 3n Adams County. within the study area, contains 23 parka and recreational facilities, including: 3t• ► 5 parks and 1 trail in and around the Commerce City limits Ir. ► 4 parks and conservation areas within and around Henderson it k 11 parks and conservation easements, along with 2 bike trails within Brighton in Weld County. within the study area, includes 28 parks and recreational facilities: 39 k 6 parks and 1 trail within Fort Lupton 40 ► 2 parks and 1 proposed greenbelt in Platteville 41 k 2 parks in Gilcrest COLORADO Department of Tranaportauon ► 9 parks and recreational facilities within LaSalle, Evans, and Greeley, Including 3 parks and 1 greenbelt in LaSalle, 1 park and 1 trail in Evans, and 3 parks in Greeley ► 1 proposed greenbelt in LaSalle and the proposed Poudre River Trail in the northern portion of Greeley ► 6 parks and recreational facilities, with 1 open space area in Eaton, 2 parks in Ault, 2 parks in Pierce, and 1 park in Nunn, in the northern portion of the study area Table 5.1 Existing and Proposed Parks, Open Space and Recreational Facilities within the Study Area Name Type LOSS First Creek Floodplain Open Space Commerce City/Adams County No Nome Open Space No Name Open Space Town Square Park Park Belle Creek Community Garden Park No Name Trail Dunes Reservoir Conservation Area HendersorVAdams County Dunes Master Association HOA Park Park Rag Weed Draw Conservation Area Tuscan Open Space Open Space Berry Patch Farms Conservation Area Brighton/44MS County 144" Ave Farmland Protection (Area 1) Conservation Area 144" Ave Farmland Protecton (Area 2) Conservation Area Elmwood Cemetery Special Use Park On -street Bike Lane Bite Lane Meyoda Park Park Bromley Lane TralllPedestrien Bridge Bike Lane/Trail Berry Property Conservahon Area Colorado Park Park Veterans Park Perk Morgan Smith Nature Center Conservation Area No Name Open Space County Line Trail Bite Lane Robert Lbhar1 Park Park Fort Lupton/Weld County Pearson Perk Park Fon Lupton School Community Park Park Pearson Park Bite Path Trail Page 5.1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Lone Pine Park Pad Cannery Park Pak No Name (Historic Marker) Park River View Park Park Platteville/Weld County Trapper Trails Homeowners Assooalion Park Proposed Greenbelt Greenbelt Liberty Park Pan. Giicrest/Weki County Gkrest Municipal Park Pan. Proposed Greenbelt Greenben LaSalle/Weld County Wayne Norman Memonat Park Pan Pine St Park Pan. LaSalle Park Perk Railroad Park Pan. Evans/Weld County South Platte River Trail Crossing Trail Denver St Playground Pan. Della Park Pan. Greeley/WeId County Sunrise Park Pan, Proposed Poudre River Trail Crossing Trail Great Western Railway Open Space Open Space Eaton/Weld County East Park Pan AuluWeld County Liberty Park Pan. Jones Park Pan Pierce/Weld County No Name Part. Nunn Park Pan NunrvWeld County Sources Adams County 2014. DRCOG 2014, NFRMPO 2014. Bing Maps 2014. Google Earth 2014, and Pinyon 2014 Note Items in Bold are immediately adjacent to or cross US 85 Refer to Appendix 1, which labels parks and recreational resources identified in this section. 5.1.3 Areas of Special Consideration Of the 51 parks and recreational facilities identified within the study area, approximately 16 existing or proposed 4 parks and recreational facilities are located immediately adjacent to or cross US 85 (Figure 5.1). Because of this, they have a high potential to be impacted by future projects within the study area. COLORADO Dopartmernt of TranapoMtion 5.1.4 Next Steps During alternatives development, the design team will use current Information about parks and recreational • facilities to avoid and minimize impacts to parks and recreational resources wherever possible. 9 Refer to Section 5.3, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) for additional information about next steps for Section 4(f ) and u 6(f) resources. tc 5.2 Historic Resources This section covers the historic built environment of the study area. The term "historic" is generally used to refer to buildings, structures, sites, or objects that have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of 4 Historic Places (NRHP). Passed in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act established the framework for historic preservation in the U.S., creating the NRHP, National Historic Landmarks determination process, and State Historic Preservation Officer ISHP0i. / Section 106 of the Act produced a regulatory framework, mandating review of federally funded and permitted n projects to determine any potentially adverse impacts to historic resources. The Act requires projects to try to avoid impacts to National Register eligible properties, and, if Impacts cannot be avoided, to minimize and mitigate impacts. Section 4(1) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provided additional oversight for historic resources. It stated that the FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from public or private historical sites unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land and unless the project includes planning to minimize negative impacts to the property whenever possible. To be listed on the National Register, properties must be historically significant and retain sufficient integrity to be u able to convey their significance. Four criteria are used to determine significance: l k Criteria A Resources may be listed due to their association with events that have made a significant a contribution to history. k Critena B - Resources may be listed due to their connection with persons significant in history. n r Criterion C Design value includes buildings that are important for their aesthetic qualities; for demonstrating the distinctive characteristics of a building type, era, or method of construction; or for representing the work of a notable architect. Cnterion D Properties that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or 4 prehistory may be listed. I s Properties generally are not evaluated for potential significance until they are at least 50 years old. Properties less u than 50 years old must have exceptional importance to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Page 5-2 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 5.1 Parks and Recreational Facilities within the Study Area COLORADO Department of 'Transportation Legend 4 Park/OS/Easement/ Conservation/Green Belt • Trail/Bike Lane US 85 Roads Railroad -^e- Rivers/Streams So Lakes J County Boundary Q Study Area WCR 100 I WCR 90 WCR SA GREELEY N. 1 GARDEN Cal MILUKEN WCR 6 I EVANS GIL EST les P TTEVILLE WCR 64 Eistrur 4No WCR 44 mass WCR 32 `iris^" WCR 22 WCR9 ,BASELINE RD_ RKIGN1QN Wefd Count hdmmitounTyy BROMLEY IN 120th AV J Denver County I 1 t DENVER r-1 I.OFTH n 2 1 Milne, Page 5-3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.2.1 Methodology i This historic review analyzed two primary datasets: 3 ► Historic resources files of History Colorado - Identified properties that have previously been listed on the 4 National or State Registers of Historic Places or have been determined eligible for listing within the study s area (see Table 5.2). " ► Assessor data for Adams and Weld counties • Identified the distribution of potentially historic properties not previously inventoried or surveyed. Assessor information was also obtained for all properties with a 8 listed construction date of 1970 or earlier. This provided an estimate of the concentration and location of 9 potential historic resources in the area. However, there may be historic resources that are not included in 10 the assessor records. Examples include properties owned by organizations that do not pay taxes such as municipal facilities, industrial structures such as grain elevators, transportation structures such as bridges and culverts, and irrigation features such as ditches. t Other resources used to supplement the primary datasets include the following: 14 ► Google Earth street view - Identified potentially historic resources located Immediately adjacent to the 15 roadway tG ► Historic United States Geological Survey UUSGS) topographic maps • Identified historic road alignments and i/ ditches 18 ► Historic context information - Obtained from resources site forms from History Colorado, the Historic Farms 19 and Ranches of Weld County Multiple Property Submission (MPS), and Weld County Historic website 20 (www.weldcounty150.org) 21 5.2.2 Existing Conditions 2t The US 85 corridor passes through the High Plains of northern Colorado, a region of rolling prairies. Weld County is 2i one of Colorado's most agriculturally productive counties. Its agricultural history dates back to the 1860s when 24 cattle ranchers used the area for grazing. Settlement of the region intensified in 1870 with the establishment of 25 the Union Colony at Greeley and the construction of a rail line from Denver to Cheyenne, which passed through the 2r, region. The region quickly developed a booming agricultural economy. 22 In the late 19"' and early 20"' centuries, a series of towns were established along the transportation corridor to 2a serve the surrounding agricultural lands. The region experienced a second settlement boom in the early 19 20`" century with the development and popularization of dry land farming techniques. The population of Weld 30 County grew from 16,808 in 1900 to 39,177 in 1910. The growth of the sugar beet industry also influenced the 31 boom after the establishment of the Great Western Sugar Company in 1905 and increased agricultural demand and 31 prices during World War I. The need for workers to help with the labor-intensive sugar beet crop drew many 33 immigrants to the region, including German Russians and Japanese Americans. 3. Resources within the study area fall into three primary categories: transportation -related, agriculture•related, and i5 community -related. 36 Transportation -Related Resources 3/ Transportation -related resources within the study area include a historic highway corridor, a historic railroad 38 corridor, and roadside facilities such as motets, garages, and gas stations. 39 U5 85 follows one of the oldest transportation routes in Colorado. Fur traders used the route, establishing Fort 40 Vasquez (adjacent to what is now Platteville) in 1835. In 1867, the Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company 4i was established to connect Denver with Cheyenne, Wyoming. Construction of the railway began in 1868, and the 41 first train from Cheyenne to Denver ran In June 1870. In 1880, the railroad merged with the UPRR, which continues 4, to operate the line today. Multiple segments of the Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/UPRR have n4 been determined eligible as contributing elements to a linear railroad corridor. Segments of the Great Western >r, ii v ai ny /0 /4 COLORADO Department of Trannportauon Railroad, which was accnriated with the sugar beet industry and enters the study area at Eaton, have also been determined eligible. US 85 was one of the original US Highways established in Colorado In the 1920s and parallels the railroad for most of the route between Denver and Cheyenne. In the mid -20n' century, bypasses were constructed in many of the communities to direct highway traffic along the outskirts of towns rather than through the town centers. US 85 has been included in several previous cultural resource surveys. Several segments have been determined eligible as contributing elements to a linear highway corridor determined eligible for its association with the development of a national highway network, its agricultural setting connecting agricultural towns, and its role in the development of Weld County. Agriculture -Related Resources Agriculture -related resources within the study area Include farms, ranches, irrigation systems, and agricultural shipping, processing, and storage facilities. Although not currently identified, there is a high potential for agricultural Rural Historic Landscape Districts. An MPS has been prepared for agricultural resources in Weld County. The Historic Farms and Ranches of Weld County MPS provides a historic context for the development of agriculture in the county and guidelines for assessing the eligibility of resources. The success of the region's agricultural economy has been due to the development of an extensive irrigation system. Segments of several ditches within the study area have been determined eligible for the NRHP: Fulton Ditch, Latham Ditch, Platteville Ditch, Cache La Poudre Canal/Greeley Canal No. 2/Union Colony Canal, Greeley Canal No. 3, and Larimer-Weld Canal/Eaton Ditch/Eaton Canal. Examination of USGS topographic maps identified additional ditches within the study area that do not appear to have been previously evaluated, including the Pierce Lateral, the Greeley Ditch, the Western Mutual Ditch, and the Union Ditch. Three farms in the study area have been designated as Centennial Farms: the William Story McElroy Farm, the Roland Miller Farm, and the Barbara N. Gustafson Farm. The Centennial Farm designation recognizes working farms and ranches that have remained in the same family for 100 years or more. These farms could be eligible for National or State Register designation, but no official determinations of eligibility have been made. Community -Related Resources Community -related historic resources within the study area include residences, commercial buildings, municipal buildings, schools, and churches in the incorporated and unincorporated communities. Incorporation dates of cities and towns provide information about the history of the region, key development periods, and the period of resources likely to be present. Incorporated communities located within the study area include: 2i, ► Brighton (incorporated 1887) // r Fort Lupton (incorporated 1890) 28 ► Platteville (incorporated 1876) 29 ► Gilcrest (incorporated 1912) LaSalle (incorporated 1910) ► Evans (incorporated 1885) • Greeley (incorporated 1886) ► Garden City (incorporated1938) ► Eaton (incorporated 1892) ► Ault (incorporated 1904) • Pierce (incorporated 1918) ► Nunn (incorporated 1908) Unincorporated communities include Henderson and Lucerne. Table 5.2 summarizes all resources within the study area previously designated or determined eligible for listing. r Page 5-4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 5.2 Resources Within the Study Area Previously Designated or Determined 7 Eligible for Listing SAM.65 First Presbyterian Church Brighton 14714 Avenue Listed on Stele Register 5AM 133 Pleasant Plains School Brighton 144" Avenue end Potomac SL Officially eligible for National Register 5AM.260 Residence Brighton 142 4" Avenue Officially e6gale fa National Register 5AM.30 Greet Western Sugar Facto5AM Brighton 601 Main Street Officially eligible for National Register 82 Wehmten's Garage Brighton 5 1• Avenue Officially eligible for National Register SAM.134 Wolpert Cemetery Brighton 124n Avenue and US 85 Field eligible for National Register 5AM 33 Brighton Depot Brighton 269 Bridge Street Field eligible for National Register 5AM.89 Gordon Hotel Brighton 236-244 Bridge Street held eligible for National Register 5AM 94 Leffngwell Building Brighton 8 Main Street Field eligible for National Register SAM 106 �nklodge/Farmers Slate Brighton 101 Mein Street Field eligible for National Register 5WL 4756 Fort Lupton High School Fort Lupton 201 McKinley Avenue Officially eligible for State Register 5WL 4757 Branded Creamery Fort Lupton 511 McKinley Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL.814 Fort Vesqura Trading Post Platteville 13412 US 85 Listed on National Register 5WL 1637 Daniel Dennison House Platteville 800 Main Street Officrety eligible for National Register 5WL6902 Ci nreyndt Implement Gilaest 1001 Ash Avenue OfficiaRy eligible for National Register 5WL1251 First Baptist Church Greeley 10" Avenue at 11" Street Listed on National Register 5WL 1768 (Aemer House Greeley 1403 10" Avenue Listed on National Register 5WL.2572 Greeley Jr High School Greeley 811 15" Street Listed on National Register 5WL 2575 NeteetornMeed House Greeley 1303 9" Avenue Listed on National Register ' For resources without street addressesapproximate locations are given using the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Sectionrownstvp, and Range V V COLORADO Departmmltet Tram privation milName Loader MOMS r 5WL2573 Greeley Tribune Building Greeley 718 8^ Street Listed on National Register 511& .315 GreeleyHigh School and Grade School Greeley 1015 r Street Listed on National Register 566 C ken House/Meeker N5WL Museum Greeley 1324 9- Avenue Listed on Notarial Register 51/& 567 Weld County Courthouse Greeley 901 9" Avenue Listed on National Register 5WL4159 Greeley Masonic Temple Greeley 82910" Avenue Listed on National Register SWL.764 Greeley Union Pacific Railroad Depot Greeley 7" Avenue and 8- Street Listed on National Register SWL5852 roeiey Dovmtawn Historic G Dietrici Greeley Bounded by 8'" Street 8" Avenue 9'^ Street. and 9" Avenue Listed on National Register 5WL 5840 usa CU:4m. Student Union Greeley University of Northern Colorado Campus Central Campus Listed on National Register 5WL 2883 University of Northern Colorado Central Campus Residential District Greeley University of Northern Colorado Campus Central Campus Listed on State Register 9M...6179 Carter Lbrary/Caner Hall Greeley University of Northern Colorado Campus Central Campus Officially elmgble for National Register 5WL 663 East Ward School Greeley 11c" Street and 5'^ Avenue Officially eligible for National Register 5WL2261 Oak and Adams House Greeley 9305" Street Officially eligible for National Register 5W1..6321 Residence Greeley 10135" Street Officially eligible for National Register 5WL 6348 Balcom House Greeley 1201 10" Street Officially eligible for National Register 5WL5864 Bishop Ha se/Newman Residence Greeley 17316" Avenue Officially eligible for National Register 5WL2263 Duff Baker House Greeley 9236" Street Officially eligible for National Register 5WL 2571 Canfield Court Building Greeley 615-8318" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL2576 New Cache la Poudre Irrigating 8 Reservoir Company Greeley 7068" Street Fed eligible for National Register Page 5•S US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study - Status 5WL 2578 St Peter's Catholic Church Greeley 915 12" Street Field eligible for National Register 5WL 2579 SI Paul's Congregational Church Greeley 1201 4" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL 2580 Weld County Garage 8 Neon Sign Grey 810 10'" Street (resource may have been removed) Field eligible for National Register 5WL 3377 M� anenen House/ Macintosh House Greeley 1324 10" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL 4158 8 D Stanton Residence Greeley 1019 9" Street Field eligible for National Register 5WL 4161 Edwards Chevrolet Greeley 711-723 10" Street Field eligble for National Register 5WL-4359 Jab H Downer House Greeley 2047 8" Avenue Fed eligible for National Register 5WL 4381 Dog N' Suds Dirve-In Greeley 2501 8" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL 4658 Selberg House/Kohl House Greeley 924 20" Street Fold eligible for National Register 5WL 4659 Davis House Greeley 928 20" Street Field eligible for National Register 5WL 4661 Haeieli Ouadrgbx Greeley 813-819 21 • Street Field eligible for National Register 5WL4712 Brass FlousalWdk nson Howe Greeley 927 2? Street Field eligible for National Register 5WL 633 East Ward School Greeley 1028 5" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL.6512 Residence Greeley 415 13' Street Field ehgble for National Register 5WL758 Lincoln ParkiPromise of the Prairie Sculpture Greeley Park bounded by 9" and 10" Avenues, 7" and 9" Streets AS *bloke National Register 5WL772 Lemon House Greeley 1203 9" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL928 Old Perk Churci Greeley 803 10" Avenue Field eligible for National Register 5WL4884 A J Eaton House Eaton 207 Elm Street Listed on National Register 5WL 5088 First Methodist Episcopal Church of Eaton Eaton 303 Maple Avenue Listed on National Register COLORADO �r 5WL 5296 Goetzel Residence Evans 2611 Idaho Street Officially eligible for National Register 5WL 2772 Ault High School Ault 208 1st Street Listed on State Register 5WL 5026 Ault Pumphouse Ault 420 Grade Avenue Listed on State Register 5WL 6171 Ault Library Ault 107 1+ Street Officially eligible for National Register 5WL 889 Elementary Sch5WL11i59 PierceHighland Pierce 102 2a Street Officially eligible for National Register Nunn Water Tower Nunn Intersection of Logan Avenue end 3° Street Listed on the State Register 5WL 2114 Nunn Municipal Hall Nunn 255 3.° Street Listed on State Register 5WL 68671 US 85 Segment Peckham Vicinity Segment located northeast of Peckham, lust south of WCR 46 in Sections 13 and 14. T4N, R66W Field eligible for National Register 5WL 6867 2 US 85 Segment Nunn Segment located in Nunn, lust south of WCR 100 in Section 33, T9N, R66W Field eligible for National Register 5WL 6867 3 US 85 Segment Nunn Segment located in Nunn between 7` Street and 8" Street in Section 33. T9N, R66W Field eligible for National Register SAIL459.1 Darner Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Henderson Vicinity Segment located between US 85 and the Fulton Ditch south of E 132"° Avenue m Section 25. TtS. R67W Officially eligible for National Register 5AM 459.2 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Peafic Railroad Segment Henderson Vicinity Segment located east of US 85 at intersection with E 120" Avenue in Section 2. T2S, R67W and Section 35, T1S, I187W Officially eligible for National Register 459.15 Pacific DenverSAM Telegraph Company/Union Railway and Peauc Ra*oed Segment Henderson vicinity located east of US 85 at intersection with E 104 Avenue Sections 10 and 15 of T2S, R67W Obaaily eligible for National Register 5AM.459.16 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Hennocion Vicinity Segment located east of US 85 between E INV Avenue and E 96 Avenue in Sections 15 and 16, T2S, R67W Officially eligible for National Register Para 5.6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Sits Number Nose Location Address' Surfs 5WL.1969.34 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment PlattevilleSegment Vicinity located east of US 85 between WCR 34 and WCR 36 in Section 7 of T3N, R66W Officially eligible for National Register WL.1969.38 Denver Pacific Railway end Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Gilcrest Vicinity Segment located northeast of Colo est between WCR 42 and WCR a4 m Section 22. T4N. R66W Officially eligible for National Register 5WL.1969.46 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Nunn Segment located east of US 85 at intersection with WCR 100 m Sections 28 and 33. T9N. R66W Field eligible for National Register 5WL.1969.48 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Nunn Segment located south of Nunn on east side of US 85 between WCR 98 and WCR 94 in Sections 3, 4, and 10 of TBN R66W Officially eligible for National Register SWL.1969.55 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Fort Lupton Segment located east of US 85 lust north of WCR 16 in Section 29, T2N. R66W Officially eligible for National Register 5WL.1969.75 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Pod ham Vicinity Segment located northeast of Peckham, lust south of WCR 46 in Sections 13 and 14 T4N. R66W Field eligible for National Register 5WL.1969.77 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Nunn Vicinity Segment located 2 miles north of Nunn end runs beneath US 85 at milepost 290, lust south of WCR 104 in Sections 20 and 21, T9N, R66W Field eligible for National Register 5WL.1969.79 Denver Pacific Railway and Telegraph Company/Union Pacific Railroad Segment Not Available Not available Field eligible for National Register 5WL 841 Great Western Railroad Eaton to Longmont Historic railroad corridor extends from Eaton to Longmont Officially eligible for National Register 841 12 Railroad Great5WL Segment Eaton Not available Officially eligible for National Register 5WL.841.13 Great Western Railroad Segment Eaton Segment runs roughly parallel to 5' Street through the study area Field eligible for National Register 5AM 460 1 Fulton Ditch Segment Segment located east of US 85 lust south of E 132"t Avenue in Section 25, T1S, R67W Officially eligible for National Register Henderson V Vicinity *WV COLORADO CO Department of : Tran.rpertnurn 94W Number Mass Location Addis t Stabs 5AM 460 2 Fulton Ditch Segment Henderson VicinityE Segment located west of US 85, intersecting with 120" Avenue in Section 35. T1S, 67W and Section 2, T2S. R67W Officially eligible for National Register 5WL1568.3 Latham Ditch Segment Evans Vicinity Segment crosses US 85 south of Evans and north of intersection of Hwy 394 and WCR 52 in Sections 29 and 30 T5N, R65W Officially eligible for National Register 5WL 2184 3 Platteville Ditch Segment Fort Lupton Vicinity Field eligible for National Register Segment located north of Fort Lupton on the west side of US 85 lust south of WCR 18 in Section 30, T2N, R66W 5WL 842 Cache La Poudra CanaVGreeley Canal No 2Nnron Colorado Canal Windsor and Greeley V amity Runs from 3 miles northwest of Windsor and 3 miles north of Greeley to east of Greeley Officially eligible la National Register 5WL 843 Greeley Canal No 3 Greeley The ditch extends from west of 710 Avenue to south of the Weld County Airport at Fern Avenue Within the study area, the ditch crosses Business US 85/8' Avenue between 16" Street and 17" Street Crosses US 85 between 26' Street and 27" Street Officially eligible for National Register OWL 843.13 Greeley Canal No 3 Segment ley Segment located near the intersection of the US 85 and Field eligible for National Register US 34 bypass in Greeley extending from 2^° Avenue tc 1^ Avenue in Sections 16 and 17 T5N, R65W 5WL 844 LanrnerWeW CanallEaton Ditdt/Eaton Canal Eaton Vicinity Canal extends from Eaton vicinity to Fort Collins vicinity Officially eligible for National Register 5WL 10171 William Story McElroy Farm Greeley 371 1+ Avenue Centennial Farm 511111244 Roland Miller Farm Platteville 12821 WCR 25 1/2 Centennial Farm 5WL.2077 Barbara N Gustafson Farm Eaton 36800 WCR 37 Centennial Farm SAM 1238 Damson FarnVBromley Farm Brighton 12855 Nome Street Officiallyeligible for State Register • Source COMPASS Colorado Cultural Resource Online Database Bolded sites are within dose proximity to US 85 Refer to Appendix 1, which labels mappable COMPASS database properties within the map book. Page 5-7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.2.3 Areas of Special Consideration 2 The most likely areas of National Register significance are resources that are eligible for listing due to Criterion A 3 for Agriculture, Commerce, Industry, or Transportation and Criterion C for Architecture. Properties associated with 4 the various ethnic groups located in the region may also be eligible under Criterion A for Ethnic Heritage. Potential individually eligible resources include residences, churches, schools, and commercial buildings. Although not 6 currently Identified, there is a high potential for agricultural Rural Historic Landscape Districts, which would be / identified through a comprehensive survey. 8 All the resources listed previously as being designated or determined eligible for designation will need to be taken 9 into consideration during project design. The following previously identified designated or eligible properties are to near the road: ii . Denver Pacific Railway Segments u ► Great Western Railroad Segment (5WL.841.13) 13 ► Latham Ditch Segment (5WL.1568.3) 14 ► Hildenbrandt Implement Company (5WL.6902) 1 ► Greeley Canal No.3 (5WL.843) 16 ► Nunn Water Tower (5WL.1859) i/ ► Wolpert Cemetery (5AM.134) is ► Fort Vasquez Trading Post ISWL.814) 19 ► Barbara N. Gustafson Farm 15WL.2077) 20 ► Roland Miller Farm (5WL.1244) 2t ► Goeuel Residence (5WL.5296) 22 ► Job H. Downer House 15WL.4359) 23 ► A.J. Eaton House 15WL.4884) 24 ► Greeley Downtown Historic District (5WL.5652) r, Resources surveyed more than 10 years ago and determined not eligible should be resurveyed. 26 Most historic resources in the study area will likely fall outside the Area of Potential Effect (APE) (as defined by 22 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) of proposed alternatives; however, the APE wilt be set based 28 on the type of location of improvements and will be consulted on with the SHPO. There is a high concentration of 29 historic commercial and residential properties in close proximity to the highway in most of the communities that it 30 traverses. Community and agricultural development within the study area is dense. A large number of potentially 31 eligible resources not previously assessed will need to be surveyed to determine their eligibility. Greeley also has ii the highest concentration of resources listed on the National and State Registers, or determined eligible for listing. 33 in Eaton, there is a collection of early 20" century commercial buildings that border US 85. Several grain elevator 34 complexes are also near the highway. 3•r Outside the communities, historic farms and ranches line the highway corridor. Road Improvements are likely to 36 have an impact on the farms and ranches immediately adjacent to the highway, but are not likely to have an 3r impact on farms and ranches that do not abut the highway. The Historic Farms and Ranches of Weld County iii National Register MPS will provide guidance in identifying and evaluating historic farm and ranch properties. Jr, Additionally, multiple property documents may be helpful in identifying and evaluating resources in the study area, 4a including "Railroads in Colorado," "Highway Bridges in Colorado," and "Colorado State Roads and Highways" ai(http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/multiple-Droperty-submissions)• Once the alternatives are 42 developed, assessor data should be checked with a field survey and other supplementary research. 43 5.3 Section 4(t) 44 5.3.1 Regulation 45 Section 4(f I of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is a regulation applicable only to projects that receive 49 funds from the US DOT agencies. It is implemented by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through ,n 9 )t, /2 is Is 2r 2c rI COLORADO Department of Transportation the regulation 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774. Under this regulation, the following resources are protected: ► Parks and recreational areas of national, state, or local significance that are both publicly owned and open to the public; ► Historic sites of national, state, or local significance in public or private ownership; and ► Publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are open to the public to the extent that public access does not interfere with the primary purpose of the refuge. 5.3.2 Methodology Section 5.1, Parks and Recreational Resources, and Section 5.2, Historic Resources, are referenced in relation to Section 411) resources. 5.3.3 Existing Conditions Parks and Recreational Facilities The study area includes 51 existing and proposed parks and recreational areas. Most parks and recreational facilities are located within cities and towns. In Adams County, the project includes 23 parks and recreational facilities, and in Weld County, the project contains 28 parks and recreational areas. Six of the facilities are designated open space and appear not to be used for recreational purposes based on desktop review; therefore, these facilities are likely not considered Section 41f) resources. Refer to Section 5.1 for additional information about parks and recreational facilities within the study area. Historic Resources Historic resources within the study area fall into three primary categories: ► Transportation -related ► Agriculture -related ► Community•related Refer to Section 5.2 for additional information about historic properties. Transportation -Related Historic Resources Transportation -related historic resources within the study area include a historic highway corridor, a historic railroad corridor, and roadside facilities such as motels, garages, and gas stations. Agriculture -Related Historic Resources Agriculture -related historic resources within the study area include farms, ranches, irrigation systems, and agricultural shipping, processing, and storage facilities. Although not currently identified, there is a high potential for agricultural Rural Historic Landscape Districts. Weld County has prepared a National Register MPS for agricultural resources within the county. The Historic Farms and Ranches of Weld County MPS provides a historic context for the development of agriculture in the county and guidelines for assessing the eligibility of resources. Community -Related Historic Resources Community -related resources include residences, commercial buildings, municipal buildings, schools, and churches. Table 5.2 summarizes all resources within the study area previously designated or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. Based on the designation and eligibility for listing on the NRHP. the properties in Table 5.2 are defined as Section 4if resources. Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges The study area includes no publicly owned wildlife or waterfowl refuges. Page 5.8 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Parks and Recreational Areas Section 5.1 discusses the methodology for collecting existing and proposed parks and recreational areas. Historic Resources n As described in Section 5.2, two primary datasets were analyzed to identify historic properties within the study area: the identified resource files of History Colorado and assessor data. The History Colorado file search identified properties that have previously been listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places or those determined eligible for listing. In addition, assessor data were obtained for all properties with a listed construction x date of 1970 or earlier. This provides an estimate of the concentration and location of potential historic resources in the study area. Based on the alternatives, the assessor data should be supplemented with a field survey and ie other research. I 1 IC 11, zc J1 There may also be historic resources that are not included in the assessor records, such as: Properties owned by organizations that do not pay taxes, such as municipal facilities Industrial structures such as grain elevators Transportation structures such as bridges and culvert Irrigation features such as ditches The following resources were used to supplement the primary datasets identified above: p Google Earth street view - Identified potentially historic resources located immediately adjacent to the roadway and resources that may not be identified on assessor's data. Historic USGS topographic maps - Provided information about historic road alignments and ditches. Historic context information - Obtained from resources site forms from History Colorado, the Historic Farms and Ranches of Weld County MPS, and the Weld County Historic website Iwww.weldcounty150.org1. Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges z. The following datasets were used to develop a list of wildlife and waterfowl refuges: 14 n JF 1r ► 1 p USGS lands owned or administered by the Federal Government (Nationalatlas.gov) Available aerial photography (Bing Maps and Google Earth) Wilderness. net website (http://www,wlldernels_net/1 A field visit on May 13, 2014 7R 5.3.4 Areas of Special Consideration Parks and Recreational Facilities 3n Approximately 16 existing or proposed parks and recreational facilities are located adjacent to or crossing US 85 in t. the study area. Because these parks and recreational facilities are adjacent to or cross US 85. alternatives are i.: more likely to have an impact on them. Error! Reference source not found.Table 5.1 identifies the 16 parks and 11 recreational facilities located adjacent to or crossing US 85. to Historic Resources The most likely areas of National Register importance are resources that are eligible for listing due to Criterion A tr. for Agriculture, Commerce, Industry, or Transportation and due to Criterion C for Architecture. Refer to 3? Section 5.2 for additional information about eligibility criteria. Properties associated with various ethnic groups 3x located in the region may also be eligible under Criterion A for Ethnic Heritage. to All of the resources listed in Table 5.2 will need to be considered with regard to the Section 4(fi regulation. it Previously identified designated or eligible properties (Section 4(f) resources) located in close proximity to the 41 road include: 1 S 6 t iR ;9 ii z 3 yn ro r) R ► Denver Pacific Railway Segments I. Great Western Railroad Segment (5WL.841.13) ► Latham Ditch Segment 15WL.1568.3) Hildenbrandt Implement Company 15WL.69021 ► Greeley Canal No.3 15WL.843) Nunn Water Tower (5WL.1859) ► Wolpert Cemetery 15MA.134) ► Fort Vasquez Trading Post (5WL.8141 ► Barbara N. Gustafson Farm (5WL.2077) ► Roland Miller Farm I5WL.1244) Goetzel Residence (5WL.5296) ► Job H. Downer House (5WL.4359) ► A.J. Eaton House (5WL.48841 ► Greeley Downtown Historic District (5W1.5652) Resources evaluated more than 10 years ago and determined not eligible should be resurveyed. 5.3.5 Next Steps COLORADO Department of Tranaportatton During alternatives development, the design team will use Section 4(f) resource Information to avoid and minimize use of these resources wherever possible: 1. Potential Section 4(f) properties that could be impacted by proposed alternatives should be evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability. 2. Avoidance and minimization measures considered during the alternatives evaluation will be documented as part of the PEL study process. For Section 4(f) properties located in the area of the improvements, it will be necessary to determine whether the properties would be used during implementation of proposed alternatives. The US 85 PEL study is part of the planning phase for the US 85 corridor and areas of impact have not been defined; therefore, project use of these properties cannot be determined at this time. 5.4 Section 6(1) 8.4.1 Regulation The LWCF Act of 1965 established a federal funding program to assist states in developing outdoor recreation sites. Section 6(f) of the Act prohibits converting property acquired or developed with these funds to a non -recreational purpose without the approval of the NPS. Evaluation of Section 611 i properties is completed for the following reasons: ► To preserve the intended use of public funds for land and water conservation; r To comply with CDOT's environmental stewardship policy, which ensures that the statewide transportation system is constructed and maintained in an environmentally responsible, sustainable, and compliant manner; To comply with several legal mandates that pertain to the LWCF and Section 6(f I. Section 6(f) of the Act assures that once an area has been funded with LWCF assistance, it is continually maintained for public recreation use unless the NPS approves a substitute property of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location and of at least equal fair market value. Page 5.9 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.4.2 Methodology The NPS, LWCF, "Detailed List of Grants Grouped by County" dated July 8, 2014. was referenced to identify 3 Section 6(1) properties located in Weld and Adams counties. The Section 6(1) properties identified within the two 4 counties were cross-referenced with Google Earth to identify the Section 6(f ) properties located within the study area. u 5.4.3 Existing Conditions Based on the LWCF List, the following Section 6(f) properties were identified within the study area: Veterans Park (Bnghton), Colorado Park (Brighton), Pearson Park (Fort Lupton), and Fort Lupton School Community Park. Part of v the Poudre River Trail protected by Section 6(f) may be located within the study area. 1u 5.4.4 Areas of Special Consideration 11 1r 13 14 1` 16 lI lb l9 Based on the LWCF List, four Section 6(f) properties were identified within the study area and portions of one property (Poudre River Trail) may be located within the study area. Two of the properties are potentially located adjacent to US 85. Additional Section 6(f I resources may be located within the study area which this preliminary investigation has not identified. Verification with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW I regarding additional Section 6(f) properties and property boundaries within the study area will be required during future NEPA review. 5.4.5 Next Steps For Section 6(f) properties located in the areas of the improvements, alternatives should be designed to avoid a conversion of these properties. If a conversion of land cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to mitigate effects to these properties. 2c COOT, in cooperation with the local government landowner, must identify replacement land of equal value, 21 location, and usefulness before a transfer of property under Section 6(f) can occur, 5.5 Traffic Noise 73 The section identifies noise sensitive receptors within the study area. The potential for noise from vehicles to 24 affect receptors (i.e., properties) near transportation facilities is a consideration in transportation planning. State is and federal transportation agencies (such as COOT or FHWA) have established thresholds for determining noise 26 impacts. When impacts are anticipated to result from a transportation project, mitigation actions for the impacted ii receptors are typically considered as part of project design. Mitigation wilt be an important consideration for the 18 proposed alternatives because traffic noise could have an impact on many properties along US 85. 29 5.5.1 Methodology 30 This assessment was conducted according to the COOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines (COOT, 2013). 3i COOT noise guidelines are consistent with those of FHWA 23 CFR §772 and have been approved by FHWA for use on 32 federal -aid projects in Colorado. Per COOT noise analysis and abatement guidelines, noise sensitive receptors were 33 identified within the study area. The study area for noise is defined as the area contained within a 500 -foot 34 distance in all directions from the edge of travel lanes throughout the length of the US 85 corridor. 35 As shown in the map book (Appendix 1), receiver points were placed in areas of frequent human use (such as 36 backyards, playgrounds, community areas, and porches). When multiple receivers were identified on a single 3r property, such as an apartment complex or a mobile home park, a single receiver point was placed on the map 38 sheet and the estimated number of receivers within the complex was added to the total receiver count. For 39 commercial receivers that did not exhibit an area of frequent human use, a receiver point was placed in the center 40 of the commercial building. In general, if multiple building units were observed on a single parcel, a single receiver 41 point was placed in the area that best represented either an area of frequent human use or the general use of the 41 property. 43 A windshield survey of the US 85 ROW and adjacent properties was conducted on May 13, 2014, to identify 44 potential noise sensitive receptors. Aerial photography was also reviewed to identify and categorize existing land COLORADO Dopanmont of Transportation uses within the 500 -foot radius study area for noise. Because field verification of each parcel was not completed, the quantities for each type of receptor (i.e., residential, school, commercial) reported in this document may vary v slightly from actual conditions. s 5.5.2 Existing Conditions The study area contains many residential neighborhoods, parks, schools, and agricultural and commercial properties. The commercial and industrial development in the southern and central portions from Commerce City to Greeley is denser than that in the northern portion between Eaton and Nunn. The central and northern portions are more agriculturally developed than the southern portion. The northern portion is the least developed in relation to the southern and central portions. Table 5.3 presents the current COOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)- The study area contains many NAC Category B and C receivers between US 85 and 5H 287. The study area also contains several Category E receivers (hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars). No NAC Category A receivers were identified, and NAC Categories D, F, and G areas were not applicable for this assessment. Table 5.3 CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Coon Activity Lea (MI Activity Description A 56 Exterior Lands on which serenity and gwet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of Nose quahbes is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose 8 66 Extenor Residential C 66 Exterior Active sports areas, arnphitneaters, audrtonums, campgrounds, oemetenes, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities. parks, picnic areas places a1 worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms. public or nonprofit institutional structures radio studios, encoding studios, recreational areas, Section 4(f) sites. schools, television studios, trails and trail crossings D 51 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries meo¢al facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms. public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios recording studios, schools, and television studios E 71 Extenor Hotels, motets, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A -D or Category F F NA Agriculture airports, bus yards. emergency services industrial_ logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards retail facilities, ship yards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing G NA Undeveloped lands that are not permitted for development Source COOT 2013 r Leq - A symbol representing the equivalent steady-state sound level wnrch in a stated period of time containing the same acoustic energy as the time -varying sound level during the same time penod Leq(h) is the hourly value of Leq A total of 2,229 residential, 695 commercial, and 41 NAC Category C receivers have been identified in the 500 -foot radius noise study area (Table 5.4). The receptors are described by portions of the study area (southern, central and northern), as well as by city/town within each portion. Page 5.10 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Table 5.4 Number of Noise Sensitive Receptors by Category and Location (�i411� NAC Gtcgory B NAC Category C NAC Category E - Southern Portion Commerce City/Henderson 271 -. Bnghton 547 5 Fort Lupton 200 4 Cent,al Portion Platteville 206 4 53 GI;crest 126 3 35 LaSalle 143 5 51 Evans 113 3 59 Greeley 212 2 143 Northern Portion Eaton 133 None 67 Ault 139 3 49 c,eroe 84 5 12 Nunn 55 2 28 Source Google Earth and Sae Vart (May 13, 2014) Refer to Appendix 1, which labels noise receptors identified in this section. 5.5.3 Areas of Special Consideration Most noise receptors are located within the city and town boundaries. Of the documented noise receptors, over 41 percent (1,2301 has been identified within the southern portion, primarily within Brighton; 39 percent (1,1581 in the central portion: and 19 percent (577) in the northern portion of the study area. This Is primarily due to the large number of residential receptors located in the more -developed areas within the southern and central portions. 5.5.4 Next Steps Once alternatives have been identified, a full traffic noise assessment will be performed during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Design Phase of the improvements according to the most -current CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines. The analysis can be customized based on the scope of improvements, site - specific location of improvements, and noise sensitive receptors present. Mitigation measures for the impacted receptors will be considered based on the alternatives. This is an important consideration based on the extensive number of noise receptors that may be impacted within the study area. For mitigation to be considered, a COLORADO Department of Traneportauon feasibility and reasonableness evaluation must be performed. Reasonableness includes assessment of mitigation benefits and costs. 5.6 Floodways and 100-yearFloodplains Floodplains are the lands on either side of a watercourse that are inundated when a channel exceeds its capacity. The National Flood Insurance Program INFIP) encourages state and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management programs. To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted the 100 -year flood as the base flood for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This section identifies FEMA-mapped floodplains in the U5 85 study area. A 100 -year flood is calculated to be the level of flood water expected to be equaled or exceeded every 100 years on average; thus, it has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year. Changes in the floodplain, such as adding fill material, constructing buildings or bridges, or limiting the natural conveyance of floodwaters, can cause a rise in the 100 -year water surface and can subsequently have an impact on properties not previously anticipated to be affected by a 100 -year storm event. A -Regulatory Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas must be reserved to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height (FEMA, 2014a). Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations, but no floodway has been designated, the community must either review floodplain development case by case to ensure that increases in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate information is available (FEMA, 2014a). r The following regulatory requirements apply to floodplains: Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management (1977), directs federal agencies to "provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains." This ED assists in furthering the NEPA, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (amended), and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. CFR, Title 23 - Highways, Chapter I • FHWA, U.S. DOT, Part 650 - Bridges, Structures, and Hydraulics, prescribes the policies and procedures that FHWA is directed to implement in the location and hydraulic design of highway encroachments on floodplains." CFR, Title 44 - Emergency Management and Assistance, Chapter I - FEMA - contains the basic FEMA policies and procedures to regulate floodplain management and to analyze, identify, and map floodplains for flood insurance purposes. Local governments usually enforce these regulations. For projects within the floodplains, local jurisdictions typically require floodplain development permits. Local governments are responsible for administering floodplain lands within their jurisdictions as part of the land use planning process with assistance from agencies such as the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) for Adams County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for both Adams and Weld counties. 5.6.1 Methodology Two primary datasets were used to identify 100 -year floodplains and Roadways: For Adams County, FEMA digital GIS data For Weld County, FEMA hard copy Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels to identify areas of floodplains and Roadways because FEMA data were not available in GIS format Page 5.11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.6.2 Existing Conditions Floodplains in the study area are located in the jurisdictional boundaries of Brighton in Adams County and Fort Lupton, Greeley, Eaton, Pierce, and Nunn in Weld County. Specifically, the US 85 corridor crosses eleven 100 -year 4 floodplains assnclated with the South Platte River, Second Creek, Third Creek, Cache la Poudre River, Eaton Draw, the Mead Lateral, and Spring Creek and its tributary lTable 5.5 and Figure 5.2). There are also two floodways in e• the study area: the South Platte River Floodway and the Cache la Poudre River Floodway Table 5.51. Table 5.5 Floodways and 100 -year Floodplains Crossing IIS 85 Floodplain ID'Associated rterwry W Notes 6osa Fbedwy FP -1 South Platte River Connects to Inc South Plane River Foodway Located between the Fulton Ditch and O'Brien Canal just north of the US 85 and I-76 sphl l Adams County A None FP 2 Second Creek Connects to the South Platte River Floodway Located just north of the US 85 ante 136" Avenue intersection Adams County A No-.,. FP -3 Connects to the South Plane Third Creek River Floodway Located just south of the US 85 and 144°' Avenue intersection Adams County A None South Platte River Floodplain is par of the South Platte River Floodway Located south of the US 85 and WCR 6South intersection and extends approximatety 2 5 miles along the west side of the US 85 southbound lane Weld County A Platte Rive Floodwey P.5 rand South Platte River Located just north of the US 85 WCR 8 intersection WeCounty/Fort Lupton A South Platte River Floodway FP4 South Platte River Approximate 2 5.mile area of a floodplain that bcrdecs the west side o1 the US 85 southbound lane Part of the South Platte River Floodway Located in Fort Lupton and to the south of the city Weld County/Fon Lupton A South Platte River Floodway FP -7 South Plate Rive South Platte Floodway where the South Platte crosses US 85 Located lust south of Greeley/Evans Weld County/Greeley AfB South Platte River Floodway FP -8 Cache la Poudre Cache is Poudre River Floodway where the Cache La Poudre River crosses US 85 Located in the northeast portion Weld County/Greeley p/B Cachets Poudre Floodway id ro t5 COLORADO Dop, rtmant of li Fbodpfaln ID' Wt a y Notes Local Jurisdiction Flood Zone Floodway of Greeley FP -9 Eaton Draw Connects to me Cache te Padre River Floodway Located on the northern border of Greeley Web County/Greeley NB None FP 10 Mead Lateral Mead Lateral flood zone Located just north of Eaton north of the US 85 and WCR 76 intersection Weld County/Eaton A None FP -?I Spring Creek and Spring Creek Tributarycrosses, Approximate 3 8 -mete area between Pierce end Nunn of floodplain associated with Spring Creek Floodplain crosses US 85 where Spring Creek and then the floodp ern is along the west side of US 85 for approximately 3 5 miles to the north along the Soong Creek Tributary Wed CountyPre ce/ Nunn A None Source FEMA. 2014b. 1982a 1982b. 1982c. 1982d, 1982e. 19821 1979. and 1971 ' For the purpose of thrs project floodplain areas were assigned an identification starting with "FP A = Areas of 100 -year flood, base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined B = Areas between limits of the 100.year flood and 500 -year flood or certain areas subject to 100 -year flooding with average depths less than one (1) toot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile or areas protected by levees from the base flood Because digitized ftoodplain data were not available for this report, only center points of floodptains are marked within the map book in Appendix t. Page 5-12 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study S.6.3 Areas of Special Consideration Construction within the identified floodplains could result in a change in current floodplain and floodway boundaries. Coordination with local jurisdictions, UDFCD, and CWCB should be conducted throughout the design process for potential impacts within floodplains and floodways. Floodplain modeling would likely be required to assess impacts at floodplain crossings and may require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a Letter of Map r• Revision, as well as permitting from local jurisdictions. 5.7 Wetlands and Waters of the US/Surface Water Resources R Water -related resources include lakes, ponds, rivers, draws, ditches, irrigation canals, and waters of the US (WUS) n such as navigable waterways and wetlands. These resources provide many important functions, including irrigation in to support agriculture, recreational opportunities such as fishing and rafting, quality habitat for resident and ii migrating wildlife, filtration of pollutants and sediments, and groundwater recharge. .; The following regulatory requirements apply to water -related resources: 13 14 I 1r, Jx Jn 30 11 37 ti to 1:. ii. (/ Is 4n 4) ► Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) - Establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into navigable waters and provides the statutory basis for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System INPOES) permit program and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into WUS. r Section 404 of the CWA Regulates WUS such as traditional navigable waters and associated wetlands. Impacts to these resources require permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACEI. WUS include traditional navigable waters and their tributaries. An area with an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) but with no flowing water at the time of a field visit may be defined as a WUS. Wetlands that are abutting, or adjacent to, these areas are also under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Wetlands are "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (USACE, 1987). Following recent Supreme Court rulings. the USACE typically does not take jurisdiction over wetlands or waterways that do not flow to navigable waters unless these areas are considered to have a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. USACE has the authority to make jurisdictional determinations. COOT Wetland Regulatory Program Identifies wetland -specific requirements beyond those required by the USACE. COOT requires mitigation for all permanent impacts to wetlands, regardless of USACE jurisdiction (COOT, 2013). This does not include impacts to open water areas. COOT generally requires mitigation for all wetland impacts at a 1:1 ratio. In addition, CDOT requires an assessment of wetland function for projects with impacts greater than 0.1 acre to wetlands. ► Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Parts 141-143) - Protects public health by regulating the nations public drinking water supply and protecting drinking water and its sources. CDOT is a stakeholder in the Colorado Source Water Assessment and Protection program mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. ► Erosion and Sediment Control on Highway Construction Projects (25 CFR 650 Subpart B) - Establishes that all highways funded in whole or in part by FHWA must be designed, constructed, and operated according to standards that will minimize erosion and sediment damage to the highway and adjacent properties and abate pollution of surface and groundwater resources. ► Colorado Water Quality Control Act (Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS] Title 25, Article 8) • Protects and maximizes the beneficial uses of state waters and regulates water quality. COLORADO CO Dnpanmont at Trannporlafion U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated authority for enforcement of the CWA and Safe Drinking Water Act to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE I. Under this authority, the Colorado Water Quality Control Act was passed and the Water Quality Control Commission was created to promulgate the regulations to be implemented by CDPHE that keep Colorado in compliance with the CWA. Based on requirements promulgated under Section 402 of the CWA, the Water Quality Control Commission has implemented Regulation 61 identifying CDOT as a regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). By definition, a separate storm sewer system consists of a storm drainage system but also includes ditches, gutters, or other similar means of collecting and conveying stormwater runoff that do not connect with a wastewater collection system or wastewater treatment facility. 5.7.1 Methodology The following mapped data sources were used to assess the study area: COOT surface water data (for example, stream, lakes, etc.) (COOT, 20141 Streams from the National Hydrology Dataset INHDI (USGS, 19991 r Delineated wetlands mapped for the 1.25 North EIS Project (North 1.25 EIS, 2011) ► Adams County GIS ditch layer (Adams County. 20141 Current available aerial photography, such as Bing Maps and Google Earth ,o In addition, a windshield survey of the US 85 ROW and adjacent properties was conducted on May 13. 2014. ii Except for ditches, this report does not evaluate the storm drainage system. Page 5.13 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 5.2 Floodplains Intersecting US 85 Within the Study Area WCR 100 WCR 80 get MILLIKEN An approximate 2.6ande area of ftoodptatn that borders the west side of the US 85 southbound Ian,. Legend_ 6 General Floodplain Area US 85 Roads Railroad �- Rivers/Streams jitt Lakes C ' County Boundary Study Area Approximate 3.8•mile ants of floodp4ln associated with Spring Creek. Floodptain crosses US 85 where Spring Creek crosses, then the floodplain is along the west side of US 85 for approximately 3,5 miles to the north along the prang Creek Tributary. P RCE 85� GREELET TTEVILLE ALT F •56 WCR 8 0 WCR 74 WCR 64 %NM WCR 32 "+.arc WCR 22 BROMLEY LN COLORADO Department of Transportation 4 Miles Page 5-14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.7.2 Existing Conditions Several water -related resources occur within the study area. The 62 -mile US 85 corridor within the study area crosses 46 waterways, including 2 rivers (South Platte and Cache la Poudre rivers), 3 creeks (Second Creek, Third Creek. and Spring Creek), several draws, and many main and lateral irrigation ditches (see stream crossings on Figure 5.3 and Table 5.61. Waterways also parallel US 85, including the South Matte River, which parallels the southern two-thirds of US 85 before crossing it and flowing to the east (Appendix 1). In several locations, between Brighton and Fort Lupton. north of Fort Lupton, and near Platteville, the South Platte River is located in close proximity to US 85 and influences the habitats within the study area. Several waterbodies, such as lakes and ponds, are also located in close proximity to US 85. These waterbodies are generally located within the southern half of the study area (adjacent to the South Platte River) and are likely associated with past or current gravel mining operations. The few waterbodies located in the central and northern portions of the study area appear to be water retention ponds associated with agricultural activities. Several waterways and waterbodies in the study area support wetlands and wetland vegetation. Most potential wetlands occur in the southern two-thirds of the study area. likely due to the presence and influence of the South Platte River. Refer to Appendix 1, which labels water resources identified in this section in the map book. Table 5.6 Waterways Crossing US 85 Walaraiay Typo Waterasy Nuns Description of Waterway at Crossing _t Map Sheet Number Appendix 1 Creek Second Creek Located between Commerce City arc Engnlon At tn•e time of the wixdsr,lea survey the creek had ro surface flow The creek has been highly modified in the past likely by agncultural activities 10 Creek Third Creek Bnghton At 11 Located between Commerce City end the time of the windshield survey. the creek had some surface water The creek supports wetland vegetation but has been modified in the past likely by transportation and agricultural activities River South Platte River Located between LaSalle end Evans Wide river with shallow and fairly natural banks The river has a wide ripenan corridor composed of a dense overstory of cottonwoods, sparse undersbry of willow shrubs. and dense grasses and forts 67 River Cache la Poudre River Located in northeast Greeley Fairly narrow and channelled river with steep banks reinforced with romp The nver has a narrow npanan corridor composed of non native elm trees and few shrubs 75 Creek Spring Creek Located north of Pierce At the time of the windshield survey. the Creek had no surface flow The creek has been modified in the past, likely by agncultural activities 103 Draws Five unnamed and Eaton Draw Several draws cross US 85, four in the southern half and two in the northern had of the study area Most draws did not have surface !tow at the time of the windshield survey Several draws support wetland vegetation and npanan trees Two seem to be remnant oxbows of the South Platte River Numerous Ditches Numerous Ditches scattered within the study area Most arc irrigation ditches, either large canals conveying a large volume of water. lateral ditches, or small irrigation water return ditches Many larger itches were flowing at the time of the windshield survey and had vegetation growing on the banks Many smatter ditches were lined with concrete and have no opportunity for vegetation growth Numerous to II t7 lq 0 5.7.3 Areas of Special Consideration COLORADO Department of Tran'tportatton Largely a result of the presence of the South Platte River, the southern and central portions of the study area z include a greater number of waterways, waterbodies, and associated wetlands. The northern portion of the study 3 area includes mostly irrigation ditches and canals, which are highly managed and do not tend to support wetlands. 5.7.4 Next Steps s After alternatives are developed, wetland delineations will be completed in the areas that could be impacted by project -related activities. Wetland delineations should be completed in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987), and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.01 IUSACE, 2010). Depending on the size of impacts to wetlands, wetlands may need to be assessed using CDOTs Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) method. The FACWet method considers three main variables: buffer and landscape context, hydrology, and abiotic and biotic characteristics. It is intended to help rate the functioning and condition of wetlands during the Section 404 permitting process, before a mitigation action, or after its 3 completion. 34 C, 3h Y. a 1 1 4 5 Due to their importance, alternatives should avoid and minimize impacts to water -related resources, to the extent practicable. specifically WUS, including wetlands. If avoidance is not feasible, best management practices (BMPs) should be implemented to reduce direct and indirect impacts to these resources. Impacts to WUS, Including wetlands, will be permitted under a USACE Section 404 Nationwide or Individual permit, depending on project size and scope. USACE has the authority to make final determinations regarding jurisdiction, permitting, and mitigation. In compliance with CDOT's MS4 permit, construction projects that disturb one acre or greater or are part of a larger common plan of development require a Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Construction Stormwater Permit from the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) and a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMPI. The SWMP is prepared in the final design phase of a project submitting the CDPS construction permit application to the WQCD at least 30 days before construction. Page 5.15 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 5.3 US 85 Stream Crossings Within the Study Area COLORADO Department of Transportation WCR 100 Ctsab i Fit €1 WCR 90 4t Fr- MILIJKEN Legend 6 River 6 Creek/Draw • Ddch/Drainage US 85 Roads Railroad �--- Rivers/Streams ,4 Lakes L.County Boundary Q Study Area WCR 54 WCR 74 WCR 64 I. aortaWOW LLE,,. WCR 44 A WCR 92 'bee WCR 22 rBASELINERD- � Weld d"ooCosa. nty BRIGHTON __ BROMLEYLN DENVER r ,-J NORTH 0 2 4 Page 5-16 an US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5.8 Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species This section summarizes the natural resources and habitats within the study area as they relate to special status species and general wildlife. Special status species include federally and state designated wildlife and plant species, as well as species that are specifically protected by a regulation or policy. General wildlife Include species that are not specifically protected but constitute an important part of the natural environment in the study area. The following federal and state regulations or policies protect certain natural resources: ► The United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) - Protects federally listed plant and animal species with the goal of ensuring their long-term survival. ► The Colorado Non -game, Endangered, and Threatened Species Conservation Act • Provides some protection within the state for listed species and establishes the state's intent to protect endangered. threatened, or rare species. ► CDOT 2009 Impacted Black -tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) (Prairie Dog) Policy - Based on any municipal and agency policy, the most stringent policy for a given area must be followed. In CDOT ROW, the applicable policies that will be followed are the 2009 CDOT Impacted Black -tailed Prairie Dog Policy ICDOT, 2009) and the Black -tailed Prairie Dog Relocation Guidelines (CDOT, 2002). ► The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act - Protects migratory birds, nests, and nesting activities that have the potential to be disrupted or destroyed during vegetation clearing, earth -moving, bridge demolition, and other construction activities. ► Colorado Senate Bill 40 (SB 40) - Requires slate agencies to obtain certification from CPW when the applying agency plans construction in any stream, stream bank, or tributary. Noxious Weeds - Protects habitat from plant species determined to be "noxious." The Colorado Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Act of 2003 (CRS 35-5.101; CRS 35-5.5.101: EO D-006.99) defines and prioritizes management objectives for state -designated noxious weeds. 5.8.1 Methodology A desktop assessment of readily available data for natural resources and habitats was completed. As part of this desktop assessment, the following were reviewed for Adams and Weld counties to compile a list of federally and state listed species with the potential to occur in the study area or to be impacted by alternatives: ► U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serves (USFWS) online Information, Planning, and Conservation IIPaCI decision support system (USFWS, 2014) ► Colorado Natural Heritage Program ICNHP) Tracking List (CNHP, 2014) ► CPW species activity maps (CPW, 2013) ► Existing documents with an analysis area that includes the study area, such as the North 1-25 Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) (ERO, 2011) In addition to the above, a windshield survey was conducted on May 13, 2014, from the US 85 ROW. Specifically. the following were noted during the windshield survey: ► General land use and habitat. ► Suitable habitat for federally and state listed species that have the potential to occur in the study area (that is, species included on the IPaC decision support system and the CNHP Tracking List). ► Riparian habitats, which include trees and shrubs that grow adjacent to or along streams and rivers. These habitats provide important habitat for resident and migrating wildlife. These riparian habitats also have the potential to include trees and shrubs that play an integral role for aquatic species and may, therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of 56 40. ► Migratory bird (including raptor) nests or nesting habitat. • 8.8.2 Existing Conditions General Habitat and Wildlife COLORADO Department of Tranaportatton ai. The study area is developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, agricultural. and residential development. In general, most of the land use is agricultural, except for the areas around the towns and cities. The highly developed and modified nature of the study area has resulted in minimal natural habitats. Although wildlife does nv use modified and altered habitats, the species that would use these areas are common species that are well adapted to human activities. The habitats that wildlife would use most are the riparian corridors associated with the South Platte River and the Cache la Poudre River, located In the southern and central portions of the study area (see riparian habitats in Appendix 1). Several wildlife species, or signs of the species, were observed. These species were mostly birds and are discussed r, in detail in the migratory bird species section below. Other common and human tolerant wildlife, such as mule ▪ deer (Odocoifeus hemionus), coyote (Canis tatrans), and fox (Vulpes vulpes), likely use the study area but were not f- observed during the windshield survey. Special Status Species F Because the study area encompasses altered and modified habitats, only a few special status species have the 4 potential to occur within it. Based on the compiled special status species lists and the habitat observed during the o windshield survey, only the following special status species occur, or have a moderate to high potential to occur, in t the study area (Table 5.7). Table 5.7 Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Status' Notes Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalu $T Based on CPW data 73-! 3' 'ne study area either borders or is within Bald Eagle winter range Both the Sown Plane River and the Cache la Poudre River are designated winter and summer forage areas and winter concentration areas for the Bald Eagle There are several roost sites in the vicinity of the study area, the closest being approximately 0 4 mile west of US 85 (near WCR 22) Several nest sites are coated near the study area. the closest being approximately 0 3 mile west of US 85. in the southern portion of Platteville B ack tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus SC There are several areas with active prairie dog colonies located within and ad acent to the study area (see crane dog habitat in Appendix 1) Prairie dogs are located sporadically along the entire corridor but at a higher concentration in the southern portion of the study area Burrowing Owl 4thene cumcuiana ST Many praise dog colonies were noted in the study area especially in the southern portion Burrowing owls could use these areas for burrows c.obn 5 Meadow Jump.❑q House Zapus htdsonius preWrr 11 Suitable habitat for the species occurs along tie South Platte River and the Cache la Poudre River where the avers cross US 85 The species has been documented in both river drainages upstream of the study area As such, the species has a moderate potential to occur along the two nvers where they cross the highway However, the species is unlikely to occur in the southern portion of the study area because habitat for the species rs marginal The southern 9 3 miles of the study area are located within the block clearance zone for this species For approximately 15 miles north of the block clearance zone, the South Platte River parallels the study area The channelized structure of the South Platte River and the vegetation and habitat that surround the South Platte River along this portion of the study area are very similar to the structure. vegetation. and habitat in the block clearance zone and likely do not contain the habitat required by the species Page 5-17 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Common Name ScMntific Nam: Status' Naha — Colorado Butterfly Plant Gaura neomexicana 'tar coloradensis Fl Suitable habitat for the species own along the South Plane River and the Cache le Poudre River where the rivers cross US 85 The species has been documented in both nver drainages upstream of the study area As such the species has a moderate potential to occur along the two nvers weave they cross the highway However, the speoes is unlikely to occur in the southern portion of the study area because habitat for the spaces is marginal i ne southern 9 3 miles of the study area are located within the block clearance zone for this species For approximately 15 miles north of the block clearance zone, the South Plane River parallels the study area The channeleed structure of the South Platte River and the vegetation and habitat teat surround the South Platte River along this portion of the study area are very similar to the structure, vegetation and habitat in the block clearance zone and likely do not contain the habitat required by the species Ute Ladies' Tresses Orchid Spranthes diluvra6s Ft Suitable habitat for the species occurs along the South Plane River and the Cache la Poudre River where the rivers cross the highway The species has been documented in both river drainages upstream of the study area. As such. the species has a moderate potential to occur along the two nvers where they cross the highway However the species is unlikely to occur in the southern portion of the study area because habitat for the speoes rs marginal The southern 9 3 miles of the study area are located within the block clearance zone for the species For approximately 15 miles north of the block clearance zone, the South Plane River parallels the study area The channelized structure of the South Platte River and the vegetation and habitat teal surround the South Platte River along this portion of the study area are very similar to the structure, vegetation, and habitat in the block clearance zone and likely do not contain the habitat required by the species Source. USFWS. 2004. ERG 2008 t ' Notes FT = tederalty fisted as threatened n SC = state species of concern ST = state listed as threatened ✓ In addition to the species in Table 5.7, the following special status species occur downstream of the study area r along the Platte River and could be impacted by alternatives that result in water depletions to the Platte River or a its tributaries: ,r to t It i; r Interior Least Tern I Sternula ontillorum), federally endangered Pallid Sturgeon lScephirhynchus album federally endangered • Piping Plover ICharadnus melodusl, federally threatened Whooping Crane (Grus amencana), federally endangered • Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthero proeclara), federally threatened t.: Migratory Birds, Including Raptors t, The windshield survey noted the following waterfowl or water birds using the waterbodies in the southern and to central portions of the study area: American White Pelican IPetecanus erythrorhynchos) Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) Double -crested Cormorant IPhalacmcorox auritus) Great Blue Heron lArdea herodios) Mallard Duck (Anus plotyrhynchos) COLORADO Department of Transporuuon Other birds and raptors were also noted, including Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), Black -billed Magpies (Pica hudsonia), and Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni). Three raptor nests were noted within the study area (Appendix 1). In addition to the three raptor nests, several structures and trees in the study area, such as bridges and culverts over rivers and ditches, could provide nesting habitat for MBTA protected birds. SB 40 Resources Several waterways and riparian habitats are located within the study area. Both the South Platte and the Cache la Poudre rivers likely fall under the jurisdiction of SB 40; however, other waterways such as irrigation ditches and creeks may also fall under the jurisdiction of SB 40 (Appendix 1). The primary trees found in the riparian habitats, which improve the habitat and provide bank stabilization, are plains cottonwood trees (Populus dettoides) and coyote willow ISafix exigua) shrubs. Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are opportunistic plant species that easily establish themselves in disturbed areas and areas with few native plant species that provide competition to the weed species. Weeds present are typical of Colorado Front Range roadsides and developed areas. Noxious weeds noted in the study area Included Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusti/olio), cheatgrass (Bromopsis techtorum), and white top (Cardona drabs). Cheatgrass is a common noxious weed in upland areas and along roadsides in the study area. Russian olive and white top are generally found in close proximity to water resources. 5.8.3 Areas of Special Consideration Habitat in the southern and central portions of the study area is dominated by the South Platte River. Therefore, a greater area of riparian habitat, waterways, waterbodies, and associated wetlands makes it more likely to be used by common wildlife. The northern portion of the study area is primarily agricultural, which is highly managed and does not tend to support wildlife habitats. Several active black -tailed prairie dog colonies were noted. Burrowing Owls could use these areas. Structures and vegetation that could provide nesting habitat for birds and raptors are also located within the study area. In addition, the South Platte River and the Cache la Poudre River have suitable habitat for nesting raptors, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Colorado butterfly plant, and Ute ladies' -tresses orchid. 5.8.4 Next Steps Special Status Species Based on proposed alternatives, detailed surveys for suitable habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Colorado butterfly plant, and Ute ladies' -tresses orchid will be conducted during the NEPA/Design Phase of the project in the study area. If suitable habitat for one or more of these species does occur In the study area, species - specific surveys would be required. Depending on the presence of habitat and potential impacts to those habitats, it may be necessary to consult with the USFWS on the proposed alternatives. Water depletions to the South Platte River basin may have an impact on five downstream special status species. To address the effects any depletions will have on federally listed species downstream that depend on the river for their survival. CDOT, as a state agency, is participating in the South Platte Water Related Activities Program. CDOT is cooperating with FHWA, which provides a federal nexus for the project. In response to the need for formal consultation for the water used from the South Platte basin, FHWA has prepared a PBA that will estimate total water usage from 2012 until 2019. The PBA addresses the five species noted previously. The water used for this project should be reported to the USFWS at the year's end after the completion of the project as per the aforementioned consultation. Prairie dog colonies provide suitable habitat for Burrowing Owls, which are a State Species of Concern and protected under the MBTA. Therefore, prairie dog colonies should be mapped to identify potential Burrowing Owl habitat, and Burrowing Owl surveys should be completed before construction activities begin in areas where prairie Page 5-18 J 3 4 F, US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study dog colonies were mapped. Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the CPW Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls (CPW, 20081. Migratory Birds, Including Raptors Based on the alternatives, a more detailed survey to identify and map migratory bird and raptor nest locations will be conducted during the NEPA/Design Phase of the project. Areas with a high potential for nesting, such as large trees or structures conducive to bird nesting, should also be identified and mapped. If noted nests are to be impacted by project -related activities, mitigation measures should be implemented. • SB 40 Resources n After development of the alternatives, SB 40 resources within the study area will be assessed in more detail during in the NEPA/Design Phase of the project. Although the South Platte and Cache la Poudre rivers likely fall under the t 1 jurisdiction of SB 40, other waterways in the area of the alternatives will also be assessed for SB 40 jurisdiction. An LJ SB 40 survey, which includes mapping of SB 40 trees and shrubs, will be conducted along waterways established to I 3 fall under the jurisdiction of SB 40. If these resources are to be impacted by alternative -related activities, a la certification leither Format or Programmatic depending on impacts) would be required. 3 F, 111 Noxious Weeds A noxious weed survey will be completed in the study area during the NEPA/Design Phase of the project. The survey will map noxious weed populations, and, if recommended, based on survey results, an Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan may need to be written. ,c. 5.9 Hazardous Materials 2n J1 2? 23 24 25 JG 21 711 7n 30 3; 32 33 34 3=. Hazardous materials include substances or materials that EPA has determined to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property. Hazardous materials may exist within the study area at facilities that generate, store, or dispose of these substances, or at locations of past releases of these substances. Examples of hazardous materials include asbestos, lead -based paint, heavy metals. dry-cleaning solvents, and petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuels), all of which could be harmful to human health and the environment. Hazardous materials are evaluated and handled according to various state and federal regulations. NEPA. as amended (42 USC 54321 et seq., Public Law 91.190, 83 Stat. 852), mandates that decisions involving federal funds and approvals consider environmental effects from hazardous materials. Other applicable regulations include the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 USC 59601 et seq.), which provides federal authority for the identification, investigation, and cleanup of sites throughout the US that are contaminated with hazardous substances (as specifically designated in the Act) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.), which establishes a framework for the management of both solid and hazardous waste. The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 established a comprehensive regulatory program for underground storage tanks (UST) containing petroleum products and hazardous chemicals regulated under CERCLA. 5.9.1 Methodology 3i, An environmental records search, including federal and state environmental resources, was conducted for the study area. The record search Included a 0.25 -mile radius from the US 85 centerline from the intersection of US 85 3F and 30 1.76 in Commerce City to Nunn, located approximately 60 miles north of the US 85/1.76 Intersection. The record ao search identified the following types of facilities as a result of the database search (Satisfi, 20121: UST facilities Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities RCRA generators Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites n 2 3 4 5 iF 7 COLORADO Depammenl of Transportation • National Priority List (NPLI sites (designated under CERCLA) CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) sites • EPA Brownfields r Landfills A windshield survey, performed on May 13, 2014, and conducted from the US 85 ROW, assessed current land uses and observable site activities associated with properties in the study area adjacent to US 85. During the windshield survey, the properties were assessed for the potential presence of hazardous material, such as: • Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and secondary containment for spill prevention USTs, including fill ports and fueling facilities Disposal of solid waste On -site dumping or landfilling Equipment historically associated with the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) Handling and storage of hazardous materials, such as the presence of 55 -gallon drums or tote containers 5.9.2 Existing Condition The study area is developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential development. The industrial and commercial development in the southern and central portions, from Commerce City north to Greeley, is denser than that in the northern section, which includes Eaton extending north to Nunn. The central and northern sections have more agricultural development in comparison to the southern section. Hazardous material facilities are dispersed throughout the study area and are generally centered on the urban centers. Most facilities identified in the environmental records search and observed during the windshield survey have been identified in the UST and LUST databases. UST and LUST sites are typically associated with petroleum hydrocarbon use and potential releases. Table 5.8 identifies the hazardous material facility types and quantities based on the databases reviewed and observations during the windshield survey. Table 5.8 Hazardous Material Facilities within the Study Area Database'/FacilitiesObservedr I Number within Study Area UST' 3.55 LUST' 184 RCRA Generator' 89 CERCLIS' 7 CERCLIS NFRAP' 4 N%-' 0 EPA Brownfields' 0 Landfills' 11 AST Facilities' 17 Automotive Maintenance 15 Filling Statron (not identified in UST or LUST de abases): 5 'Satrsh FrrstSearch Report 2012 'Sites idenfrfted during the tsindshieid survey that sere not identified in the database search Page 5-19 1P 13 t, 14 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study dog colonies were mapped. Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the CPW Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls (CPW, 2008). Migratory Birds, Including Raptors Based on the alternatives, a more detailed survey to identify and map migratory bird and raptor nest locations will be conducted during the NEPA/Design Phase of the project. Areas with a high potential for nesting, such as large trees or structures conducive to bird nesting, should also be identified and mapped. If noted nests are to be impacted by project -related activities, mitigation measures should be implemented. SB 40 Resources After development of the alternatives, SB 40 resources within the study area will be assessed in more detail during the NEPA/Design Phase of the project. Although the South Platte and Cache la Poudre rivers likely fall under the jurisdiction of SB 40, other waterways in the area of the alternatives will also be assessed for SB 40 jurisdiction. An S8 40 survey, which includes mapping of SB 40 trees and shrubs, will be conducted along waterways established to fall under the jurisdiction of SS 40. If these resources are to be impacted by alternative -related activities, a certification (either Formal or Programmatic depending on impacts) would be required. Noxious Weeds A noxious weed survey will be completed in the study area during the NEPA/Design Phase of the project. The t; survey will map noxious weed populations, and, if recommended, based on survey results, an Integrated Noxious IS Weed Management Plan may need to be written. 5.9 Hazardous Materials ro Hazardous materials include substances or materials that EPA has determined to be capable of posing an 21 unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property. Hazardous materials may exist within the study area at facilities 22 that generate, store, or dispose of these substances, or at locations of past releases of these substances. Examples 23 of hazardous materials include asbestos, lead -based paint, heavy metals, dry-cleaning solvents, and petroleum 2.4 hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuels), all of which could be harmful to human health and the environment. 25 Hazardous materials are evaluated and handled according to various state and federal regulations. NEPA, as its amended (42 USC §4321 et seq., Public Law 91.190, 83 Stat. 852), mandates that decisions involving federal funds 22 and approvals consider environmental effects from hazardous materials. Other applicable regulations include the 28 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) 142 USC §9601 et seq. I, 29 which provides federal authority for the identification, investigation, and cleanup of sites throughout the US that 3c are contaminated with hazardous substances 1as specifically designated in the Act) and the Resource Conservation 3: and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 USC §321 et seq.), which establishes a framework for the management of both 32 solid and hazardous waste. The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 established a 33 comprehensive regulatory program for underground storage tanks (USTI containing petroleum products and 3,3 hazardous chemicals regulated under CERCLA. 15 5.9.1 Methodology 36 An environmental records search, including federal and state environmental resources, was conducted for the 31 study area. The record search included a 0.25 -mile radius from the US 85 centerline from the intersection of US 85 3a and 39 1.76 in Commerce City to Nunn, located approximately 60 miles north of the US 85/1-76 intersection. The record 40 search identified the following types of facilities as a result of the database search (Satisfi, 2012): 4! ► UST facilities 4) 1 Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities 43 ► RCRA generators 44 • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites COLORADO Department of Transportation ► National Priority List INN.) sites (designated under CERCLA) :n ► CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned INFRAP) sites ► EPA Brownfields tt p Landfills 1? A windshield survey, performed on May 13, 2014, and conducted from the US 85 ROW. assessed current land uses in and observable site activities associated with properties in the study area adjacent to US 85. During the windshield survey, the properties were assessed for the potential presence of hazardous material, such as: ► Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and secondary containment for spill prevention 3 ► USTs, including fill ports and fueling facilities >4 ► Disposal of solid waste s ► On -site dumping or landfilling e r Equipment historically associated with the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) Handling and storage of hazardous materials, such as the presence of 55 -gallon drums or tote containers s 5.9.2 Existing Conditions The study area is developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential development. The industrial and commercial development In the southern and central portions, from Commerce City north to Greeley, is denser than that in the northern section, which includes Eaton extending north to Nunn. The central and northern sections have more agricultural development in comparison to the southern section. 3 Hazardous material facilities are dispersed throughout the study area and are generally centered on the urban centers. Most facilities identified in the environmental records search and observed during the windshield survey have been identified in the UST and LUST databases. UST and LUST sites are typically associated with petroleum hydrocarbon use and potential releases. Table 5.8 identifies the hazardous material facility types and quantities based on the databases reviewed and observations during the windshield survey. Table 5.8 Hazardous Material Facilities within the Study Area Database'/Facilities Observed= Number within Study Area UST' 355 LUST' 184 RCRA Generator' 69 CERCLIS' 2 CERCLIS NFRAP' 4 NPL' 0 EPA Brownfield& a Landfills' 11 AST Faaldres' 17 Aulomotr o Maintenance, 15 Filiing Staoon (not identified in UST or LUST databases) • 5 'Setisn FirstSearch Report 2012 i) 'Sites tdenhfied dunng the windshield survey that were not identified in the database search Page 5-19 ;1 13 t4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study The facility locations are described by study area portion (southern, central, and northern) and by city/town within each portion: Southern Portion (Commerce City to Fort Lupton' Commerce City/Henderson: Eleven UST and five closed LUST facilities have been identified in the Commerce City/Henderson area within 0.25 mile of US 85. Three UST facilities and one LUST facility are located adjacent to the east and west of US 85. Three landfills (two historic, one potentially operational) are located between 200 and 500 feet of US 85. Seven RCRA generators were also identified within 0.25 mile of US 85 (varying in distance'. Brighton: Seventy-one UST and 37 (33 of which are closed) LUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mile of US 85 within Brighton. All of the UST/LUST facilities are located east of US 85 and seven facilities are located adjacent to US 85. Four historic landfills are located within 300 feet of US 85; two CERCLIS NFRAP sites are located adjacent to US 85; and 18 RCRA generators (two large quantity generators) are located within 0.25 mile of US 85 (varying in distance). Fort Lupton: Seventeen UST and four closed LUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mite of US 85 within Fort Lupton. Most of the UST/LUST facilities are located east of the roadway except for '6 one. Three of the facilities, including one closed LUST site, are located adjacent to US 85 to the east. US 85 intersects two historic landfills, and seven RCRA generators are located within 0.25 mile (varying in distance) of US 85. Central Portion (Platteville to Greeley) Platteville: Nineteen UST and seven (six closed) LUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mile of US 85 within Platteville. Most facilities are located west of US 85; five of the facilities, including three 17 LUST sites, are located adjacent to US 85. One RCRA Generator was identified within 500 feet of US 85. 13 Gilcrest: Eight UST facilities and one closed LUST facility are located within 0.25 mile of US 85 in Gilcrest. The closed LUST site is located adjacent to US 85. LaSalle: Seventeen UST and 13 (12 closed) LUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mile of 1i, US 85 in LaSalle. Most sites are adjacent to US 85 to the east. Two RCRA generators are located within / 200 feet of US 85. Evans: Nineteen UST and 15 (12 dosed) LUST sites have been identified within 0.25 mile of US 85 in /9 Evans. Five of the facilities, including four LUST sites, are located adjacent to the east and west of US 85. A CERCUS NFRAP site is located adjacent to US 85, and three RCRA generators are located within 0.25 mile. 31 Greeley: One -hundred -sixty UST and 84 178 closed) LUST facilities have been identified within 33 0.25 mile of US 85 in Greeley. The facilities are distributed along both the east and west sides of 34 US 85. Twenty-six of the facilities, including 11 LUST sites are located adjacent to US 85. Two landfills have been identified adjacent to US 85; one is no longer used and one is currently being used as the +6 Greeley Waste Water Treatment Plant. One CERCUS site (Platte Chemical Company) is located 500 feet 3i west of US 85. One CERCUS NFRAP site is located 200 feet east of US 85. Forty-six RCRA generators are ;N located with 0.25 mile of US 85 (varying in distance). Northern Portion (Eaton to Nunn rr 41 aI 44 iC. • • Eaton: Eight UST and four (three closedLUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mile of US 85, all adjacent to the east and west of the roadway, in Eaton. Two RCRA generators are located adjacent to US 85. Ault: Thirteen UST and seven (six closed) LUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mile of US 85 in Ault. Seven of the facilities, including four LUST sites, are located adjacent to the east and west of US 85. Two RCRA generators are located with 600 feet of US 85. u- Pierce: Four UST facilities and one closed LUST facility have been identified within 100 feet from US 85 in Pierce. One RCRA generator is located within 0.25 mile of US 85. 48 Nunn: Five UST and three closed LUST facilities have been identified within 0.25 mile from US 85, 6+ adjacent to the west of the roadway, within Nunn. One RCRA generator is located adjacent to the west of US 85. sn COLORADO Department of Transportation During the windshield survey, multiple automotive maintenance facilities and ASTs adjacent to US 85 were observed but were not included in the databases referenced above. 3 Most of the RCRA generators are Conditionally -Exempt Small Quantity Generators or Small Quantity Generators. •t Only two Large Quality Generators were identified and both are located in Brighton. Railroad cargo can include hazardous materials and petroleum hydrocarbons. The UPRR extends north to south and t generally parallels US 85 for most of the corridor. Unreported releases may be associated with the rail line. In / addition, railroad ties located along the rail line typically contain creosote, a hazardous material. a Groundwater flow within the study area varies throughout the corridor IUSGS, 1969, 1975a -d, 1980, and 1994 a -b). 9 Based on the review of topographic maps, groundwater flow is generally to the northwest in the southern portion of the corridor from Commerce City/Henderson north to Platteville. Groundwater flow is generally to the northeast in Gilcrest and LaSalle. From Evans north to Nunn, groundwater flow is generally to the southeast except in the / northern portion of Greeley where groundwater flow is generally to the northeast. 3 Refer to Appendix 1, which labels hazardous material facilities identified in the record search and during the windshield survey. 5.9.3 Areas of Special Consideration The hazardous material facilities identified in the study area are located mainly within the city and town boundaries along the US 85 corridor. Over 60 percent of the hazardous material facilities (approximately 400 sites) a have been identified within the central portion, primarily within Greeley. Approximately 30 percent of the 9 hazardous material facilities (approximately 190 sites) have been identified within the southern portion, primarily O within Brighton. Two open LUST facilities are located adjacent to US 85 within Eaton and Ault in the northern portion of the corridor. 3 a y The central and northern portions of the study area are considerably developed with agriculture. Land used for agriculture is often associated with pesticide use. Pesticides are hazardous materials that can contaminate soil and groundwater. Given the number of sites, many of which are Immediately adjacent to US 85, there is a high likelihood of encountering hazardous material facilities during construction activities associated with improvements to US 85, especially within the city and town boundaries along the corridor. ., 5.9.4 Next Steps o Environmental contaminants may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities at or near the hazardous material facilities located within the study area. The most fundamental management for hazardous materials is to / avoid activities within contaminated sites, which often is not feasible. After alternatives are developed, a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or COOT Initial Site Assessment will be conducted at site -specific locations a to further evaluate hazardous materials. 3H 4n 31; 5.10 Other Resources Resources including air quality, land use, prime and unique farmland, socioeconomics, environmental justice, visual, archaeological resources, and paleontological resources were not evaluated within this study. This preliminary review of resources mainly consists of readily available data accompanied by limited field survey information. This study focused on resources that have regulatory requirements in addition to NEPA (for example, the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act) and those that are known to be of interest to stakeholders. such as community facilities and noise. Resources not examined in this study will be addressed dunng 1 the NEPA process, which will be initiated once discrete projects and funding have been identified. US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 6.0 CORRIDOR SECTIONS The US 85 PEL study corridor extends approximately 62 miles from the interchange with I-76 on the south to WCR 100 in Nunn on the north. Throughout its length, the corridor takes on various characteristics based on many factors. Because of the length and the various characteristics, the study corridor was broken up into four sections, based on their characteristics, to improve the development, evaluation, and screening of alternatives to ensure that they meet the project purpose and need in a manner that is context sensitive. To section the corridor, the data collected and projected for the Corridor Conditions Report were evaluated to identify where clear changes in characteristics were evident for each data type. The data used to evaluate the sections for break points include: ► Land use ► Average daily traffic ► Daily truck volumes ► High crash locations ► Functional classification ► Railroad crossing distance from US 85 ► Posted speed limits ► Estimated household density growth ► Estimated employment density growth ► Historic, existing, and future traffic volumes ► Existing and 2035 No Action level of service ► US 85 existing and projected vehicle speeds These break points were compared for each data set to identify common or typical locations where characteristics of the corridor change. These common change points were used to break the corridor into four main sections for alternative development, evaluation, and screening. The sections are identified in Figure 6.1, Corridor Sections. 6.1 Section 1 Section 1 extends from the southern boundary, 1.76, to WCR 22, and passes through Commerce City, Brighton, and Fort Lupton. Section 1 is classified as a standard expressway, with all posted speed limits 45 MPH and greater, most commonly posted as 60 or 65 MPH. Section 1 experiences the greatest amount of traffic volumes along the corridor. 6.2 Section 2 Section 2 extends from WCR 22 though Platteville and Gilcrest to LaSalle. Section 2 is classified as an arterial within the city limits of Platteville, Gilcrest, and LaSalle, and either an enhanced expressway or standard expressway outside the city limits. The posted speeds limits in Section 2 are always 45 MPH and greater, most commonly posted as 60 or 65 MPH. 6.3 Section 3 Section 3 extends from LaSalle's southern city limits to SH 392, which is located north or Greeley. Section 3 passes through LaSalle, Evans, Garden City, and Greeley. Section 3 is classified as an arterial from LaSalle's southern city limits to Greeley's northern city limits and is classified as an enhanced expressway from Greeley's northern city limits to SH 392. The posted speeds limits in Section 3 range from 35 MPH to 65 MPH. 6.4 Section 4 COLORADO Department of Transportation Section 4 extends from SH 392 on the south to WCR 100 as its northern boundary. This section passes through the Town of Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn. This section alternates between an E -X, NR -A, and a NR -B. This section has a substantial portion that is a two-lane facility north of Ault. Page 6-1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Figure 6.1. Corridor Sections TTEVILLE Legend Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 MI Section 4 US 85 Roads Railroad ^r — Rivers/Streams Lakes WCR 64 mom WCR 32 4"Int WCR 22 BROMLEY LN 120th AV _ Demist County I COLORADO Department of Transportation NORTH 2 4 Page 6-2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 7.0 REFERENCES Adams County. 2014. Adams County Ditch GIS dataset. Adams County. 2014. Parks and Open Space GIS Data. Adams County, Colorado. Bing Maps. 2014. Bing Maps Aerial and data layers. Accessed July 2014. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002. "Black -tailed Prairie Dog Relocation Guidelines." January. CDOT, 2009. "Impacted Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Policy." January. CDOT. 2013. CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines, Website: http://www.coloradodot.inf o / programs /enlvironmental / noise /quideli nos- policies / f i na l • cdot- noise -guidance- 2013/view. CDOT. 2013. Wetland Program Book. Denver, Colorado. September 2013. Available at http: / /www.coloradodot. i nfo/programs/environmental /wetlands /documents /wetland -program -book CDOT. 2014. Online Transportation Information System (OTISI Data Catalog. Available at http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/Otis/catalog. COMPASS: Colorado Cultural Resource On-line Database. www.historycolorado.org. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2014. CNHP Conservation Status Handbook (Tracking List). http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list.asp, data updated August 29. 2012. Website accessed April 2014. Colorado Parks and Wildlife I{PW ). 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Revised February 2008. CPW. 2013. "CPW Species Activity Mapping Data": fast modified October 29, 2013. Available at http: / /www. arcgis. com/home / item. htmtNid= 190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2014. Open Space. Parks and Trails GIS Data. ERO. 2008. "Ute-Ladies' Tresses Orchid and Colorado Butterfly Plant Block Clearance Zones, Denver Metropolitan Area." Developed for the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. December. Available at http: / /www. fws. qov/mountain-pralrie /species /plants /uteladiestress/ ERO. 2011. Final Programmatic Biological Assessment. North I-25. Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Lorimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation on behalf of Colorado Department of Transportation and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. July. Federal Emergency Management Agency IFEMAI. 1971. Town of Pierce, Colorado, Weld County. Community -Panel No. 080189 0002 B. FEMA. 1979. City of Greeley, Colorado, Weld County, Colorado. Community -Panel No. 080184 0002 B. FEMA. 1982a. Weld County. Colorado Unincorporated Area. Community -Panel No. 080266 0983 C. FEMA. 1982b. Weld County, Colorado Unincorporated Area. Community -Panel No. 080266 0981 C. FEMA. 1982c. weld County, Colorado Unincorporated Area. Community -Panel No. 080266 638 C. FEMA. 1982d. Weld County, Colorado Unincorporated Area. Community -Panel No. 080266 628 C. FEMA. 1982e. Weld County, Colorado Unincorporated Area. Community -Panel No. 080266 486 C. FEMA. 1982f. Weld County, Colorado Unincorporated Area. Community -Panel No. 080266 325 C. COLORADO Department of Transportation FEMA. 2014a. FEMA Floodways. Website: http://www.fema.siov/floodptain-management/floodway. Accessed July 2014. FEMA. 2014b. FEMA GIS Data for Adams County, Colorado. Google Earth. 2014. Google Earth Aerial and data layers. Accessed July. History Colorado. "Multiple Property Submissions." www.hlstorycolorado.org. Land and Water Conservation Fund. 2014. http://lwcfcoalition.orq/. Accessed July 2014. Mehls, Carol Drake and Steven F. Mehls. "Weld County, Colorado Historic Agricultural Context." Western Historical Studies, Inc., 1988. On file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, History Colorado. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMP01. 2014. Open Space, Parks and Trails GIS Data. Pinyon Environmental, Inc. (Pinyoni. 2014. Field Visit. May 2014. Salek, Matthew E. "Colorado Highways: US 85." The Highways of Colorado. /www. mesalek.com /colo/us85. htmI. Satisfi Inc. "First5earch Database Search, 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IUSACE). 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Training Institute, January. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.01. United States Army Corps of Engineers, March. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. "Denver Metropolitan Block Clearance Revision." Ecological Services. Colorado Field Office. May 13. Available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/preble/BLOCK CLEARANCE/Denvertetters.pdf. USFWS. 2014. "IPaC- Information. Planning and Conservation System." http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Website accessed April. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). No Date. Historic USGS Maps. http://www.usgs.gov/. USGS. 1969. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Milliken Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1975a. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Easton Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1975b. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, La Salle Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1975c. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Nunn Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1975d. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Platteville Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1980. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Greely Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1994a. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Brighton Quadrangle. Colorado." USGS. 1994b. "7.5 -Minute Topographic Map, Fort Lupton Quadrangle, Colorado." USGS. 1999. National Hydrology Dataset iNHDI- Available at http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html. Weld County Government. "Weld County Celebrating 150 Years." www.weldcounty150.org. Whitacre. Christine and R. Laurie Simmons. "Historic Farms and Ranches of Weld County Multiple Property Submission." Front Range Research Associates, Inc., 1990. On file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, History Colorado. Page 7.1 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study APPENDIX 1. MAPBOOK COLORADO Department of Transportation P.,., US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Appendix B. FHWA Colorado Division Planning/ Environmental Linkages Questionnaire US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) Study Federal Highway Administration Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire This questionnaire is intended to act as a summary of the Planning process and ease the transition from planning to a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Often, there is no overlap in personnel between the planning and NEPA phases of a project, so consequently much (or all) of the history of decisions made in the planning phase is lost. Different planning processes take projects through analysis at different levels of detail. Without knowing how far, or in how much detail a planning study provided, NEPA project teams are not aware of and may often re -do work that has already been done. This questionnaire is consistent with the 23 CFR 450 (Planning regulations) and other FHWA policy on Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) process. The Planning and Environmental Linkages study (PEL Study) is used in this questionnaire as a generic term to mean any type of planning study conducted at the corridor or subarea level which is more focused than studies at the regional or system planning levels. Many states may use other terminology to define studies of this type and are considered to have the same meaning as a PEL study. At the inception of the PEL study, the study team must decide how the work will later be incorporated into subsequent NEPA efforts. A key consideration is whether the PEL study will meet standards established by NEPA regulations and guidance. One example is the use of terminology consistent with NEPA vocabulary (e.g. purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment, environmental consequences). Instructions: These questions should be used as a guide throughout the planning process, not just answered near completion of the process. When a PEL study is started, this questionnaire will be given to the project team. Some of the basic questions to consider are: "What did you do? ", "What didn't you do?" and "Why? ". When the team submits a PEL study to FHWA for review, the completed questionnaire will he included with the submittal. FHWA will use this questionnaire to assist in determining if an effective PEL process has been applied before NEPA processes are authorized to begin. The questionnaire should be included in the planning document as an executive summary, chapter, or appendix. 1. Background: a. Who is the sponsor of the PEL study? (state DOT, Local Agency, Other) The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) b. What is the name of the PEL study document and other identifying project information (e.g. sub -account or STIP numbers, long-range plan or transportation improvement program years)? US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study CDOT Project Number: NH 0853-088 (18997) September 21. 2010 c. Who was included on the study team (Name and title of agency representatives, consultants, etc.)? Gloria Hice-Idler—CDOT Project Manager Johnny Olson—CDOT Regional Transportation Director Myron Hora—CDOT Regional Planning and Environmental Manager —Former Karen Schneiders—CDOT Local Agency Planning & Environmental Manager Troy Haulsaka—CDOT Region 1 NEPA Program Manager Lindsay Edgar —Planning and Environmental Linkages Manager Chris Fasching—Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU)—Consultant Project Manager Alex Pulley—FHU—Deputy Project Manager Jenny Young—FHU—Public/Agency Involvement Kelly Leadbetter—FHU Public Involvement Dave Italian —FHU --Traffic/Safety Jeanne Sharps—FHU—Design Kevin Hock—FHU—Design Megan Ornelas—FHU—GIS Jim Hanson —Atkins —Traffic Jamie Archambeau—Atkins—Traffic Oliva Brey—Atkins—Traffic Andrew Holton —Atkins —Design Amy Kennedy —Pinyon —Environmental Robyn Kullas—Pinyon—Environmental d. Provide a description of the existing transportation facility within the corridor, including project limits, modes, functional classification, number of lanes, shoulder width, access control and type of surrounding environment (urban vs. rural, residential vs. commercial, etc.) The US 85 corridor is a 62 -mile stretch from Interstate 76 (1-76) to Weld County Road (WCR) 100. The corridor is primarily an Expressway, Major Bypass (E -X) but has sections of Regional Highway (NR -A) and Arterial (NR -B). The southern portion is a 4 -lane facility, and the middle and northern portions are 2 -lane facilities. The intersections are primarily signalized or stop -controlled intersections with two interchanges. The surrounding areas are primarily rural but have some areas of urban. e. Provide a brief chronology of the planning activities (PEL study) including the year(s) the studies were completed. The project was initiated January 2014 and completed April 2017. f. Are there recent, current or near future planning studies or projects in the vicinity? What is the relationship of this project to those studies/projects? The most recent planning study for this corridor was conducted in 1999 and resulted in an Access Control Plan. The North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 2011 addressed Commuter Bus Service and Stations along US 85. September 21, 2010 2. Methodology used: a. What was the scope of the PEL study and the reason for completing it? The objective of the US 85 PEL study is to develop a strategic vision for US 85 that addresses safety, mobility, and access concerns. b. Did you use NEPA-like language? Why or why not? Yes, NEPA-like language was used to streamline the environmental process, for transportation projects along the corridor. c. What were the actual terms used and how did you define them? (Provide examples or list) 1. A Purpose and Need Statement was prepared for the study [refer to Section 1.0 of the US 85 PEL Study] 2. Alternatives Development & Evaluation Designed to allow for use in subsequent NEPA documentation. 3. Recommended Alternative — Used for the alternative selected for analysis and to move forward into NEPA. 4. No Action Alternative — Would leave US 85 as it currently is and would not provide any major infrastructure improvements; however, the No Action Alternative would include safety and maintenance activities that would be required to sustain an operational transportation system. 5. Environmental Consequences — Discusses the impacts on the environmental and cultural resources that would be expected under the Recommended Alternative. 6. Next Steps/Mitigation Strategies — Describes the next steps necessary for the environmental and cultural resources analyzed and mitigation measures that have been identified to address adverse impacts that would be expected with the Recommended Alternative. d. How do you see these terms being used in NEPA documents? These terms will be used in NEPA documents in a similar fashion as they have been used in the PEL study. e. What were the key steps and coordination points in the PEL decision -making process? Who were the decision -makers and who else participated in those key steps? For example, for the corridor vision, the decision was made by state DOT and the local agency, with buy -in from FHWA, the USACE, and USFWS and other resource/regulatory agencies. A Project Management Team (PMT) with CDOT and the consultant team was formed and met monthly over the course of the project. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed and met monthly to bi- monthly. The TAC consisted of staff members from Adams County, Weld County, City of Commerce City, City of Brighton, Town of Fort Lupton, Town of Platteville, Town of Gilcrest, Town of LaSalle, City of Evans, City of Greeley, September 2 I. 2010 Town of Eaton, Town of Ault, Town of Pierce, Town of Nunn, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Denver Regional Council of Governments, FHWA, CDOT Environmental Programs Branch, CDOT Region 4, and CDOT Region 1. An Executive Committee (EC) was also formed consisting of elected officials from the local jurisdictions stated above. This group provided oversight and assisted in direction setting. FHWA was coordinated to determine the reason, for PEL Study and desired outcome, provided comments and feedback on the Purpose and Need, Alternative Evaluation, and Finalization of PEL Document. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Colorado Department of Natural Resources Parks and Wildlife (CPW), and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) were invited to provide input and feedback on the project. f. How should the PEL information be presented in NEPA? The PEL information presented below should be presented in NEPA in a similar fashion as it was used in the PEL study. 3. Agency coordination: a. Provide a synopsis of coordination with federal, tribal, state and local environmental, regulatory and resource agencies. Describe their level of participation and how you coordinated with them. Refer to Section 5.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. b. What transportation agencies (e.g. for adjacent jurisdictions) did you coordinate with or were involved during the PEL study? Refer to Section 5.1 of the US 85 PEL Study. c. What steps will need to be taken with each agency during NEPA scoping? The steps to be taken will depend on the type of future NEPA documentation prepared for the construction projects that will be developed, for the corridor. These steps are outlined in Section 6.1 of the US' 85 PEL Study. 4. Public coordination: a. Provide a synopsis of your coordination efforts with the public and stakeholders. Refer to Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 of. the US 85 PEL Study. September 21. 2010 5. Purpose and Need for the PEL study: a. What was the scope of the PEL study and the reason for completing it? Refer to Section 1.3 and Section 1.4 of the LLS 85 PEL Study. b. Provide the purpose and need statement, or the corridor vision and transportation goals and objectives to realize that vision. Refer to Section 1.3 and Section 1.4 of the US 85 PEL Study. c. What steps will need to be taken during the NEPA process to make this a project - level purpose and need statement? This Purpose and Need statement addresses the US 85 corridor from 1-76 to WCR 100. Depending on the specific project, the Purpose and Need statement may need to be revised to address the specific needs at that location. The individual project elements of the Recommended Alternative should address at least one need identified in Section 1.4 of the US 85 PEL Study. 6. Range of alternatives: Planning teams need to be cautious during the alternative screen process; alternative screening should focus on purpose and need/corridor vision, fatal flaw analysis and possibly mode selection. This may help minimize problems during discussions with resource agencies. Alternatives that have fatal flaws or do not meet the purpose and need/corridor vision cannot be considered viable alternatives, even if they reduce impacts to a particular resource. Detail the range of alternatives considered, screening criteria and screening process, including: a. What types of alternatives were looked at? (Provide a one or two sentence summary and reference document.) Refer to Section 2.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. b. How did you select the screening criteria and screening process? The screening process was applicable to the corridor wide alternatives and is still applicable to the individual project locations. Refer to Section 2.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. c. For alternative(s) that were screened out, briefly summarize the reasons for eliminating the alternative(s). (During the initial screenings, this generally will focus on fatal flaws) Refer to Section 2.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. d. Which alternatives should be brought forward into NEPA and why? The Recommended Alternative should be brought forward into NEPA. Please refer to Section 3.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. In some cases, more than one recommended element should be carried, forward into NEPA. e. Did the public, stakeholders, and agencies have an opportunity to comment during this process? Yes. Please refer to Section 5.2 qf the US 85 PEL Study. September 21. 2010 f. Were there unresolved issues with the public, stakeholders and/or agencies? Overall consensus among the public, stakeholders, and agencies was gained on overall long-term solutions. 7. Planning assumptions and analytical methods: a. What is the forecast year used in the PEL study? 2035 b. What method was used for forecasting traffic volumes? Please refer to Section 2.0 of the US 85 PEL Study and the US 85 Corridor Conditions Report. c. Are the planning assumptions and the corridor vision/purpose and need statement consistent with the long-range transportation plan? Please refer to Section 2.0 of the US 85 PEL Study and the US 85 Corridor Conditions Report. d. What were the future year policy and/or data assumptions used in the transportation planning process related to land use, economic development, transportation costs and network expansion? Please refer to Section 2.0 of the US 85 PEL Study and the US 85 Corridor Conditions Report. 8. Environmental resources (wetlands, cultural, etc.) reviewed. For each resource or group of resources reviewed, provide the following: a. In the PEL study, at what level of detail was the resource reviewed and what was the method of review? A detailed description of the environmental resources analyzed is included in Section 5.0 of the SH 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report, which is included in Appendix A of the US 85 PEL Study, and in Section 4.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. b. Is this resource present in the area and what is the existing environmental condition for this resource? A detailed description of the existing environmental resources analyzed is included in Section 5.0 of the SH 85 PEL Corridor Conditions Report, which is included in Appendix A of the US 85 PEL Study. c. What are the issues that need to be considered during NEPA, including potential resource impacts and potential mitigation requirements (if known)? Please refer to Section 6.0 of the US' 85 PEL Study. d. How will the data provided need to be supplemented during NEPA? Please refer to Section 4.0 and Section 6.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. September 21.2010 9. List environmental resources you are aware of that were not reviewed in the PEL study and why? Indicate whether or not they will need to be reviewed in NEPA and explain why. Please refer to Section 5.0 of the US 85 Corridor Conditions Report and Section 4.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. 10. Were cumulative impacts considered in the PEL study? If yes, provide the information or reference where it can be found. The PEL Study includes an analysis of potential cumulative impacts. Please refer to Section 4.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. 11. Describe any mitigation strategies discussed at the planning level that should be analyzed during NEPA. Please refer to Section 4.0 of the US 85 PEL Study. 12. What needs to be done during NEPA to make information from the PEL study available to the agencies and the public? Are there PEL study products which can be used or provided to agencies or the public during the NEPA scoping process? This PEL study was intended to provide the framework for the long-term implementation of the Recommended Alternative as, funding becomes available and to be used as a resource for future NEPA documentation. 13. Are there any other issues a future project team should be aware of? a. Examples: Controversy, utility problems, access or ROW issues, encroachments into ROW, problematic land owners and/or groups, contact information for stakeholders, special or unique resources in the area, etc. Section 6.0 of the US 85 PEL Study included information regarding the next steps. Specific consideration to the location of the Union Pacific Railroad right -of way should he considered in portions of the corridor. September 21. 2010 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Appendix C. Alternative Screening Matrices COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 1 Development and Evaluation Table US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study US 85 PEL LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION Note: Retained alternatives will not all be appropriate for the entire length of US 85, and some may be a consideration for only short select sections. COLORADO Department of Transportation Alternative Safety Problem: Wilt the alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions crashes? Mobility Problem: Will the alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions crashes? Railroad Proximity Problem: Does the alternative address congestion and safety on US 85 caused by the proximity of the Union Pacific Railroad iUPRRI? Access Problem: Does the alternative remove or improve problematic accesses in order to decrease congestion in the corridor? Alternative Mode Problem Does the alternative address the configuration of US 85 to accommodate the current and future transit infrastructure and enhance bicycle/pedestrian crossings? Summary of Results Additional Comments Functional Class Freeway (F -W I Yes Yes No Yes No Retained Enhanced Expressway (E -X) No Yes No Yes No Retained Standard Expressway (R -A or R-8) No Yes No Yes No Retained Enhanced Arterial (NR -A) No Yes No Yes No Retained Arterial Roadway (NR -B) No Yes No Yes No Retained Main Street (NR -CI No No No No Yes Retained Managed Lanes No Managed Lanes (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition HOV Lanes No Yes No Yes No Retained Toll Lanes No Yes No Yes No Retained HOT Lanes No Yes No Yes No Retained Truck Only Lanes Yes Yes No Yes No Retained General Purpose Lanes No Additional General Purpose Lanes (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition 2 Additional General Purpose Lanes No Yes No Yes No Retained Alignment Current alignment (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Bypass towns No Yes Yes Yes No Retained Retained for consideration within developed areas. Realign US 85 to the east (extended lengths) No No Yes No No Eliminated Moving the roadway to the east would be too close to the planned upgrade to WCR 49 thus negating the benefits of a parallel system. It would also create significant community disruption through removing residential and business accesses, splitting of properties along realigned roadway, and would require substantial improvements to the surrounding transportation system. Realign NB US 85 east of UPRR No No Yes No No Eliminated Alternative would cause the highway to be a more significant barrier by creating a wider swath of southbound, railroad, and northbound traffic needing to be crossed by pedestrians Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Trannportunon Alternative Safety Problem: Will the alternative potentially Improve existing and future conditions crashes? Mobility Problem: W(ll the alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions crashes? Railroad Proximity Problem: Does the alternative address congestion and safety on US 85 caused by the proximity of the Union Pacific Railroad IUPRRI? Access Problem: Does the alternative remove or improve problematic accesses in order to decrease congestion in the corridor? Alternative Problem alternative configuration to current transit and bicycle/pedestrian crossings? Mode Does the address the of US 85 accommodate the and future infrastructure enhance pedestrian Summary of Results Additional Comments and vehicle. This would result in additional safety and capacity Issues with smaller cross -street queue areas between the lanes and railroad. Realign US 85 to the west (short lengths) No Yes Yes Yes No Retained Transit Service No Transit service (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Commuter Rail No No No No Yes Eliminated through current planning horizon (2035) Anticipated ridership does not match the need for Commuter Rail through the current planning horizon (20351; the alternative far exceeds the transit needs in the corridor. The anticipated ridership for this corridor is 62,200 annual riders and comparable commuter rail lines carry 1 to 2 million annual riders. Future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result in situations where this option is viable. Light Rail No No No No Yes Eliminated through current planning horizon (2035) Vehicles are unsuited to long distance trips; unproven technology for this corridor length. Future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result in situations where this option is viable. Bus Rapid Transit No No No No Yes Retained Commuter/Express Bus No Yes No No Yes Retained Expanded Human Service Transit No Yes No No Yes Retained Transit Infrastructure No Transit infrastructure (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Separate transit guideway No No No No Yes Eliminated through current planning horizon (2035) This alternative provides the necessary infrastructure for alternatives like Commuter Rail ad Light Rail, which don't currently meet the needed ridership and/or suitability for longer trips. Future corridor needs beyond 2035 may result In situations where this option is viable. Bus Lane (only if managed lanes in Level 2A) No Yes No No Yes Retained Transit queue jumps No Yes No No Yes Retained Transit signal priority No Yes No No Yes Retained Transit stations/stops/amenities No No No No Yes Retained Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dcpartment of Transportation Alternativepotentially Mobility Problem: Will the Safety Problem: Will alternative the alternative improve potentially p improve existing existing and future and future conditions crashes? conditions crashes? Railroad Proximity Problem: Does the alternative address congestion and safety on US 85 caused by the of the Union Pacific Railroad IUPRR)? Access Problem: Does the alternative remove or improve problematic accesses in order to decrease congestion in the corridor? Alternative Mock Problem Does the alternative address the configuration of US 85 to accommodate the current and future transit infrastructure and enhance and bicycle/pedestrian pedestian crossings? Summary of Results Additional Comments Bicycle / Pedestrian No Additional Bike/Ped facilities (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Bike Lanes No No No No Yes Retained Sidewalks No No No No Yes Retained Sidepath (Shared use path proximate to US 85) No No No No Yes Retained South Platte River trail shared use path No No No No Yes Retained Parallel on -street bike route (local. county rds) Yes Yes No No Yes Retained Enhanced bike/ped crossings No No No No Yes Retained Intersections Modifications No change (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Close access Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Partial closure Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Intersection reconfiguration Yes Yes Yes No No Retained Turn lane additions/extended storage Yes Yes Yes No No Retained Signalization Yes & No Yes Yes No Yes Retained Grade -separated crossing Ino access) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Retained Alternative Mode intersection mprovements No Yes No No Yes Retained Intersection capacity improvements Yes Yes Yes No No Retained Interchange Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Safety -Specific Improvements Shoulders Yes Yes No No No Retained Guard Rail/Cable Rail Yes No No No No Retained Signing Yes Yes No Yes No Retained Railroad Crossing Treatment Upgrade Yes Yes Yes No No Retained Intersection / interchange Configuration No Change (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Junior interchanges Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Diamond Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Page 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Safety Problem: Will the alternative Alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions crashes? Mobility Problem: Will the alternative potentially improve existing and future conditions crashes? Railroad Proximity Problem: Does the alternative address congestion and safety on US 85 caused by the proximity of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)? Alternative Mode Problem Does the alternative address the configuration of US 85 to accommodate the Summary of current and future Results transit infrastructure and enhance bicycle/pedestrian crossings? Additional Comments Access Problem: Does the alternative remove or improve problematic accesses in order to decrease congestion in the corridor? Diverging Diamond (DDI) Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Single Point Urban ISPUII Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Full Cloverleaf Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Partial Cloverleaf Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Fully Directional Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Others (esp. for 85/34) Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Intersection Configuration No Change (No Action) No No No No No Retained Retained to evaluate as baseline condition Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) Yes Yes No No No Retained Channelized Continuous Green Tee intersection Yes Yes No No No Retained Thru-turn intersections Yes Yes No Yes No Retained One-way Quad Signals Yes Yes No Yes No Retained Other ITS No Yes Yes No No Retained TDM No Yes No No No Retained Maintenance Yes Yes No No No Retained Parallel Facilities Yes Yes Yes Yes No Retained Local Street Grid Network Yes Yes No Yes No Retained Page 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 2A Refinement and Evaluation Matrix US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Legend COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 PEL LEVEL 2A DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION MATRICES Existing Conditions Retained Operational Class Section 1: 104th - CR 22 Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A Retained N/A Retained Enhanced Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Standard Expressway Retained Retained Eliminated Eliminated Rural Highway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 2-a: CR 22 - SH 66 Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A Retained N/A Retained Enhanced Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Standard Expressway Retained Eliminated Retained Eliminated Rural Highway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Page 1 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 2-b: SH 66 - CR 32 (Platteville) COLORADO Department of Transportation Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway Retained N/A Retained Retained Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Section 2-c: CR 32 - CR 38 Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities Retained N/A N/A Retained Enhanced Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Standard Expressway Eliminated Retained Retained Eliminated Rural Highway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 2-d: CR 38 - CR 42 (Gilcrest) Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway Retained N/A Retained Retained Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Page 2 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 2-e: CR 42 - 1st Street COLORADO Department of Transportation Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway Retained Retained N/A Retained Standard Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Rural Highway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 3-a: 1st Street - CR 52 (LaSalle) Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway Retained N/A Retained Retained Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Section 3-b: CR 52 - 5th Street (Greeley) Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway Retained N/A Retained Retained Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Page 3 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 3-c: 5th Street - SH 392 COLORADO Department of Transportation Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities Retained N/A Retained Retained Enhanced Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Standard Expressway Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Rural Highway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 4-a: SH 392 - CO Parkway Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway Retained Retained N/A Retained Standard Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Rural Highway Eliminated Eliminated Retained Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 4-b: CO Parkway - CR 76 (Eaton) Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Retained Retained Retained Retained Page 4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 4-c: CR 76 - CR 82 COLORADO Department of Transportation Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway Retained N/A Retained Retained Standard Expressway Retained Retained Retained Retained Rural Highway Eliminated Retained Retained Eliminated Arterial Roadway Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 4-d: CR 82 - CR 84 (Ault) Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan* Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained N/A Retained Retained Main Street Retained Retained Retained Retained Section 4-e: CR 84 - CR 88 Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Cumulative Level 2A Summary Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan* Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway N/A Retained Retained Retained Rural Highway Retained Retained Retained Retained Arterial Roadway Retained Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Page 5 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Section 4-f: CR 88 - CR 90 (Pierce) COLORADO Department of Transportation Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan* Cumulative Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Rural Highway N/A N/A Retained Retained Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Retained Retained Eliminated Eliminated Section 4-g: Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Travel Time Index! LOSS Access Control Plan* Cumulative Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A I N/A Standard Expressway N/A Retained Retained Retained Rural Highway Retained Retained Retained Retained Arterial Roadway Retained Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Main Street Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Section 4-h: Operational Class Title Mobility Safety Access Travel Time Index LOSS Access Control Plan* Cumulative Level 2A Summary Interstate System, Freeway Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A Enhanced Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard Expressway N/A N/A N/A N/A Rural Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A Arterial Roadway Retained Retained Retained Retained Main Street Retained Retained Retained Retained Page 6 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 1�S7 COLORADO T07 Deputnwrt of ttanapurunon Figure Existing Operational Classifications and Future Options (From Level 2A Evaluation) Existing Future Options WCR 100 MILLIKEN GREELEY TTEVILLE OMMERCE GfT► YBU.AVE `.. t'a wn e i Noflon•I Pail Ofa.alantl• ON WCR 74 Nta. WCR 32 `""r - Legend 120th AVE__ L-- done County I WCR 100 Freeway Enhanced Expressway Standard Expressway A1ral Highway Man Street WCR 90 MILLMEN TTEVILLE CE P..n.. Haiimn•I Palle Ora..f.ads Li ON WCR 74 WCR 32 """r WCR 22 BROMLEY LW 104th AYE Page 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Level 2B Evaluation Matrix COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Details of analysis are provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification Lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary* la I-76 to SH 7 No Action Current Classification and Laneage' Standard Expressway Standard Expressway Enhanced Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action 4 6 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Mobility, Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs The four -lane Freeway Option is recommended because best it provides the best mobility and safety with fewer community impacts. The four -lane Freeway Option is recommended because it provides the best balance of Mobility with regards to matching planning level capacity and having an acceptable TTI . The TTI of 1.22 is better than the goal of 1.25 and it is the only option that fully matches the US 85 Access Control Plan. It has the highest reduction in accident rate, making it the best performing option for Safety. It has no problematic railroad crossings. It addresses the need for viable transit service and matches the communities biking and walking needs. The option minimizes environmental impacts, but does have numerous residential and business impacts. Option 1 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Access, Railroad Proximity, and has high community impacts Option 2 Freeway 4 Recommended lb SH 7 to CR 22 No Action Standard Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Laneage' Standard Expressway Enhanced Expressway 4 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Mobility, Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs The Freeway is recommended because it best balances all of the needs. The environmental impacts may be minimized in future steps. The four -lane Freeway is recommended because it best meets the Mobility needs in terms of planning level capacity and has nearly the best TTI. The TTI (1.29) is slightly higher than the goal of 1.25; however, it is estimated that further design refinements can reduce the TO to meet or get closer to 1.25. It best matches the intent of the Access Control Plan and supports the local access goals. It meets the acceptable goal for accident rates, although not as much as the Freeway. The Freeway has fewer problematic railroad crossings than the Enhanced Expressway. Option 1 6 4 Not Recommended. While provides high level of Mobility and Access needs, has the highest level of community impact. Does not match the context of the surrounding areas. Option 2 Freeway Recommended; While does not provide the highest level of Mobility and Access needs, best matches community context. 2a CR 22 to SH 66 (Fort Lupton to Platteville) No Action i Enhanced Expressway Enhanced Expressway Freeway 4 4 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Laneset g Option 1 Recommended (Assuming US 8S realignment or grade -separation (or closure), RIRO is built at problematic RR Intersections The four -lane Enhanced Expressway (Current Classification and Laneage) is recommended for this section because it meets all of the purpose and need Needs and has the fewest environmental impacts. This option has a TTI (1.16) better than the 1.25goal and meets all other Need Criteria. There currently are 6 Problematic Railroad P � crossings, but can be addressed within this classification if US 85 has some grade -separation (or closure) and/or RIRO is built at problematic RR intersections. Not Recommended; Only moderately addresses access considerations and has higher community impacts. Page 1 of 7 US 8S Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Deportment of Transportation Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Details o/ analysis we provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification Lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary` ]b SH 66 to CR 32 (Platteville) No Action Arterial Roadway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Laneage' Arterial Roadway 4 Not Recommended: Does not sufficiently address Mobility. Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs Option 1 p Arterial Roadway 6 Not Recommended, Only moderately address access, safety, and railroad proximity and has higher community impacts The four -lane Standard Expressway is selected for this section because of the options that address the Mobility needs, it matches local land use planning, and provides the best opportunity for alternative modes. This option's TTI (1.82) is higher than the goal of 1.25; however, it is estimated that further design refinements can reduce the TTl to meet or get closer to 1.25. This option improves safety in the section, but does not result in lower than average accident rates. No option analyzed lowers accidents below average. However, focusing improvements at Grand Avenue, the accidents can substantially be lowered. The one problematic railroad crossing at Grand Avenue can be addressed by a grade -separation or Right - in -Right -out at Grand Avenue. Option 2 Standard Expressway 4 Recommended; Best balances Mobility and Alternative Modes Needs, Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity Needs, and Community Context Option 3 Standard Expressway 6 Not Recommended Six lanes provides the highest amount of capacity. but does not match the community context of the surrounding area CR 32 to CR 38 1c (Platteville to Ciilcrest) No Action Enhanced Expressway Enhanced Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Laneage' 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or grade -separation (or closure), RIRO is built at WCR 36 & WCR 38) Not Recommended, Does not address Access Needs and has higher community The four -lane Enhanced Expressway (Current Classification and taneage) is recommended for this section because by incorporating grade -separation of intersections/crossings, the needs can be addressed without creating a higher community disruption and barrier to pedestrians. This option addresses these needs if grade -separation (or closure) and/or RIRO are built at WCR 36 & WCR 38. Option 1 Freeway 4 impacts Page 2 of 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Dreads of analysis are provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary' 2d CR 38 to CR 42 (G ) No Action Arterial Roadway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and.Arterial Laneaget Roadway 4 6 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Mobility, Access, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs The four -lane Standard Expressway option is recommended for this section because it meets the mobility goals in terms of Ill (1.15) and has the lowest accident rate and allows for grade -separations that can improve the problematic railroad crossings and has fewer environmental and community impacts. Additional laneage would result in higher community impacts without gaining appropriate mobility improvements. Option 1 Arterial Roadway Not Recommended; Addition of new lane creates environmental impacts that can likely be avoided with fewer lanes. Option 2 Standard Expressway q Recommended (Assuming some mobility issues and RR grade -separation can be addressed In subsequent steps) Option 3 Standard Expressway 6 Not Recommended; Addition of new lane creates environmental impacts that can likely be avoided with fewer lanes. CR 42 to 1st 2e Street (Gilcrest to LaSalle) No Action Standard Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Lineage Standard Expressway 4 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realigned or grade -separation at RR Intersections & Has ability to minimize business impacts) Not Recommended; Only moderately addresses Railroad Proximity Needs and has higher environmental and community impacts. The four -lane Standard Expressway meets the Mobility, Access, Safety, and Alternative Modes Needs and has the fewest environmental and community impacts. The Railroad Proximity issues can be addressed through the integration of grade -separation at strategic locations that can also reduce community impacts. Option 1 Enhanced Expressway Page 3 of 7 US EIS Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Details of analysis are provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification Lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary' No Action Arterial Roadway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Laneage Arterial Roadway 4 Not Recommended, Does not sufficiently address Mobility, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs 3a 1st Street to CR 52 (LaSalle) Option 1 Arterial Roadway 6 Not Recommended; Only moderately addresses Railroad Proximity Needs and has higher environmental and community impacts The four -lane Standard Expressway option is recommended for this section because it can likely meet the Mobility goal of TTI less than 1.25 and has much fewer community impacts to the downtown area of LaSalle. The six -lane options would result in substantial changes in current business access, which could have a large negative effect on the town. 'Option 2 Standard Expressway 4 Recommended (Assuming additional consideration of mobility and innovative grade separation) The four -lane Standard Expressway allows for innovative grade -separation options that may be able to address the Mobility, Safety. Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes Needs in subsequent steps. Option 3 Standard Expressway 6 Not Recommended; Only moderately addresses Mobility, Access, Railroad Proximity Needs and has higher environmental and community impacts No Action Arterial Roadway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action CR 52 to 5th Current Classification and Laneage Arterial Roadway 4 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Mobility, Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs the four lane. Standard Expressway option is recommended ror this section because it has the lowest ill (1.74) and is the only option that meets the local land use planning, has the lowest accident rate (1.15), and matches the communities' vision for biking 3b Street (Evans/Greeley) Option I Arterial Roadway 6 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Mobility, Access, Safety. Railroad Proximity, and Alternative Modes needs and walking. The problematic railroad crossings can be improved through use of interchanges or grade-separations/closures at the five problematic locations. The other options do not allow for grade -separation and have higher environmental impacts associated with new bridges at the South Platte River and Cache la Poudre Option 2 Standard Expressway 4 (Assuming crossings) Recommended US 85 realignment or grade -separation at some RR Page a of 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Details of analysis are provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification Lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary* 3c 5th Street to SH 392 No Action Enhanced Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action t Current Classification and laneagel Enhanced Expressway 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or grade -separation at some RR crossings) The four -lane Enhanced Expressway (Current Classification and Laneage) is recommended for this section because it allows for grade-separations/closures that will improve Mobility Needs, Safety Needs, and allows for addressing Railroad Proximity Needs. The Freeway option does not meet the intent of the local land use planning and accesses planning. Upgrading the roadway dassification did not provide sufficient Mobility, Safety, and Railroad Proximity to justify the change. Option 1 freeway 4 Not Recommended; Does not address Mobility, Access, and moderately addresses Alternative Modes Needs 4a SH 392 to Colorado Pkwy (Greeley to Eaton) No Action Standard Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and taneage Standard Expressway • 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or grade -separation at some RR crossings) The four -lane Standard Expressway (Current Classification and Laneage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, if the grade -separations and/or closures can address the problematic railroad crossings. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Access, Safety, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification. Option 1 Enhanced Expressway 4 Not Recommended; Classification change/upgrade does not gain Mobility, Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity, or Alternative Modes Needs- Slight increase in crashes. 4b Colorado Pkwy to CR 76 (Eaton) No Action Main Street 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Lineage` Main Street 4 Recommended The four -lane Main Street (Current Classification and Lineage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, even though the predicted TTI (1.34) does not quite meet the TTI goal of 1.25. It meets the Access Need better than they other option. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Access, Safety, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification. Option 1 Arterial Roadway 4 Not Recommended; Only moderately addresses Mobility, Access, and Safety Needs. Has high community impacts by changing character of Downtown. Page 5 of 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department or Tranxportatson Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Details of analysis are provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification Lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary* 4c CR 76 to CR 82 (Eaton to Ault) No Action Standard Expressway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and taneages Standard Expressway 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or grade -separation at some RR crossings) The four -lane Standard Expressway (Current Classification and Laneage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, if the grade -separations and/or closures can address the problematic railroad crossings. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Access. Safety, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification. Option 1 Enhanced Expressway 4 Not Recommended, Classification change/upgrade does not gain Mobility, Access, Safety, Railroad Proximity, or Alternative Modes Needs. Slight increase in crashes. Id CR 82 to CR 84 (Ault) No Action Main Street 4 Retain as No Action _ _ Retain as No Action Current Classification and Lineage' Main Street 4 Not Recommended; Somewhat addresses Mobility and Access Needs The four -lane Arterial Roadway is recommended for this section because it best meets the Mobility and Access Needs, while provides for the opportunity to close/modify intersections to address the Railroad Proximity Needs. Option 1 Arterial Roadway 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or closure at two RR crossings) CR 84 to CR 88 (Ault le to Pierce) No Action Rural Highway Rural Highway 2 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and Laneagei 2 Recommended The two-lane Rural Highway (Current Classification and Laneage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, especially the Access Needs. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Safety, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification. Option 1 Standard Expressway 4 Not Recommended; Does not address Access Needs. Classification change/upgrade does not gain Mobility, Safety, Railroad Proximity, or Alternative Modes Needs. Slight increase in crashes Page 6 of 7 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of TVA naportanon Level 2B Summary* - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Matrix 'Details of analysis are provided on separate sheet Section Description Option Classification Lanes Evaluation Results Evaluation Results Summary* 4f CR 88 to CR 90 (Pierce) No Action Arterial Roadway 4 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and lineage' Arterial Roadway 4 4 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or closure at two RR crossings) The four -lane Arterial Roadway (Current Classification and Lineage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, if US 85 realignment and/or closures can address the problematic railroad crossings. It is the only option that fully addresses the Safety Needs. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Access, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification.Option 1 Standard Expressway Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Access, Safety, and Railroad Proximity. 4g CR 90 to CR 98 (Pierce to Nunn) No Action Rural Highway 2 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and lineage' Rural Highway 2 Recommended (Assuming US 85 realignment or closure at three RR crossings) The two-lane Rural Highway (Current Classification and Laneage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, if US 85 realignment and/or closures can address the problematic railroad crossings. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Access, Safety, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification. Option 1 Standard Expressway 4 Not Recommended; Does not sufficiently address Access, Safety, and Railroad Proximity. 4h CR 98 to CR 100 (Nunn) No Action Arterial Roadway 2 Retain as No Action Retain as No Action Current Classification and lineage' Arterial Roadway 2 Recommended The two-lane Arterial Roadway (Current Classification and lineage) is recommended for this section because it meet all the needs, if US 85 realignment and/or closures can address the problematic railroad crossings. It is the only option that fully addresses the Safety Needs. Upgrading the classification does not provide sufficient additional Mobility, Access, and Alternative Mode Needs benefit to justify a change in classification. Option 1 Main Street 2 Not Recommended; Only moderately addresses safety issues. (1) Based on creating an improved version of the current classification (adding an interchange or two) (2) One Intersection is issue; spot improvements within current classification context may be enough Page 7 of 7 US Pleassop mewl .Y.N,N.r..Y I•!•r ... Level 28 Detailed Evaluation Matrix - Operational Classification and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Y+ ...Vr. Mo. Y•I •••rug• „r•&NaN twooimal 1.4.I,m N.Ar. ,Awr\. r. .., 'w .. r ir Sit .. +..... ...r.l•w�,. • gil.i.glbn. 1. ...w....,....u.4..w.• «M ..r•....• Y... AM.. , r .�.rr.^ -. . . w w Mw.w•.r r ..M1.TNwY..w.....•.� Y MOO. WV . ... w. _ .... .. .. .. .+r.lw... . e......•• ...• Ow ...r..r..•• r•.r.~..w n..•r�..ww YP.Y, so .•w...r...r,r•r•. nw •/f.. N . , - _ _.• .� . •w - Ynwv�• ,y,�..w e...w.r.w.w.rl... w.YOak ... ._.. w.r.,r.Yr..r. .....ins .......Own..I •. .s Min•...-•• a..l,is min. **attain.' ..,.w...,•,..w. L.: » ran « ••••••••••1••••••••••••••• •r+M r,..•.. b..,...+• rw.....w .r w w...r..a,••••b• nr•w••1 •• • an*,.........•............'o.......... line.,.Y.,w...n . ramose I%V r M..,YN r,~ R w •s•.s. . .. •..may .• • • o. �.•� Y ! •I••...."......"••••••••• •. rwYq .l..r.+. N,.aar is ... :.. Pe, ^-wl ....•.,..r._ + 1.................. • o..qw •O. I .. .a w,w. brr..w.,. % . .. _ !•�••l ...........-• ... ,.•.. •• , r 81•4•1•••••••••••••••,...• ••q..•.q•.•.\w..,....•wfwwwrn •.�.. .....� •••wain V.. r...••.tie-r ...• y. wrrw.e.• IMO Oslo. r.,«.,.•...«...W.w r. u..r..�. .. «r n• •.qw.. •...wwJ.•r. •..Y.....1 •Y•<r.Y .•.. <w ^ern r „e, •r••, •�.. Ca ••••.••Y .M••. r., •• _ N. --.•. _. -. .. n• •..n...•,• %. v. le ow }•.Yw.w •I-. u..•• •e.'•n •••.....me. •+.•. woo. .i�••••.11•C•.•1 , ,....11.461.10 Omen 01, .n ...me. In.. • ...n . • go Y.1 •on It w•••••••••+ new IN .... r ...... •s,•.n. a ^ ... - r M. _ .. __. .�..•_. .. .. . .w •r• .- •..nl Y.•w•..• ••••.............10•w.w .w.n.• ..+ -.•..'•q1 ow" Y.. M.w .....•.•.., .... ,r•sw,.,.,IwY.Nq Y. inns- rr.•...n......rn..... -.. iww.N Y..y..w•... e. ea... W• w Y•.. •.a. -......r . . .n •..• .•,M ,. ..........•••••••••• M toner • •.•q �•...•. In -I, e.e agw.r . y r rd•,.'S- I .wgw • is a •O . .. an r%uq..•,•.• • ....%..N•.. r ^ .• !s•�e�•�••.•w.,r r �r`w_ q.r•. ..Il.ww,•.• ,• w •rY•.q. Uq•••� .....r.«..W. . •• nn..rw iw.•w.r.� •ro „IwY.w•iwl M....\Nq •.r•.•. 1•nwi�rr= il •••. •r. r... ...... v • an ., .... . emu•.•..' ,.. •• ...+,.a. ••+ w r• Y_. Y w AY ••••••=1.1. o•..r.w.r•w.w•w.rwN .e..,... I. r is. WO W.. on ��w r...... w ,W.•Y•. w• *teal.... M.Iona err... .n w. •• .. .. llamas -Asa ..w.•M1\YwY. e•..I im n..w.Yw.••..w•... •yeer,.r r .•.. . _ Y.r•�.w NM-,r..s•w• .. own Y.•n.-tn.0 ••.w. .•..I .M�.-• • 1V • ... .. _.... • . ,F. wan.. r�r ..m.. p...•�. • I.• . • •�Y..Sawn.............. .Ywn.YY. ....is ••••••• w.w•••,.Y. p.. -J Y•.. WY•Y4 .I,I.Y N,w.••••................... e.... K•I...... • C. .......I,. w,..••4M ..www .r.N . )• I ••qM•,••.• �ee••• Y.Y ..•.•Y. �• `•rw. .Y. ` N . T•Y • .. ..rwq• nM.w..�.. -n •,•1,.•.I•b••YF._a•. •a.ge ewe••••••0140 YM•••• `W.. ..0 Mva.•n.•rt -• n. s •. •.n. r .. M. M •••••••••••••••••••••••0le OM w.••yr .. • .M •....•M•••• as. ••w• ..r ��•IG•Y Y • •.a•w%. w lla �j •�• r .• yu.q •gwwr. Y•• . . Y.O...Y.- posy •••••••) IlrNne .,Maw enamemnail wawa wp AVal COI 081•00 Level 28 Detailed Evaluation Matrix Operational Claalfcaulon and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation Was sew 4e ',wane •.w. awn, — WWI Ie'el ••• Vas ...al _tro___•e li .4- [1da•1�kW.* •• �... ._ . -. _ - : ..� •.... ... .. . a•+ -...aura..\ awns. haw... we. �.ri-•••• ow, ��'.. • ^^it t• .. � �... - ...... . .. • •..-..-... .�... -_ ..- ..i-Y.• .. w•�• • �.. :•w .-.r WIea .na•a •••.••••J w .JAwn. . .•. • .. w•vwe... n II. Ws .Mw s•••••••• . I n a *W wa 1. wlwwl• •I u... Y. I • WI _ raw I w .r .. n r. .•• n• •w .. •n IIIIN•W` Uwe O•Ibl.w. I.V �•V•WYdeIIII NN!• Sawa Iawe. • . Y . ••• Y.Y(Y.1.•rt... • Ned \ n.OA •w wend wawa Ie n_ Y r Y M taw MasaW -' —^V r Owe. VI WOWIwl• IOSIWWW I. Sew ate wale •400 NSW" NI :r' III wni W at ...mite.. •eI VW a WOW OS .VNYw••••• We IR,Yw.1 R w•••I °Pal .w.wg • • • w• no 1I •••••••MwnNwnM .nn M. Ynw....•wo.•n IA •f .•W Y.•w.• •• n..wrl•.•w1•W. .. m w . • .-.• la laiwiallat easier •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• hi • Me WWI Was • .ca • sera nn Oa T\ u •V Ma nnw..wM.. M. ••••••••••••••.b..•Y•.4Y wallow aline -sisal In•wr.w le•w• r . .. ..� nu•YYns lava I Y.i W. ..I tram. waJW Y. • m � wn• ww.w. •.Iw•... • ..Y yew Nn x.__ In•ew.•ee. agars n•••••••• •w I ••F•• .M .••••••W a ••wane e•.r ••••••••••- Ia.a•w. w w1 .••Y• a•..w -as--aa•.n• •.q•wise omit w•I•. -WS .n .. •. •. IMO IllaWNIOPIK Nona. *W.allOWWIYe Y.4 Bawl •el •I•Il.nl.e•I..W.w•n ..Yn.•Ierl.•We .4.••I veal •.Y.•••••. e. [\ WY II VN.••e Warn 44 w•/ Wow I • • m I ♦ f1. 1.......... -•rrw• ..•••Mnn••al•• • .•YY.YWMM• In m .r. 'r .w.. • .. .. w .r awl rl••�s :awl wawa. en•..n/4M• ..\ 1 amain.• Y.M w.I 'WWII IY.wT..Y.••WY..41 R•s•w•W.miY• a•ra••I•I. We I•n•WMY imeals Imes Wen ...1. illsI !•e.l _ le••.. NnW.1•.r•I . • c..•r•m I w •w m r Waft* I••r Waage NW wawaI IfavA4Yw•• WO al Wan .eeTnY•..l Y••.••II.1 Mara . • .a- • YW •••••••••••••••I- .... W . Iw••we°e'n .w.e•w•e+ IWe.le Ow ••lio Ile Wag. WV air l.e•w• ...sou n.•.•e• a Ina••w Iowa••s••.e•!.4 • w• ww ,� ••• •n •w _f •• .-.... .I e • raw • I�^.I•ryY ...-• -sal IWw•I•• Wm Yrl.wrl r la parIan. •W.a. e.M•••r• le ••••••••• Wall sale.••.ee• a•wWWw••• .►.Y ...eon.. wan. .we. I. e\Y• oil WM. final kW ••••••••••••••L wann '•e.•4.W Ws areas.•• nnn w••I .l Ws area Owl I rai we I•WI n. . nF ll.r. .'I••.W..I.•\•.n ••••••••••••• awn Y..wMMrYY•llw•I fat V •4e '.Ve•llea . I .I ... g WY Isla • •• iwe•••• s.• ',Olga R . in 1 • 519 ..r•Il l wan In •w .n • .. .O."."00. •w Wel a W n.r/•t \n•IMIVww.• •••••••••••••• e•Y Caw ••Vww. Y,Mnn a M! • • •� fa g-1Wets II •••••••••••••••••••••• Na so II ... n la tee• wow. r ton wows.. Y a__ • - .—, ••OSifs iranou•d\ laws •W••• Iw .Y.YII • a a+s..•wwe• Wahl ,�.I 'anal won.* • • .•• ••• w.Y1a I.•a••••••w+.Ae.l Nng. M • •• M aw an In••••Y•y• I Wawa wow. wawa w. dean n v� lbw••••Y.N .•• • i.. k•...... • ' Il.•ea•.y., O4 r4M S. W. anal W •y sw. eM.e�Wwwe.•I ••.•wrw4wvn Y ••• •••• •••••V Y.. • La 1n.. Mani M• .. .•I I.\...IWw.a••dygl Ill�n..w•a wedng! Ins l...,........w.naM. Y •yaw •I. • •1♦ • Ile •.IGD 5 .w twang sane•s a W �Ns...aWw Iw••ee ..•I••. ww•..IYa Ns .......ea 4.ePas ... ww new. �a•wee an• ow wowatV onion yaw ww•r •• •• w. .• ••- Ie•'•lie alai e•r.I•w'. r,.yYOaen Sum w•.•••wa.`n M I Yn•ew salsa •W Yaw... . •n • et le ••••••••••••••••••• w•ew.r •ey iII.YI.I ••..•..•a•e...e•M •• �.ae•• ww . a •••Y Y Wawa •eww•gI as •.w Vw• ls. •••••••ue•.�..I r\,w•••w•r• lanai Wwgl4 WY••WIasm Is% .• Mas•••w•.—d.-r .Yew • WM W II V OSA.N wwa ww I 56 .. ••• • \ •w Of Wawa al . w•••Ww• Yw•w••I • __ .•. ... w _ •w ... .. •- •.... ..... •. .•. -n r .r KAYO sae, •••••••••• e. la awn r aw...nn....wnew here Www• ••w.`.•.••••1. . wn N ..•n•W{ maroon, ee� .w.a•••awe salsa aaannw..11 •r. Owe OM r.e.urnee•e.•, inv.. W.••.. I..nwww.w M wsn Qs? flan . I 4 .•. Samna Iowa 1.. N W b an taw ...••..nwlerr. •Y miss. MI••11• ie••aIN Ilia manta 'WWI wall wafts sewne••. 4•-a• ea flew an aa..mantas fey le air I•••.r•s.••• Wow OW ••••••••• was . OW.MWYY Was 00.N. ••••• ewiea _ en lewow ns laws( Wheal w•••••••• Y Ye•.g awn.. Wanner.. qua ISMS, •V•. •s. anwa wawa we was anal'. *fawn. .ra•II.wwMw •.Yw.wwH... ...OilY awe •.•Me.!•. .•a•I•.• oral wow a wad • waia ww.. .•e•ww. ..Iw Y1•.w "n• Wall . ..Mane ...w• nw•J•.•�. warn... I'/n .W.. �• •. Wan* wows e•4w •w.••wIr Waft watt IWO. Wiwi Y W. romans • ra.�4w�en M Ia• In nnSa•ra11Sussaraiat •a•Y•ntrap M COtaeaoo Level 28 Detailed Evaluation Matrix Operational Claudication and through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation S rag w.r w liars arm•lara Iwbr Deli+ ram nr...-- a.w a. SEO •.Y « - _ tin _ rs*�� w.i lice ...+ _... w ...... _.. __.. ._ ...� .. wary.. 6rWOw'•.rrn 'rata ... ...... •wn.....�.�\'~ aka.... .. .. .... •OM .. ...� OW Ina ,, a-. r • • IM .I.b..•1 .•.•. .[ Par i• Maar a.. roars ^ ars a . .r S .rn..w uwa.•w.w • /Y. ..n./m w '..Y. edam T...w Nw«.• n • 1.r .anew«sena «•y.r• tr....a w^ •••••••• w•n.ww • arr.. .v era.. b....ex.r.• a. L.I n.ru ....4nn...vr...•. •••••••••••••a «.w.rr. : M.• •y _ mow. «s.• :IVwMw.•. ..r .. `..I Ira awl • ..� w ... .. Oral w.. arra n•••w• ISM. ••• Sail ...ere- r ...r ..«i••.w.vNn«.• w • I i'l•••$. •.Y.w.n•w•w .nlwn..A..w ^ w'.'w•w\.'/.r«• ear, wawa row w wpm rr-a•..ar.ww•.0 yaw r•liaw :• Y...w....r.w ae, s r•MrnY -a••••••rr••.rw r hare. Saar antra. N an•reel .. V 4ww• Wan Iwrw r^.• I n .« nowt alt.w'•a ..r Nw. •. la • alt \•r..•Y '+•^w • w.••nr••• Via wr' -.ratan' w.a.•w rasa. Oar n wIr art•^ sat e«.. ra, .•r.••w rata: ra .a., Crary )w ..•.r..•w�ar. ...•u -Mace •••••••••••arr• ^ la rata Irani tar... : ••MI•.r•••aa••a.wr�Y ^ w Yl.r.•r.r...•w•N lira• re rasa a . •a.. Saw«wr•ii..••• r .« • Y eft a tea us Ora. 1w ra ^ ".« _,.race •nw...y.. ..• '.•• rWwa... wren n. am Cara M•...a. a••.Sa. Ida I • ♦ ww Carp r•s••••r r --,«rat«ran r'•�' a•r•r lets •w u a•aer• Marra bean& N � all aa+ane•..Ir IV•Y.ar.•w•• era nay .rn '^ 4rt.•w•b ••••••••••••••••••••• nary. w.•w••^•••wSar• .... r asp) r.erw ••••••••••.• Oral rn•w Y awn„n.. n.r.•..w....wr w rear. f.«. Y • •• uw • ara a rin..d._ .. .. . . n •w. • •••• ••••• �...^.... w. as . tv rarer..^• w a «en sin liter ,. rs"' a..•.r a.... . tin '.. ....tali w.w,wr5 ran•.r.r r...rw mess* - so* real a. Sara • areal ♦ .� r^ IonianIonianwr• II•Y.a. a w^ I^rIream I .. ••aaYar. Saner . . . a n smalls ••• •r 4.w Ceara. .' YwnNS.'Tt •• « .w .....4US ..ri et w na •• aa•.a� Y••nitwbn • r r.•rr a a.r [.r•e�nw.ea••a••rS ya il•an.•YDear : I.rra�r.rw.an••aa w..ww• •• •« n aerr•ba+wrSa.•w.�•r.. ...arrwra '4s ra.nr• r^r. Matt.. r....«« • n.w.Nn+aria•& • _ arras „arras• r.••n)wr.• w •.•.•awe• r .« all l..r••••••r5.q••••••b r r . nu I yam ^orr_ .w raiser 5 as lira. r• . ..• al w«r ♦•I•..wa .. w..rr. •'•r•,wr .a arras --- antra• . ..OS •« r« .. I••...MMa .r ...rn/•••••1� rrarew • il. a.,r••w.r.T, r v.•• (wT D.•.Yw•r .✓a.e.,.ar« '•« MN..••••••a.•N Sr . .. « &rya samara fawn a•\ • err earn. W..b«. • «in .^ Ib.•nasal, r�•MNa Sal vas" aa•.a,YyY I • r4% &.,Sate&4wT w• .w la•w•w.lrlr raw YVYa.•a• ailaira :•racer .r.ww.« .., r nw �«.��.-.. ... .«�...«+.. ar!eawrt�n+•rani^ r.w.r..a.. -_. _• to sr wr raw.., •..•.r•aur aura area .. ^ww^." oral ... w.a a. a yr ., .•a ••na. r a .r .r,. I• r•-• .. a re . Van br.n••.a ^a4a41 ... .. ... .. Ira ... . a..a yS.... %.1 ..yaw tare Carson r ..n w «a ..•••w. .Cal . . wYals.wr• • rrar . .is..• « .W<•.hn•w.•arr.••naaaaS vie IC , .« I aL w.a.w .�_r+.e•.••w1 w. aro Harr raw..v�.a. .« ................ .. .w.«.+..r ..... •^ tea y '.a�a: ^ a••a . atria... V ,anal. • an —'.•.a.r. b f t .w. M war a•w«lice.• « &attar. amuses. raw.+.aY .. Ana ...sae w•e V.-te.. • i .« dee.• neat...... w e.........e•• ..r. •« w I.... ea. r •u •u a'We.a •� ...nifowl . ...w w•^nn^ r . lamer «—a.•Irrs aan aat w sonars an wows.... • IIt Ira. a.w •. « -. altar mar...sas —na.r�r. .. aw•�er rW•n.e•r•Y al •u.... e.-. • .•••a LIMNS,* oat[n.. n rwr.I taYpr AVCOLON: OD Level 28 Detailed Evaluation Matrix - Operational Classillcation and Through Lane Capacity Options and Evaluation r... Less. Cann oroow Marti IsYr. w w w.. Ursa Ulan (mason nrrMn rrt• r--- r- .. ... _ ..... _ -......... .+•••I nom• _y p .-...,.. .�.e. ..-•. - • ., •n.. r...... •_. ..� - - ...- ....... -..... ... -r.. .•... _._ .. _ ..-.- _ • — -. — •.-..^ ._..r +....Iynn~ s Ow.rl r•..+••.•Yr ♦ • ..n n I MMtr Y.T nadir♦•Y• stit .w•rwMl w•sl�•/.1. • r Iltl .I.e•M...O inns Vl .`•IO•• ....YYA..rl '�• n.rInIO...r•r.Wrr• eWon* onto .r rn rw Mwn.rY• ma...uf♦I.MM^r.. u.V••...r M*Yen M+w Enna w..rw •.ww Senn ay •Y..• anon•• •• none L•.••••n I • .a ... rot Ow.. son .w•wrrr Loll• I 1 • O• *OAS •1♦• Y.... .. at r•. .. rn .. .- •aa•wwn =own Crustrefen tad iIr1rW ...•.•wee 1 • -w Y In C. 'P.w•ll M wow in ow •n .n .w lea weave* 4rwl Yw1•r•.w•.r.rn . • Y w•"wn''. a••sr• !SOM.MI •r.Mwn.wV MrYI.•• ..•.w.w.w M 11\ It i • -•noon �.•W.II .' • µ wen %iv -trot Sew,. rnnunn VV.IY.rY across. won• or Yvan. V.r %day nos.* aeons We* loon Seto Yaw. n."am w...Y solemn anon • IIMIMIIwIlwnr .•MYn 4w Ca•IMer w♦Ir_r Owe I lre...Y•v Ian . I • . I Iql. ..r n V on r..np..•na._VwMF••. • 1 w.0•n.•. maroon M rY iv*, in nom ye••.wrner•.w••M. .. ken •eYO U..rr sraY .. •r.w._w•MYw ♦ • • WIS..' • II\ • 110 • II\ 1•.e.n/.I..... I r •..r in no wlwutrnn•wlrl lrs•M� I n •ay. n M..•: - Y'won M♦•nrW.•. 1..•wolr.w. a.wr.y.Iw ....an. ••••••••••a nano awn ♦M Amnon• n. is n.VrreY•w/•WM We notearn • In ow.wanMo me .Ys♦.•Y•• w .. .n .. rw - -. •• - rn IM •.•4s Noon• Yu••ry us•••••••r•••get • s\• %4 1. won.. ...ems 00.140.0.0010 Y.nM.IeI•.r•n•••••Yn•• ttool Prawn dr.•..as. ear.•_ sat r. n.•V i•.o 'e new ...r••••. -.Ins eons err. nat. ln.nae .Iw•.ne••••sin Panel M aroI•w✓n..n cant Y -tar Cr.. Orkinal'wOn .•Y11' M♦ntrat I . I. .n .a darn..w.• r..I.n..wasr of • I .4 .1 .....1.w... w wow w•4.•••I l marl I4•nI•n•m • • boll —n'. lean .n - ... -.• .r ... Y•..r.as.. N__-_ _J 4MY••.. •awl. r 0 r•'• : . LOW,. wl. wran*" rwnoroon.Y.I Ifw 'IMAM I • . so .n . ...u♦.•e•a••••.MI• CY..I McYll I . . No r•rwI.T.1 • I • i♦0 nnw. Art .••♦n•. .+wwr•nIns • Yy none ••w•.r ... r e. s• q•. ••• ••••••••• W.•Ynn.W .• anon 'nano 1 Oa M•. Stain son wew� duns n•.••e •b0 • (ne\.....a Were Mon sten se.Iln..•. anon. tat I♦wr•••in Oran ...1.. Caro ..•.. u.n eon Wenn Inn w... 1 I I . . • I.Yt n ,•• .w ... nt Inn' n.w..•1. Minn dn.•r•^r ♦ I M. r I r ..\ I I.O • IA* I.w.alnw w I I.•Y..IM (J.l_ oo I Msen Is w r ••• . w'"�'•~ �'• •v 4000eon ..n r oar s IWinnows r•wn•I..ww .••••.•I Knot care .n .- .. 9. .. . s.M r.wmontoo..• •• Owe assay n teeny M'• •e•Mlsw lnr.wws r.ww•+l O•.••.•••• Sort Mr• ne.. O.•M•n w massIIW- Inn I ♦0.0 w.II•I.r..r .•S,.~Oaf • ens wrvnr.w... ..wend •••• aneo.Y•w.rs .• �I. n•..Y tinned anon merino — wrowler,. i II Inn a ww I. era.•++.•In donor One* Inn Later ar•.n.II•r•• n -1 .)1.. en ant worn sr owner -en rot an ...•M O..I.wtal w V on.I Menu #111 -II ••M rm..I• n•a••• neutron MISS • •J• US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of Transportation Level 4 Alternative Refinement and Evaluation Matrix US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Drp.ulmcnt of Taansportataon E¢ 3 i SI f i E E b I e 9 Ratan Protecting ModontM trtepond nail: Safety. Mobility. Railroad Po.MMIy. Aeons. co aldrn. tw howl males USES Arson Control m�M. y • S E C t o E 4 4 € E o a' g d 3 g Mobility Atm. Satiety 11.rS e AI.tn.t• Mod• Natant sold Cultural IMbonmvd Conaturey � [ i loraltod Assn. I a E `J T. t i o s E ` Y Si1 d Goat Ow *own 1 E S E E e c $ j fi i s a $ y 1 2 e .a 4 % E E ! Y 1 a • _� i g :e Is Ow wc.raMipn uwnkY/ n•Plor�y In daunt by lit radioed? Do..tM a ..duo n4wd/ road epw.tbni iuu..) t F pp a 1 r i 3 ; 'f WMI•IM paean! lot entwining ..YUry .b planned aeons' remit tones? Ov.th op.wn now tubn.mYl avant to Mtw.I Mvl.Dnm.M end cultural r.•eurt«) Ones in. option fit within its moan o/tit •d1.c.. community? 4� flo.a.M option mmrnpa ROW acquisition roods) What was TM mmmunNt ,wponse to the option? MOW !R Oo.atM ell Mv.• poach. or M(.th. •dat on �h toes IM •t Kayo stainable VJC 11.110) 1©.ai Pobd. gpop,w. at<nst14! •adapts local Wat W pynd114r regional mobility? 1•.0..1 L LL ' .'� IIOC Ave gym Mpblln ecan alternative bMlmoMf murcnan� IN# Pb,hy) ♦wnui twat' was troy^ but • tight d4mprdIX• Sail are no poattaltias No•c0on Noacnon re ()satb. N.: N. No re, 10 Nett Np v.:: Np ,,.yea AWtlI'mfwfn:p Mwtl.rren:ol tracheal ter a.ekrrad Option by Carrera cm Not columns atm lnawV. caseation inle.cMnte / erotic ',Mato, >a rlsf'Pe. Not y.<yNneraad &it 'Cs_ � 6A• yea Modeate rn :9 No rise ttut , n 'wado rod �n wx+ do rot NV. tattoo at renal Matlaaada to • ComM.NI i.V revd.ntW land arts . n•rt{op.n woe (both Section 0 rnovw) •rrail (Seccm e(0 rtlource',tslaiwyy • ratC!WN floodNiur and a�eWa • 8I.c.ullad Paint Meg 'mina( etch potential Iu Durrwnng owls in SW QWCr•nt • Santa' htmat van end • Nb;ortc enter • Oita at r.00a rote USa31112" than dOttnwlhistIXK vo !main -tin) impeeu Vital bltretl rman awes olx85 No roo atropine meantono(04 'atone dVn tbpment OOportUnwa Usas rr!IM silo Wye Est l04 would ayy argent to mlMmlln W.IKa. ;mpOtn LOSS M III cmit are•dvde S'r" and Pathan. Rest end s M ac, teems m Raaavttn IYOVry y.•,mnt Nitre yeti -I I Mobility Spit Oumotd (weh nose :0 1•Tbj Retonnwrtcd Yea 0w Yet Meditate i ea -'ll Nn rat yes Madras snW Swoon bus Owe] ti i•'n tat area wa Io .Ie •M.w .On.l sal I 'ewer w' end bun kw•r .c Alt fpan Ja ncne alt moods d rose:. p commercial pbar bti it SW UV *awhile! nmchanial • Now rota* oa • • two Vp anent red avail(Ottesiopnswtoi'44 aaLl (bath $e<tnn el) rotates' • Clef Creek Roedolan a and ettanw • 94oc.41ed Paine apt n.blui Mm prunbai •P b✓ruVmt owtt an SW' seal • Marne stn (lever out Man (Nuncio* NO • (alto ana ...lipid nee GS aSItCom (bom pobnculnnt00c 'eSObcn) No ..b.wlw Dusrness �mpecb.ro !mpa<b usual contlnary between tote [Wet Or VS es Modern. Moderately ac Ruble by commonly Laconia, bP4 WW,d p4c nail damond onto .46 Interim bap —'-fat. rodrt,0ni re tic turn tone added and :ir.t batty ^Prtnvmenb I i +'age ' ofd i US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Depadtmcnt ul I i Known t iJfBArteas ControlPin aw q 9jt ji$ t s a o E t 9 Y [(($ = Yee a E E s Mobile! hamsSable Railroad atriums,. Mod. affim— V Natural sat Giblet Uwbeaetst Transportation Coanaualle atann. t On Claud On he to ll MN:Safety. Motility. Railroad aq.lrtyty. .fteu.v nwet ncdt. � A !wow l�p� Da..IM all lava, poseh•nm rrptm ,nloti tint on mobility] P,4i t ■ [� i p i i 2 8 Oo.Y the .Won I r bH A; .. 6 = = J� a i ■yYYT C d '7 blwwabn idelailed wt ratty � tenure titlr r.hc.e] post is. ..radon retread/ /wd operational n.w] t i a pr g a • = zNarrative • ; •"' •w] What atha for Don the option a'OW manta re II infanta Death* option 1! wetailt ma.n of tnt N�aaaet slnlwfri Ow M. Optics =SS SOW .A.+rel. rei.i What lit Ma omisail (1s Iwtyntebb the option? .i Loa a U Motility potential enhancing nhllry and sans laabwl oo••tM ii low acceptable V/I�p 7 Mond. .VWOwa1. wen Oat br.l lar.dw tynn;rla) natural atonnwlt an and atual climatal g 3�y a g It - U :o Ave f<dn, n,N01 I Safety Mobeity Access Mamatwe VMlrrdte. InlerWnar inn luv;:Yl Awnwl Coyanesf Mil shown but het SSalllnnandit e tea ��a ,tinning./ falls secure on W;l wen Near sac nv,wnds vtl i Cal /n Y:nr•..:e yes .,: No •n Oul rot erimMled Vas"•f^ lmpaa fa • l .amrw cai land uses • Now yM LW reatolors • One rani/rated pane/ own spree and a tee (bath Section Ales •J.otr[nl • int Creek b pia Moth and ..rant • enlace -taunt brare dOp rwaial With pawl* *l for burrowua awn n SW awarea •.tavnat vas liner sun than otter actor Val • Ditch and .suss, "ear USES/10r (both Potential r"atert resources) no a.4rvye business 'mars and meets raw mnnMrl(y eon both don ar V585 an.hand tray 0011•101 ramp. lour" en ncfltable by commllmty DH�Iti Wn.aM Befdnnend•d l ytr r<s Med••.te I o, .. I ., Yn yn Moderate. Jrnot w ,amps n stops b.lpoa to • [Ommacei ravdenhal and aQY.dlar.l Land inn • NOw 4rNOn • two *Snead oyes/open space and a nail both 5acllbn J (n rnowcnl • First Grath llomdw" ant wetlands •Bliek•Wad sal/•me rwbul wilsc4nna nil arras:. awls in ;w Oudrenl • .rarest stn • Duch and railroad nor USES/104' (both mantel heroic ,lyo✓cnl NO 'name mutant moats and m unman ritual betweecOrrtin ily tales of �5 SS No esrtal •=lO.,ertle! Recommended *et ,a1 • ,n Nn •es .. • r. yes Nin, State tat • Conenereei rald.ntltl and agettdtarel Land uses • Nast sanative riceptOlt • Tao df4 n.t.d part{/opn spa. end • nail (both Satan .(n reucen •rnV Cramp bodp+Wn and *flirt • B .ck.ta'4d amine dva rwbtat w/bot.np.l fordeswwn burrowing awn ,n:W lriadrant • NYleat ette • Dian and ranted rw•m US 85/I04' (both paat4 al Pastore **source) Na ndM'yY 0010031100100311 'm�ee and V21401 candMlty ppd. .Ides Wll5 as h0; IW weak bad .cdurad .w,: pt'.LL:O -sit :e J• US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 2 I Known emblems purpose see moot Safety. Mpgllty. RaRroed podnsty. Acorn. no MwmdW trawl modes US 65 Moms Carmel Plan RKonma Wi*n . G Jtp x� { G E 1 a 1 E e ` 9 6 a i �% An Man Salty Railroad Alternate Mode Moho& me Cann.Mobile, Snvkonment Community E s` V lataltlad E+ af E •; ; osss S f g E I f p E tad nptbn world* Z ,_ q a et E x G a a a 2 y i 4 C y e C t : w cats intimacies..aRMw identified ae prferiey in for de.urt by the railroad, •mom? Dan the nixed/ toad o.r.tionni NMI the Mpon nom NWou banana wslkn11 WMtetM potentslfor enhancing kv1 mating and p&need retMrnl tremit wrote? Daeatb. option noid auMtamal neea[bN natuvinndrPRIRRM and cultural r.i/waaP Dont i option wMhlntM contort of this edweant community? Dow the optbn miMmbe ROW acputlFon nead'? Went watts cemmuM /a 'nn.ileto thee/ton, Ma Dom bn Alt h.ne ',Ohm or nepwe elm on Pewolel mobility? I.A 0.) h1�1Fy Does at avptebY V/C Ratio? I•D.q aproMVte moss 'imports boil land um priority? i I if P. a L 0 y 23 Loner Pala urns No (mum Chen "mono will be removed future when in tadhen Or mtetcmnp a'• 10." Avenue Pa com✓uctedd wren a connection Nom vi den'ymant to eNlar b:grlton Rood or 112" Avenue n butt' No action too 'COOP 'cable NA NA NA Yo fa, 1b Sve Ya NA Ma NA emit toftmou anpmctt to remmlafrneunes YA NA NA 0.1at lrt tiro - ma tuns wouel not no Permitted onto •'mowav n s Cld>ye Cloud Revanvanded Salt I NA • ref M:ge'Kc •v 1A NA NO Mopes{': radycey wm.n6 movement sad amnion fa o' ' AR1rlllrpttew • Reident l erd u'e MeACcePulre.n alwntove KCatt can Kcanmmau oink mills ye! Munro'{'! ntablltnm(a freeway Interim improvement None Mobility into, um Impronm.nta. Neu ::I Ave Safety Yabrty Itel'Md Or®rrrity MtrnMve traWl lodes ciwuttc (nidlum onvry'1 :rur(Mnw lye loth? . whoeity) No action Na actor -in ale NA 1� 3 Nr. Na N V Ate'! n No No ow A.Ogt'.rc cn m +B ilea Not preferred Not consistent w•m f slay cstuhmoan erne carneed(reseerCR EntercMnw/ wade semlatlon SPUI RKMnmanded ter CA 'K rot of '. ref vef tea cw of e. c✓'M: LLSC ramps n sots Mmocia 'a • i mne¢JI. radwt t. end a ',cull , landlanduses (fevier mown pin Me>bned SP'JI one ua(la bop mils! ClOnnwl A'n( • em A.ttled prairie OM MPtat vs/totemnl fa bulrOrin(Onh Pn $W Quadrant • RadrOadwgrnent nor J555/112' (vannnal historicecourml Moder.leo No Acre iota'lc 16551/1 SlyvOlcant va ne'm Ncvv lnt.rmt 1m Pownenta •+come. no„ 'v>nn; warne. "� (W2 ') MOblI1ty Stewed Seth Recommended I re+ a • rea +, yn -. rn ref m Modp1/le cr o!a ramp as fide tipeeMr • Camn'cul, 'ndenml. And 'Ctt, sI uro tam • q.lbmd fervent rear J515/112- Imtan ai rntap 'nouiCE • Race wiled memo do( "abut wlaatenmlfv br.(rrnne (mos.,.SW 'WOW: 5.tlbMN tried' to • Rnden:el end agricultural end us" sons of 1l2' Avant Adds longingsto • Anlderyal andiron NW pirgrm% Momratery MOder.te Ac(ePtable tannins Ilpprow ment.. Addmoral'WO eN turn lien added. man ersUde[d ones and tint train( TProvemen! COLORADO Department vl Transportation US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dopastment ul - - Maas V Transportation �t 2r a ` Jp#4. Yrao.•n Proebrn. Mbonthe purpose end tones.'IrtY MotYI IY. Edict aWmlq. *metha ' rn• :revel model (SaRn11M Ileconneeed.Uos 2 C ... Y 3 5 E f EE[ i s g 8 ` Mobile assess Safety lamed alternate Mob Irtur.I nil Cultural Ymkomsard pleelletteltp WalYaO R. t^'.t It thy improvement uwhtent with the ACP? Does the option prvnb L i i i 6I —! j $ y i P e4 ! 1 a { E• iss. • 4th una tbn M.tN eh reduce nerved/ road oow.toial h>ef e. L ! 01 & • ICa a it 6 j f Wheels the pvptreW for Wetecete dtYtfry ate Nulsd ne)sul tcoi tdnbi Des the dieter avoid alrYraMW Mesas to snore aer.Y.o... and a�1.el rea.yrc.ae Dees the ppaplfa eAf.t the comae of fees bj.e•M mmraWg7 Don fend option (Maestri What w.atN L't f'toMR Pee.tM.B Nwa ngKnar effect on regional ndblLY) I•.QJ Mobile 00•• the al ken •taaVablr V/C tads? (4N I wmd'.d n.prid.er for dolt.• pah rairo.di .K Raw .apporta Inc.'l.Nw p►nnlrrL? ROW .NuYLts nd.Ati tora.rrM/a 'espartos to rt. opbnl O. 8 ii e C L 0 99 C 5E lit Ave (Conllnued) Safety MatVty ,Railroad pro.MW AltenwUYe OMl modes NOaiin 1•adwm ds' l Intently.arKultwal ff• ono.tW ells•:^aerie i Vitae woo -Auer Gook- gritirallte.IthA Kau CL ;ornate. hat NKdmrrergdd her \o rnMrpia: In In ;felt MO T Val KCVO byum. co • Coewrartwl. adree:al. and .radon'terc an • BIatA t,*d maw* an NNW w/ppbntYl 'oft tWrowryorn,n SW duad•srrt S.Yar.rtti&l llra.eb N. • ieental and W caviare', .nuts S US 85 • R.Jroed duel: net u5 85/112 - (potent.. hybr.C w.aarCe) No, access CO 'JSITS la mwnant. flavour ONnW _buwa of tang.QrCNdral Shea Or Me Yet, vnm rea•eirj wens lot e•ef•.• M Skin 1p]p MM. adwrS1 ;e.tlNe. Yu Retornnenseu oar. •. n Motivate re, '1 d. n opt mg etNam it Coroners!. Modlr.te!v Mvde.K. 'oarmpKtfU • •etW.'e•.al. and land oar • Atwood totecNl •1O'g 'aafl t ied Otll( • awn. W l!d downs dog N:ut wtOotentlad la wrrpwnaowy;n SW unlearn 4u Sable tbiSped, h • Rel4Mntwr and er eulturai de•eco n rnt tout'; o4 .;5 MS await impact it • And.nUel area in the hW auadr ant .`.Iota• Caged tN4b•. Not RK •.A • Yn std yes net Vet so rlrr tie don, few to feto two at >•OW Mae iepm ex •CantnerDai and •a_4ensY land W{ (*add treat of (.errs to torn, pamrml Yn apreraflralt III' *Crab .rd MV5 dss "n�d'd Yet YOC Wer<rrCO Wood faauvo parallel if'Wa MR tn •A.Wlri to at%aM.adaM nathe Pete 4 of 41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study }r d Roamsbbitp Problem Used .tn. noise sad trad:SafatY.pplUSES MobOry' RaWooa aotm'ry. Access,or t•aeel n'pdes , Plan Mmmlrtdatn F Y ; 5 a t 3 E t s q E ,; € n E e R F Pa... Se M tareod atenae Mot Cultural Normal ndTern Cammudy Iii e E t' bultrtd Rs ud — E € • evil ai s i F V n e OontM optionI world. .ppruwmw accost that luppan beelwt'w. planning? a pp11 y s air a a 2 I t� 4C It yes. what b the amklyated annual trash reduction? Is the Mmrtealon id.rmY4g neplMkt b � Im1M nWwli Ws the Nmb te�'teY rent _,. .L..l Mpwi a. Fp ! ee■ l3 i 2$ Whet is the Don the option .rdd .uaa.abl'mpattr to natural environment and nationrerown.s? Oar the option III wNhin the Conte it of the .dlocem tammw,iryi Don doe *One mw.,t POW .toublebn needs? Wbtt ern the commelti. IMA.so to tile option? N .1_4n eet Ilea Mw• paair. or mph, elf," .agYNel mebloT = Pa.rhtbl/oo eMenc. .,kling.rd ptenrrd rational tr.nrn sac -noel Ow.rM .t hare te<rotebY V/C a.tbT Iraq 1•.4.1 S( t y • Commerce City (mnnnutd) 110- ave Safety MobMtY Rai.Vdad Oravntry Atptnaty. bawl modes Started Men warranted (hie oroityj rnwrwny (diamond) thigh OMr'ty) Irtludtt pad wlamtgn of railroad NO Amon No noon cetuble NA N 2 M No No No M re NO No No tow mv �onnanatmoura ''o wet Motatle•'ed a consistent *animator clntfcatiar ndromn(./ gas wWratsan Da•1;aI :laver',f ' enlbt Na Recommended Yet 041 In n an .ntsrch.nga N4 as Arco Moderate vain to et vin ,son. s beat MO new to .tap .t Ypmt —i t. • Rectentli and tan No. meows to ratowdn g voteroet Unable to implement Ippp On 'enl'ad tiled !ale r.g,eay No comnmmel wasmulcts • cJbpn literal OINR and railroad servo near JS85/1X1' Avenue ma rtecaon 1,1104tbop' P ellpb.I abeintleat hinges)ea • Wetlands sod nstMdaa merman I.tlllty :osi l'j' 9r.MUni Pa MUM %eat vet Mario _ _OMt ob: aebdribpn t,,,earning serelesdentlt 'Will Abbas! Demons eaaae. Not teCPl"n[Mfd No 019 - vet yes r' '., r. ve. "linCommericalses mcrened morality lv 'urn fltblttrllief Mpetta fa' • COmml'c.si •M area anal Werth 4n the SW QuidaM • Commerical un SE Quadrant nowt* It • '.asmat faille** o SW ouedriM • NRM'e11Pbe awl and railroad 'erne vii PPnMtes Spear to • VeWntl.t p.00eetlet :n SE rowan{ ModemmN Yes Preened Plods ods IearrtYtlrr.trta: 4.el 1 ~ t an o Pet diamond Recommended '•:• n re, Yrs N;: e, vet spin .•.craawd money to ruse. Want'to • Commerce. art 's4.nt'd I.rt use. • naamSt 1ac11114t • NRHOellgbe diem end •.(heed worn Willits • Discaa,Nd senate.`( habitat w/ppvnual for lawmen' OWN •n NW puada•i a0.irrtea &pees it • atWenwo DtoRrtet in SE guarani Yes. "archong. nr tern a.pMrY shale° arc accepted Yer orafa'•ta DLL Recommended tea. n an internee No. ate panic Vas Yee '6 No re, vet Meant* carrot are •auras at Ilea an/MI ft • [remelt.' art rpdsntia Iard ua[a • Nara ellebe don • NN,ellfle segment of ow radved • Wetlands • silicataInd Oriole ao rebat wlooantal b wnowum awls n NW bmm•M Modsat. MoOrstr ',ere-. :uppal to study 'won• • .setae• era La bon -ended COLORADO Depart:nenl of Transportation 'age?ast COLORADO US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study Dep.tltnnclet of W V Trenepotttltor ■ Ji5 I Rnorn Problem. Wed on the PerPote and need: Seas Moaury, aaentad pra.lmlry, 4trmttlN Orel rootlet _ uS t5 Cantrdrd►lall Recommenstaelee I e Ig I F a E o 9 ` yFy aZ Into,tn. bnp'ovmmann MONay Asses. Way46ed Marna* Mode Naturals.. Crewel Coco reunify Environment S2viaN n— F • E -.c o e L g a a g Doe. the Mn.on •rood. a opr&e .trite[ 'uncial local landa Olerpbtdi F E E c 6g i S 3 - 2 = 4 I I Td I i a ^.0 i i 0 sC btYo balwwabn r.rr+trd we der eaten,reed byW rei0 el? Menke eb rectum reheat/ tl rot F i r E I r i s x d I What it the lei lol DbtlM *Orion nNd sane. rote) impacts potato ..etur.l.rtvimnrn.ra .N aldNrnaWtnf Does the eerier fit within context of the adjacem roemwtyl OsaeM onion Seflb. ROW puYrl:en need.? What was the co commune'''. noisome to chi option 5 .+ �:SLai Does the alt hire• OatsNo or .tiro won potent enhimera .mitt? are K pinned n�bret 4eteY cent, Don the .1 hive *creatable V/C Ratbl imporoan ...�I� ..__+�/ 1•.x-1 a a p EZ t� 1_ i :la Ave gaporary RailroadITadaT mdirn N Access 0x0 Mvn TterV.M'aan Wit At IHI' aro E 470 wiw!ty) f1M4 cl aura d WilinessafRY CAI be noted Ib.t-erm enmity)at.a Na Klbn No action Ftaade NA No :01 N. •• .. Nora Nn Nc YO Non ,rO9i •^�OKnN +,n'T o neno. l rMn re. Ve. i I Ne tonestem Mtn neawey aas'fcaiien Igf[Ire Bede up•ranon Erode/ u.e seoerated, No stns f aeYbl. Not Reconnected `_k NA No No ran -5 So re, "in ecreawAndd moo lire for fern& tervi[e • [p.pgalUa acrd residential pro:erne. abahngSInyFlwn • mums: fackibes •Potent&N natant Avo v,_t t ids arl/nLlt • Wa ,t rNAerte!:We .rnoect to Kai buu nets Modena M...o TOO 0014 CC 1lO for • 'roomer contest LOSS UM 5:ralcant ;titres Near and Interim Mtwew.w.n.. Lpecrtbn Petra warning urn (Wl.•1 fjlobll inset.. Closure Can.. Recommended NA • •e. I re: ref .. No n No Mir motility For ~ , � faryv eaten& iorpem to • Residential are •n rH Mrud. neap Neernate access tor a wrist EM' read[ to be motored M� ca vitt commercial.nnerd .Ica (changes �n travel warm) • [banal ?minty YnPIV VOSOM1 sic' n fir ,,.t EAN7 NA interchange (hit wbriNl NO actin VO action NA NA NA NA NA No N. (already (era) N6 meetly /eon replated Na meaty •adKee No low Awls impacts ro MelnorM.e.IroIrTSW':n •n ems No moon s melange :3: Ave I ?weed patimh N No action No acton tatlb�e. Nye MA ON�o, .r Nc No No None R Na elado /cud yes. Out '054 t ;bred *heady AcneAv ids wpoAN to mmonmentel*moaner .y Yea9eton•rrerwa Full Gann (ipn(-trrm proety)oce In-eiarcNnR s man /W[:osue least tide is <h\ed today) Closure Recommended Salty' NA t. vet VO NIT•Ver new claims nVVG Calmed Calm No-*ewerside). [bead on railroad rid of 'rNw Vet. out eyed it *POSY PO •Fa then, Petendlip_e ear • ACtJts.I lard um • [fltin newt VI. ties CA closure it atte0trbl. Noes tomato OW eau sire datum needed IO(lelfWtr 00We ad reform in Bn ran ent. • r1w flop et 136' Inter en nnMonmemi Ni'" Niebll icemen InimprovementsimprovementsNe Not US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study to t a ss Knows Pleblaw s.rerlthe meet Safety. MobttY, MOv.d protimiW Atoms. cc travel modes US SS Amass CanrMPYn Recommendation d G etG:; i C 3 L E E SE E & p E p i r E E A E Acura LHty Railroad Mamba Mod. Natural one [taint Environment Ceaeleeal-Y 1! E 5 Cou4nd __t. b the improve mint <onfbt•nt with the ACP? Dom prorM •PPeoprht. Sant that 0 I li t: 3 i! a; I Y 'c y 9E t i - 2 i : s htM �m•naabn dernd� naprwMroad Inc closure by Wm r•bo•d7 Doss the at raduc. r.bsadl oparnbnl 'mural Oct the bttpoontrtn .nbrnc• bialy sad wallaby! What YlM petard Yllw •ntnncR .among and pY.uad ,aebrel umiak •arywl CIe.IM optnn grad wietanllrl'manta to trMal envlmnm•rrt awl whir. it. noun.. I O.n the a S. ft akin the mAart of Ilea td$c.a apmrawidtye Mat IPdIo 1tlnMkt now atpYMoaa et•.? What w.th. <emmunty'• response to IM option) pq•tsa N. positive of n.E.aYn semi on regional mobiety1 (•,toi it � law. tM al •l bare V/C Aatb? 1•0 al siPpM» Seel land Lea SYaNryl y 3 E+ C 0 C C I C 9C _ 4 x 96' Aye Safety trick yfayl Mnrwd pro.imlty "t"' Signalled I rlttdlum prOwlY) inyrCNn (�terr WOOZY, Damend rer Mown No atYon NO xtOn rb e1YL NA OWN No No No NMa No 'IL NI, Nun'. A,OAt,mpacn le n1wonmerfol rsowtn f.% *C` Mat ereterred Not rnrnrste,-t sttN freeway CreurllUtron .nyrnvnrf pale ,.grand.. >arrond ranrGe. Not Reconr.Meo c.�.r. YAW LOSS Nn Sw,IAcant oatten40t. M erg M•11atYn MywtottLL Yowtion has nIWP rag .1g. (W=-1) Malik lea tnaPaeterans. Noe Yes 041 - Nr Mole ate It -a Na •, •n H • S.Mteniel leptons R • Comma pa and at cuitu el land usn • Pont. impmm blend (pptMNI nstDh'refeurul • Second Clair I impaired sterI P. tier y Waste ter • PetenpieN mataN rer road artgennt No No AltemlotR'1 too,mpxdii Pupalte•LMawn.t cowrb.l e. Not Racpnnended Ye. 012 . NA n raw- L No, to co!. peom . Moderate Yet No W. ca „O Wy.eOYl nave to sop at VIPs' Iagem to • Commercial are aplcu•unil land wigs • piny neaten lateral 1potentbl Natured drapurtsl • Sncand &en 'Anent stream) tad. inP ct is • Conlrnroel oloperty in SW euadrant Voderatt-. No Alhrnapwa too lmpxt/ul Nlo'euO !tertMege teaaot No apcceenendad NAMglytt • Yea....rater• cMntlt• Net for co,t p/itdn n No No n Mite inters is • Wotan er Ire'JS lapses so • Nolo m.yrn Con ,elcYlaE agocultural lard tan •PoynLalY ',stonednctoorent (Waal 'rid tan lateral • Secod One (impaired stre.ml No - too mpKNW9 SW ton.. No R.�-om,.ewnd Yes 0.31 Yet. et myr- Mane, NO. to cord, ppndn Yes N• No Yet Yes Wderate. ann% use .a mp n $aps Impacts M • Comm.rc.a,. ,tldentltl, in, .pinrlWvl land.- a amen WIN Ns rea Maderote SwoonedWecam4+,.n Seta mlNrnVes thy impact to land •n the NW auao,•nt . otK errata tri at)pn • IMal • Second Ceara l'mdolaas I'.mw•ed sbMm) • Wetted*adrcuhw& • N,ata+t teamed gram Alcal mete YeJ!!er we • :dmne,oal property at SW pato,Ol ny,ya.On • Nea•wr,u• development at Ni _ Si and NWd.+nn^n COLORADO Department of Transportation US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Drp.utment o1 a x — v Transportation known hvW 'n' �•• Sa%ty Reiey Aaarn.ta Mod• Natural E nvIreasseal Community C r./ on iM p•noe• and !I/ i R ~Ibeo . i p weed: SaMa fety. Aetna y F f I 7 �IN1' igad E Os•.tM E .. e is the E d WMIYN• Mobility. aersrra1Wem : o E WW1 Dom the an ! € • option i E I S Irrart•cnprn Met i[ elerraa1M Dorn Ow Pan the g` Railroad Rdeo. Y. ,Vy ACM... - p l j p S - Don ea awn "'�� VK Rem! Mw• �Rlrt or naiad_ affect on l e o f '� E j 2 •�wutt M^er *cars �t r d• i € a Z 1 ? T f d j r.ar a •s a to• prte*rend MtM •R rMW railroad/ oMmtorel j D 4 l E r 11 enhancing nYCYrg •n0 planned regional Don the oration send iac.ntrl�mp.cu to manual *ow onm•nt and cultural ratoona Dv Pon fa within n. m.natf of the .dl.c•m DReon ml nimise ROW acmuiiion WINK We the reato dm Option? travel model Cali t maim' g Baal lend t8 Ytw.l t i Unit community, mobtity, I•. O. -I e pywphlgy d y £ s c w mgrn•d3 8 tl' rwd.l $ we iarery land truce t.tetyl an iroad Sunburn (medlum Drynryl rrQRt't1� No acton Norther q I n tat in 'nu, Menge Moderate YCpent rte • DoterlMly tfp!dc Prima.mginT el Secoi • Secoq Crave Wnllm peed '<.;ntn otJl proeml(y 'cosy Ildngynn pidnty) Danced on cctnr r4 d r•t ! / NO. to mM. 4na}yn n e r NI.' et, y e. Carndt WI •snot n noon stream) •Wenart • rtmtaC Railroad A•alde Impacts tan' • Co nmetc,i and manhunter and Lent tit V:dnaa M toothy 136- Ave 'wining/ / rade may war, Mc Woo,. rent.' VA -t So VO No No 1me \a VD Np NCn[ Amon comma m mwpeppta,ro0wmt •et Yes Not Were owl Not oormswnt ent'T freeway SaattegYfIns= era •'Sand a WWI Winnow !nail au. guerilla() (ra4ensl, ramification O con anal, and egricu trill and sal • Elnttupd Bantu 'ladling sow, • Conwv.ton seamen, ti [g ins^Pd ftnlpe Mot B•cOnr.Mld YJ=1• yet 'et t No Yes et 'fir laWed ntilly Minz inta, engonK Mcde'..erY No MaCtiOn �tlld an g Eaxe .: y 3 144 Ave Banned aoemny Actata Alternative travel modes t Co.$.floon oomwrvdn I nwdwn Dna.ty) rntercnage Itvy'arm amity) Diamondram mown nanp/ wade tewrat Ow Mart o' ooban* cannel Pteyl°ya wttetn wWnd hive wan addenine wan rynt turn o•ey foe 1u" M4a14Y I I lateral • !mud Creek and intends • S:nct -Wad oat.. din Papua w/adla nil for turrtwmg ask nSW ]uadram Pot'rte. •(f fl inptoK • Elmmoop I')Cresource, a•r fLcton Nf)iron: . PcyentwM mataY ataror axe rearms ta;.^reK swim n`ara"e^1e^e• VA Pot -tar, Spam ter • mavamba, and Maass C> 0:0111ar.-W and utet • Elmwood Raptltt u•aa• now tied. -o l.n•Lle. Not macomrrwndvo CnWTa MA So So 'PS s VD 'et vet Moderato Academy) • Cowmaton tawment •DownpWN mitotic ovate rrreption 'n Moder•aly Mien maroon MyMrr•o Or 'morn end cats of Bade" acceu .d cal stmt atria' • ?Soo Crete and attire compared to tie our CtOn NR • apantwry minim railroad tegrinin • €Innaand Cemetery Wad an dteRimnrw or close atwrationtot worth the Onto (tenon M4,ea>oo, °drge d of .; US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study e .p u pEE V Known Probra galW on tab °ur°°ud told/: iafaty, Mobllih. h. ilroad pnHr _ AfOrradve hovel mildly us fS Aaw! I.,Ollhd �n Semeeinedation t I $ ≥ E E I _ W 6 Y E E Nobility Amon Safety Mare' Alternate bbde Wl ual ironmma Coiommart lµalYad trio,. tt tM ammo no m.nt twas ht•nt with th• M 7 oo..eN *Odom Provide epaoalate aawtlNt ruppollr oral 4rldw planning? i O a ! i,Eq it 2 1 Q W. whet is the •ttticp•dd •nnu•I a•th tSuctioni late Im' ion idenpriority ified tor t>aabe by the carer? Does the at rectum nitre/ mad operational Muni F g I r 2 a .- 11 wMt•IM pram Yllw .nMnclrb meting M rya pinned regional transit ranks? Don the optkinavoid substantial mlo impacts nnurtl anrnomnale and cu8u,u I incurs? DeestM option lit within the wrhnt of the adjacent community? Don the Widen minimit. SOW awulaibon naedti WtbtWee the lalrawrkyt roam to Ow*Oen? rAeN Duet M It hama pman.m minim aunt on r.ponl mobility? I•. D, -) !Saki ha sit 11 acceptable YE( Redo? led Q E 4 tlpj G — 5 Cb i `JAw41 II laa Am ICaMnr.dl away! prcvanrry Mons Mannar trawl modes % coongteabm mwersv. Inedlum ynailV) urchin.(SimonNI) Ibtare a:arityl a.man° *is vows 'nlarc:a ^p/ Cade rarer 5°ui fusible. Not Recommeaao 'es .�1 VMa as rnyi. Own. NO to cods. IOO, MM Vet Yes No Vet Vb Moderate canalute .amts alga* InbwU ca • Resew/Nu and erminedand use, • Elmwood Baptist Audrey: • ConsaM lion caterer •°oamalN restore private argil ha. lateral Mitts ab•tda all: • Third Oath and rends =enoared as !Ie other action Mn . Elmwood Camean, relp.Kal Moderately rep Mixed .ewbon on Muth*, as build an 4nardler.pa cote v...rr Closed eeorweeded NA - No Moder.te Yes NO 'On No Mooe•pa ro lIXal wets Abpweial Maas Moderately Yes Mr wanton on Wr.Mr to Wald an intone or clot. CWrendy no through movement. rarnllY and : 36- provide nerdy watt weld provide rmy rearm rots only Clan would lumen .n con..., wP. marctunge at skyway lane to • Lan0 use • Partially nato c ra.boad serum • ElmeoodCenlrry (action AN 'non) • Wetlands &onlev .are Safety Mobility Irmo Alterebw NEW mode astronomy Nth dadih) S°UI wag sawn in the ACPio m:nree one atrial business °tdoetry. TM waAdr ant ant rMaeatlt+ve seral dry fhah No action Macro^ =aaWn NA No I s. No So No Nov No b No ware r r1VOCn9 &ware.ddi immoral re4 let l re het Deln e'or De darned e11M vcatan at many wan rmerc!vnb/ Art Dan+pnd i tnbe. Not Recommended No 0 85 It. as (Mar- champ NO. ice conic guraaet Ms '8 No re.. vim 'minimal 1K 85 Vs Wgh bgYatidiropebaM • Committal, .a as ✓0 Neal oW r'Pitn n L. quadrants No No Not ("ahrrad Mat Commonly leach LOSS OilVO sr/leant Parterre Rae end Mambo kamovreolic 'e^.c ")an 'tray warring signs $Par RecommendedMobaltyr Vet a m - •lt re! Nes 'A No It. with marry US I3$ SOM. wit tow ttrpad or • Commerce.taM.ses • role tome coenainN IMMie.n enrpnmynal Mate IIOpW.[bt) • Stanley tae re Path (Secana(I) fruits) • Blada rrlad pram dog habitathabitate..ipotential Sc, Du/town(orM in SE arrant a aa*°•4 bailment lea r4lon Lathl Dlgn teats posanlaliy Nudity.) • Several Nrmat facilit es MOOeatlN Modesto", Preened on Jptlan Cnrnvrem "nth aye' dent ,,,re mpca MOM. imprements ramrods✓ eat u,n 58 and WB and WA, nerd Improwmrna COLORADO Department of Transportsnon US 85 P anninq and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dcp•trttncrn ul 35rr y Known Problems Rand Gallo IMPOSE toad rest Safety Moo01h. MIINNd oro`I^"r'/. AomaNa AnenWw aaNel model U56Aaw CawrolpYn aermrrrdadon I 9 - t r s i EE E ; .. MediMt tans iaatl Railroad Atenlete Mode a V Nato&aN Cultural rmYwtw.wd rraneportAtaon C�eallrnl ieCalb.A tor _ `� t A ` j _ r a 2 Dees the ,Peen proride illx11 I ; n j! Y 2 = s b E ; btM Rnun«tbn idanifYd atap.Met fol Octets the niowr Dw,rM aA rNoo naroad/ toed operational �•�••,r 11PII t L a t tr fl I 0 a F 8 e WbnstM powmrl br anNn< ^t Klrnrr tad planned reabnt e..r,.n ,«mice, D4atM optbn aaaY atlatYadlal YnMmr ItM•M Dwa tM opoenA rrlt as tN mrn..t oltM adjacent mTr.�..nvr DeK 1N aptbn nlildlebe SOW ape.elride,. needs? Whet rw,tN community's .nponw to the onion! ! V re�� Dan TSa Mwe moiler or 00 ; Min moat 1•.aa Yk I �x Dees the et here eccepubY WC Ratio! ,D ( 4 apaeprlete attwalM e7perm letel W r rr.alrlN wt.nromaaat eMal\aplr«ourt«7 € di iMprew F4 8 c 1 _ lr4R' it/ $N1 Alternate .node Mow Nomape road, aewt Nom ;ntercnan/ and Y�lera ramp intersections ITadwT ona: ) H Naededactiona action No 9C1100 -aetmu NA NA 0 .., rea Na Nome, rot Wong mainline u$ 85 So Na Na None A,0.pt.npocam nrnonmt•tml mantel re, Vim Acceptable reenapon ,Tpp.elrwtt Bus do: amps tD tc:Uf Recommended NA VA NA .H NA NA M14 NA YK vet Afrr>iar�atae _ . commercial land :no r K rea 5,•OWrRd �maowment .a apOnl pen do,rdaom.o no 4i/ardaVU or Wit MOM Yeeeew!arlda. 'Formers mess or tee its a.r1 Lctade to conformtolenict vurCD peaty MobiliSt IIbfA am Ten,: None ,idea Street Lfery NOKton Norton to aab'e N.\ NA NA No No NA MA NA NA No Now Aw;da smpocato 00 0.941010700. maestri NA NA NA Na mew Want war Neeney claynUnan rill movement to IIIRD manKPal (Sr n.v;tvl Crowe (atnaarm abrM) `01.0*Commerce; CtDtad Recomnrr led lain NA re, vr, cm, -t No No No Mwmel Afr,� iaroa,n dr and Jan !chair ,.• traw] wttarml voderateN '.IS 55 accnt w . I, P,VtNe la the Oar tWrafdK rea AOMred CnMant wilt. art roadway wulrNetbn and ACP Cloture *trim happen ,n coNucbon min nmmrtanw a: Aral 2 rime WB girt Out cede (mill hove shouldted corrected boedal0e cr,wn (Al(el Mobinv Noon Irpprpe.teeea. -louse. etceot .merperct access 'aldr 'iN US 85 Planntnq and Environmental Linkages Study } a ! I known Problem, eased on the Purge owl need: yfeh. Mddaty. Railroad moum�tY. AC4x).R Nmrlu:lre vnt mode) US 15 Alt«t Cmnrol glen Recommendation I. 5 g y, • C SD 1 E c g o 0 It E a E E Metals ARns Selma Red Woe Atownat• Mode t1e �IECass' al Ga•RAoNy y feteltN •• E'jl i o Y E I E • f - s 2 E (3 Dots the Option Pronb aPpo niIta West that supports 'Olen Nays pbnNry) E E 4 $ g i F 3 a Z I ; 4 • • y E 9 • a : * 'Oita ImanMlotr d�rN a/IPrletlry Ia dlosufe by lM u4oM1 DaaatM ; ; g e i 6 • Q i 1 What a hM potential for enemas •'t .,bury and plennad ,*glens' Iremit **,.nisi Don try stifle grad °� ,uMlpYl�mplty to ironmam Doe,tM o anfl shin the content of the *dissent tommuaty7 DaeaeM °�°° sell R ROW ectalle Weds? N`�� w. '.ts* . ,ll ..le thanes? Morn. Don oho at. ha... posies or negative affect on ragbll1 mobilgyi 1•.O,d �,'» as hen acceptable WC Ratio? 19 11 at reduce raised/ reed OperatbrwlI Isaias? natwat a and ndhrrl raawrtn a freeway (continued) E a (o y nl :Ear Ave/ WCA 2 Meta ty Access :nmrcmnga (medium pnmi✓, SPUI was glom No attar Y.1 EC. On .. 'at NA `o No So No Sr. Yt So r .nod and N(IIvay ldO ry Wert N•e No Sox anted; avert: ro lcWonmRtOl rewu•ter ver 5) n[!':rVns t NOCmted Not conflatent nth horsy tlyfl/WOOn • reertrinee/ yam ewranon Diamond s.xa.. Nm Recommended Wifely • y1a, el.ntt than(* No, tor aril- N IDOn No vet -a ela yH,'OralI " mm inalal nmaril- 'Oration yet 'ereNc Arbon lids Impacts ex • Canynatosi and •ant ,neulV W Land Wt • Greet WesternSuer factory lends Site IVDbrc rVIOJCS) • McCann Ditch (detente; Nate! :natal • Eke ens (Section A(I) •notocel • ;Darren iwtdnl and r,n'n.t Redoes at NE Reno" No too.mwtI•,,: ..055' '/' Vo yr Ac•••• sane• •n Wealm beneaenwm) •*p/g:tiOr hetnq warn e It. (WI:: EADbIE t Seth RKOmn'nded Vet Ile n 'd nn✓ae re, -a re, net. o.,t T».t s �malu 'nn Mallon ro Moderate. annul a trot a [toot At Sham *,West* ta- Some Momvtely Vol 3CW •toe 3CNV on nausea, •n eroylU•n te.5'W :ran rltenetl ,i ES woodte elevated • :ommercial and '•Rot indutbiel land al Icatglttd to :N demand at) • areal Wnhsrn Suest f *aloes (NRNP•Nrybu ...store rlfWrce) • IlddeWmand wettest • try ld Creel and South Ina s env VILE tenet and ,Spann Ankle inserts Io, • Format 4,41111 WI WPM es • McCann DlIth. E 44Y Leona NO. end es unnamed ditch, and twe < ?Wield segment rp entl•r Intone motet) • .Count. Lai me ere ISKRan ND Endures • Marmot Lodi net at it NE mrt'T Cr the nte•te:wn b,tsrim A.MpwnleM, Anil nevi ttl I...'. ands Eft a• -c ' WS and bri1 Dmlft( •neaeeenon4 WOl 7.5 No orifice nitl Modred ro\ access (lye wmlt.l Claus with Supporting horsy flaw O^ <rlCDere Partysm endr.N) 50 attar 'v aC.On 4ota, VA NA CA 50 50 NA NA NA 14 So Vora A wda ompacts ro InWD'I•ntrol ',severalaef n LA Mot renters? with tenses cYWtcbr Cesar :toed AN.c nnaM•J _ Sat NA • ve• `'EE ra, net vat, ma Sur n maws,al rent No '•In Minseats Minor wto. • Canrntdal tine art (manna ^pt•sl Dettrnl •t __ re I ,•e.. ed Allyn win the Cressy Catcas Oo,. < Sod tspoon s with !nMTNn. et Vass 1 MSS spovereeMes None ,Ya� ra�e Watt he no spreaaeedK Nme COLORADO Dcpartnient of Transportation •1399 1 .4' < US 85 P anntnq and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dep.tartlenl al Transportation f Y§. A E€ D q Known Problem Rw./wtl. peea.e aid need: Wot Safety. RalkpW remain/a away\dr aa.rnathe travel modes IS Awns CSanrol Plan Racoarrsadation t a € E 4 L € £ 3 tlum •roidwI wmui abbaRy Access Abty Rakes/ Manna Mach Hntpat.NCrte.I fn4onnea faIRrRetip laaalked litllL £ i g I r a a E 1 a a M. £ 1 Z a a i g _ e c i t A •I 6 $ 4 Y tlr Inbrw[ Susanna bwa Mlad n e paw* hat 1pelon IA tM .aitoal? Ds. tM Yrai ns nlrea d/ real e/ereteann Ins? r I g I r E 3 • S I I 7 What Min Yl tot erd.R M eating paned wgfenl transit wnYa? Dow option a.atl oast satin impala to wlw.I [bn Oa to (Pon On onion manna ROW nethanion needs? Whit wet . commonly. r..pntse to Ow option? W Q Does the a haw. a pear.* n• Don Oa aR Nava e[[wnbla V/[Cab? I•D_N panne appearian mai that opinn ra Dbtw (Gala olth. salaam Community? wenn Woo on abate?retai la. O. 1 •nnronmaa aN odw4 rwew[al .tteeells YW Yd eee i Ci t. [ 3 2 ii VKAa No rMW Vim. Moo !ad :o \ X[<.. ^to r war,h) DOW" When nnr[n.es.are Dual at CA lad eitM CA 60, CR a Nn ac -T ms:ue- -nahO!rya vn I No :4 Mu YO %Cr< 1n vo ho Noce A.0Ns,n 'waft' U) rnwcnmenrorrewwonn •n !n Nut weft, nn Mot cOntifnm Mrn fanny' CM>we C?oxd ga[dnmed.d SaflW 1a • rev .n •e. Nl r.na, No Yo No MoOenn AYrrer away •CDmneto.IIdu.s Ithar�.in eavN wln•bl . rt non YesusesM the wit Ode of trs d5 an YO.+eVJ 'wsWDk alMnative *CCM •e• Coon te en ��'r a[<Nn grav�Qro CaSinCJVCC Must ot w9e saws :o ,rn i.. on *es: va Fro WQIo Fro. said •vposo .n[P,WiWn wantne ,nlarcnan� at WCR 2 and VI016 Warn ITPawtAML 1,.v.! MOMI Ity awns YeenwoetRr Rot .n-ry,: jut on weft 'fig Ianetem Warne) araae wow eta, ,tad! .<wr.tt'd. No KIM [<avbe. Not gecommendeC V. N.. !et Yes V -n". YO No Vet MOdt•aM amen to • tad •r Modern,, T[ek!ree l•aaeiae. DN eitoenNn to ww:ala wry an 'wows .anrnrul W. . rayon lateral a5" lattlnon oium< readanal • Wraawa mantrap Nana US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study w f Known problem% Band ontM Purpose and n..e::aleh. Mobility,road Aro•Im.h. alarMJM rum! mode US RS Aans Control Plitt Recommendation Z F Y G 1 a IL I 4 E € pZ q 1 i I jpweive E Mobity Atone Safety RakedRakedMinnie Mole yYtw•IaN Cultural tnvtranmnn Cennendly Incalimel R.ttn.l E Y S i 9 E • S a E o Don the off" ProrMe Do.. the 6apownrnm reduce tiw ptbomlr4m oath pattern? It Yat, rhn la the amKMiM annwl oath reduction? dint Inc.n ,ion identified < •prwhv la cloture by1M raNrwW? Don the a reduce regrind/ � operational lnue•? r J i ] i 1 I What a the for Doe.eM apt ion avdA wbwartYl imparts to Deaths option ft within the co,rt«t of the adjacent community? tea.. the option nin4Rae ROW wuWMnl meat? Who wet the !ommmt�s eaaotesto the option? N -Don ° he a Mw• or n.getive effect on regional mobility? 1•.44 MeeNe �•tti a ham act able WC A.tq? (fig) �1i ntsl enhancing noting end •panned rsgirul triune %duce? •PprePriate scan that import, local land . pannlrrg) netw•l environment endcwkwm,•wunnt y > f Q J IR 5 Salary Mobility Rant SignsJa IIvILh prorlryl mterchenge Iog-term anat.(?) Dun,o,a crown %n a(:rOn rlG e[!.]n <nib�e NA No / NO V l] Nat No Not anNo nue+re r< aoen:mown ro mwronmenal nnouren Yrs Yn Net Penned Na comment wiM freeway y :1nvfavon grade taeora:.or banal do dowries! Recommended an LOSS IA S1.nit ant Patten,. Rear 0% r% Im...enonell' '<pa'IM 'ay.no,earning %Yr 1 W? : ) MAIM Yen No 0 a i n ten '1 No Na an h es Yet .•Igr anenkn •rvmes M. • Moods n>m< comrnunh (rNiro men,[ 14Me) recede m • 1.{Yrnl•rcia: residential, and yr.ultural land -lei • c,dton tient Oitcr (panto idiotic uncut* Sous?, Plias RNt (ME twin era Moderatew 'tabor) • Po:dplan and wedana • 04. -a -tailed amen dog habitat a/potenMl fa bwnownngowlt in NW aWarant • gamut 'satins aYMM/ne*fea tfir • Mace. tome Ccenanty (Potentiar environmenalluabce POpui lo')bemired to almno+a at MOOnmry 'reined US as revren Uamme NYM e. 4e -commended ,,let. vn MCC."'" n Y° I Sot Ya 'el I uwP Carp t. W of • MOPM nom. conun nary letrwor•nenai INta el Inawaa to • , aceleleM • ipmneroil, •e dent 1. end nakutt ei Lend con •tylp,n labial Catch ICatatial r..o„ep; titan • South Matte Rapt IMF ales and •banenl. (TILE/ 'Tanen) • °armat lK$I tl. LYtaia?immas at • Mool. none cmmnunty Imanew .mmalmrrtal j eaece 'Milner) N.. No too rmpanlu M.tor ROW era Et :minas (NE euadrant). unworn. if <OnYmv.ty r. •.I .t.d. On may be an °peon Merin iaptineme K., None COLORADO Department of Tzansportauon i=ar.•.l re i' US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Ovitaf'mint o! u .€ 3` Doom Prot.,. m. Oast oaths pterp. WWI land Safety. MopRh. Ralbwd Wmlmat AalfLp Mdarretlw veal modes Awns e�a�itw Olen1 R•oerwlaaedetlon ( 1 t E E o a `s E I • 6 I , I Mobalh Acts SAWN ■Weed Una* Mode Y Nxwel aid CetRwN Esvin.rrt I rdn.3p0il04C 1' CW.pp,wy RtL4MI i ¢ y f. ` taF y. : ! .• 2 E 8 Deese* spies ~•� eM•MW at�Wa wpparn �allad sate �R� [s . ! f. [ t e ^ �3 i i a %t ! ■ • G )C' j Q YE • j 1 C it the Doe the at reduce r'�'o!d/ reed operational i..YxJ 8 ! I o 4 6 • = C 2 3 11 whir •ehs la Doi. Ow option • aid 1WamYl l'aw'n to natural .enronm[M and Shod rxwnxi Does the orlon h vnhF. ne commit piths Steam rnmmurRri Doi. the option noM,ntre What va. tad ro�nmunt�. :..pun., to the option) �Eq Doie'IwhM have twain or ,..(•tad enact on sweaty bb T l..0.-) � potential enhancing nutted .M W.nnN rational laden Margie Does the dhsw aWwbK V/C R.tio) (.D.dt xaRrbrlh hat brats mintedl I ROW acquisition newts? E e Y _ 2 § § a WCR 6.25 CO mew tun NaWliad to R:RO inc anent,' CloaVe yawn Mbn;har.R , WMt at CR 6 Ilr t.rin Wlor:hl No *coon .Yo avow ;Yas•Ae %A N.I. MA *SO MO NA VA VA NA ••0 NCR A q:q �rrppnJ It mnronmenyt rewuve [• +n NA ne NOT cm -taunt wilt l,e.wev clestdluuot Cloture Cow Recommended Saletr NA •rx Yn rn Murder No No en vm ! No Moanb Wanes erohuN h rp 'erne seine A/ns lawns rna. wni ntarrecw holed t WsSor tto un on the no VWOr us as rn ArMxryO Maims m the .'met be ROCS to w Wwlded 0)WCR6 Cloture weed L Poe^ �n :Cotner watt interchange at VCR 6. Ilwpown.aMs �.>, MObiliry lr • Commercial land ate I(1llrrn:n VW"' interim M.rowrwr.ta: M1.rt' ACR It No maw:nwcEwn 1)W COmar; ro % Irrwdn.m pnpNr) IOtW,� CY,rsN PawnhaMWn No action NO KCM 'eetb. VA No illmwonnanrp Me Mc NO Noy No Not or No Yon. enwo•wwelo.Aso** -flamers b "eaaurcn yet M Na WNe•rM vote freeway clxfllcanon ,nuotrwnp/ cede MIWr"non Ndgi,emx Paro.l Cbaeyal ga vet D 5A 'a,wwnal TOT e+ -1 P.O ha r. saw Mt Yea `Cr impede tr • Co.rn..rc.n and reCdeMNI WC :on Innnmuea.r'wactfto [trireme Vrll N Mtfd.ra[eN Preened. but nd.ed Neunp Mwdwr �nwrtvwe Valid we WCR d o. WQf :0 bS 85 elewteo NOW reedeo On 5f s,ror met IwI t( at NE rtio, ol mbrflcoon) • WYrnh • (TM T5 Scuds ? nano won. sod llopppbr) • RrW talkd W.Ire lot rwd:Ot Wjpopnpallp yrowry owls .n SE quadrant Swab dlrpmde to • Wetlands at NE quad .W� *C'5unt omen, Nor! lain brt_OwaNMa ymnendedde,e:eN WB!.dht den rw 1 Ordad4def meet," (51 pMotDYmb r eeube. Y @t4itite OK'd",SubstantialIntonesM MtrprmwlYrb ...re +.a •.nted fa ON ps e. rn Yo NOT an n4R here Yin Mir • Com!ne,Cwl and •nd•MW led use. 'clu n&a horns: 'Kill". L .a tit • South N ene RN,. (TILE habitat and riparian mewl • riomw.. end weclarnf et NE awn, Vol Ir Na f�aRCAM ROW TOMS too ....perdu,Recommended US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study as t 2 i E Known Problem. wad on the ryaptha� 0.•d:5afetY. MONUry. Railroad proximity. Acc•is. or Alarvdve trawl modes EKnattnt Control Plan bmnm.rldalbn & F : 5 E € S i c 2 E IE a E a E I 4 E Mobility Anon Safety Nalred A$.nas. Mod. ?Maur& }movement �wal Community a E f �ltrod Padon•) F 5 3` g e F • a n e Don the area poNda ; ii 0 p g a I { .� iifitf C • 1. I a 2 A n.. wAlat it th. ',napalm' annual crash teduaion! bsM onrM lers damned is &nom hi the r.aroNl Da..tM ale rodeos epie•d! pad ever.IV.M btr•7 n. r • 3 Whorl pol.mrllor rnMm•a •eating ald planned Oa•lM rolsonavid subaemlai'rmpattt to natural e<.ifonmeM arrarhut al resources? Ow.eM option fit within IS suntan of the df•cant community? flew the sullen nWsmhe ROW •cyWRWA mods? VINO vas tlta ramhnuJy', b� Does the aft hart. or •tine affect on mend nsob�r 1.0. 0.-1 � Donthepositive accept•►► WC Rata? E•A El eppoplate access that mordent local lend w planning? retportia le theptan? rnionol pawn mono? tl -.evlo WCR 10 No map' !suet ONE No alto' No action. no .<[alt Rc Mar.Ad \•' .^ 3 et at No None 4[I '.o: a^ 15.0 ',e•< NO Nom 4•174fnmetN to a meonmenm? resource! r<f Ye, Mind reeling snout an ...Leman. at WCR ID ca WOO fl 'northern? pad. tepratan Darrod seau0a Not H•commanneo "Ain le, No No vaxea, today Kalil may add anise W "Or an .,4,...,,,0.14.,4,...,,,anon yes low: no al Dann'''. haw this Callen Sea *Uliegse• to: • Sac?, Matte RNs• habitat and ripacan nomads xn es commercial use . Narm•thairy • Swum Mane Re Np Noddpain lt& ^''Oat and fipranl • poetntalh historic d1Yn • Wetland, (SW gist l No, as nocMrlctVHy: oeyeap^.nt surrounds the area No Weed reer,n,p ewc•n ;myths., a[ WCR to reconsidered WCR A n6'� l 1e re ecen.. q>nga ,W.tanyl r dcpn Import manlytacks '•, `-' Mob1L Intone" Imw pom.nlf Nana F.w c; MOOIIIry Sdhtallte amp inwructan Imedlum ptelty) No avian na.., . •"enAie NA NA rat Irsmn are vENlvedl Yea No. biter. twangs eradY NO es No !gee a.yp 'Deny .vat, No No No change A rods'rroxa m *es aft Redd BONN .Ira'. y,n 4e Accepted intersection improvements Pudn1111R Impowrtt.M Recommended Wei Watt tQSS W/N Eat- tOSSW/Iii Sgrudean paonr. Rae' -and kerns MpawM nlli tyro (W7-1) Mobii@/ NAsirs, .. r Inn ate attach,<a attach, upaendl NA NA NA NA In No dahM 11rllrr Hrpee• M: s Connlland nd uses •Souls. Pane Rare Modoaln Yes res M.ce0ac c..h.rtta Rath sidewalks 4Fwen part and .attly IwrxuadNE cOrr s• of interchans) Interim ha Wan monis: Me0ethan mofwe mends COLORADO Dcpar;mcnt of Ttansporlauor. US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dep.0 t into u! W V Tranaponabon r 2 [ C .s$! Lawn hobMmr bCawLLtl Kw 4soala.ndnbn ( I fl E L S flTo E E E - S E [ Mobuby San. USW Railroad Allorvae Mode Natural Ara C Wlural Environment Commllvee Vaal on to papeaa and rM:ialah. h, Raced PeOalnitto Maas, or 'MbnLttr< hotel maples P..Iwyl Z. • �Y C = < 1 E .2 a ? don ton *own 1 0 ! �■ ■ e 6 �! a 1 c y4 ! i 1 A € . a Yte be.ttaalon Y.wxrd Daste elk *duo manna/ o orallorwl Sow? E P E E %% Y 2 3� 1 j I M/bat • to pantsllot animate Don lne canon a.,,d tut N,al •nlnrn(I'moan; An�O and Nwuta Irxourcn? Doss option rn the �Vllhln of the .djNem community! Ooeste option �V • �n i What wits the tlMp<nN to the option? �t • FE V M=aw 0oeste SN ha.. e Pena le• or arlefSM raai�i 1•.O.-1 D.•a4n lt Wen •nrr7aYY V/I. new? (a dl •ro ib opprops We *caws that awpp• wl ^nda not for chewst raload> pVnNdnd taelorol Ponta oinks t p C -a ia ,i• ss tl j 3 WCR 11.5/ 14 Shoats Safety Mobility MWvtive ravel 'merwn� Wontearm ap.ltyl A Wu' annexeIOt. thorn to retJt in le t dlvuppen t0 rota,' aopattn NO 41ooe NO Moen +exact •.A vo 130 .., Se No %or. No NA No NON Avoid, erpacn to MYronmentol.efoweef •el r.• rt LIA1pr 'worsen or need lot moron man: at Ern NI l4'Jr Interchange / lade teaser,of amp feasts,I oecommenoed �� l0$:1/III tent Awrwcn "5ipmAcent Patten{ ADS WSW . _ Protected eh pills IS. repdOlldn Ilatla7 yarning .� IW711 MOEI 0 Wads laprownawe.. vote Ye"0 8 Sane _ thews 5Pui yes n -1 vc ya x H Ir Mors']no to stop on henna S.Aaevedlwnwa. fa • Crnn<,C.al are .Ipc ..rural Lard an Maas ra • S•I=x'al InerMt es • Part/own soave (Section Wtl onoulte) • ton t wton rational Mere ye No .yle renown thus to bteit n mwwll Sot.tMnel h and ROW mown (potential more mantel SPUI rmde.. N Sot Riconrwrbe I 1 Im •as 051 net tt No NA �� wL what LOra: Wq.p Mount AVMs to turn iStaSsl iron w • Commeroal art centaurs, Lend an leer. 'meets ten me demote! Alt) bpeQa to • Several nerve Iscdt.w • oerliOgn soave IS.cten WI %hourzel • non r loo iOi.I ltel M.rW ruojroel rMlNC rnalKl) So ModersWy Na � Nava inadstia Recommended Ian our froma. NA So I rrr, rm - So NA 'Wan. what KC d future station wN b• on the east steal highway Astaa.b4 • Commerce'art aprcteMal land uses (nsnnv.•impach.ro mmmercltl/Neltnel f.oNnn eau anti sow, or MaDente, wltanecrtn crowed bin. diempN •re Shia Nbl • ion Luoron.wNdr, ao Mbar tpotenb.' historic'ece I • Sea. Plano River I r4 retest end rlwnar Neel bake keno to • ash ISecwn WI rectltei Modenxe Wwdr in ma N°b'�h teemed Armenia an which entrees model while h mineva ItOWster mDlct Dews. Must be completed With :t SV••I Ws s> C,•4•41,0[11C,•4•41,0[11Not teethe. Recemmenoed %I' :l4 - Nn •n wud wbw hNW'Mon d•ywtanent n N W •' -• 50 NA r•• '� would bean m KLett [Litton ••••Vto from "Fenny AnSeettM • Comoros:arc ar a:ore and use Imnmhn morn ,q COmenenat/ernal sewn*" test and 5outhdps. •n trry.wppr <tR'perM dV daemon] aN SPUI Mb) • 1On Lupton.Intalcal Men, (potert.l nwm.ic rearlY) bei6 Awn tow • Pert (Section e(I) gnov¢) r et WWe mine buuvis mooch. tea sr though Nerd *were in we NW =Mr. We Doane retool hrdoeLeitWrennay to 'naiad safety MI dewebomnsri aline recto MCIC4Iy eon ocoortunnet Page 10 of 41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Ia a ! b C JY Knownl Problem, land on law 115.S Aans Cw.eN1Yn teoelnwtiabn I a r E a 3 'c q 3 E d 3 E e : Mobility Acton WOE .a.ewd Ala poet. Mods Naomi t !ronnment Gntettrdty 1? E }ached lifiewt o E ≤N • r o c E yy i 1 1 Dan the option provide We Dow U. ire pro darner* rwttc* the predominate oath paten? Y 3 I f S _a T i c a • the intersection dent Wad ram yr,tM railroad? non the one reduce n4oaU road eewatbtal saws? I yt l 2 ii Whet•iM pmm.I tor .Msrcirrf notinf.nd phoned • bMl regional [runs tarter? Do..the option avoid sad am la 'mesas to natural *vwottMMM and CYltYnl maWp.i De.iiM option It *thin the 'mina'oltM adjacent 1 community? Da«tlw a/i110 rtinWo Wail MYYition weds? Whin ray ow community's reaps«to the option? pure wed: Safety, Mobility, a �. Aaraa AnernJthe tiara repeat NbWb Don the et Nwa �salrem mfstir. rani on aphrrl mobility? 1•.0.') Alo_ta1. paestM oil haw saws V/[lath/ Ion -al appo.r access that 'Wept' local land as pYnn:nal one i tr 5 ti 3 A.COISVIACWO WCA 16 aA.sOad otOnmity Acme [either' to N ardpaatiot I,Mdlumgr10r:ty) CIS✓e whin inta ct's. 4f 14.54 �/ ton%pRrl No action No action centre NA NA 0 '40 N0 '40 None No No No VVO Awls •,salt to mrypnT(r'm/.[fdYRff +es ,n wHteacn 11m'tan•rytt• aR Rocamrlvrtded alf.l{ NA • No NO ref No NJ rail Moderate. 'et HIM mpallry 10- •cow canna, and wadi MOM mtutwnm ant tide. if Folded r" rat ['rehired es pan d 14 S Shwa be donne J'cOnturc'udn with'NCR :J 5/Id' -mWpwmwln 'vONI!4nI •narrrrn. hnne bu'o'ys Improvements droachass (1) ttp{d rWl been sddrntto by CIp nj modhnpekoe 1011Coee Mbar impacts It • Commerce! Land an cord Pommel In. • SMN plane ihw LE re XK landnt1lCNnl Set flan weal rr.., .n' ,_oc.r• "•^ire •<aAtan Von iefon•^ennel NA Nn 'In Yet -. No u. No Moderate•CommlernlhM `hi vet be ratifying wits strumsmsi at at fl•ftay Staid tie conYOered. it Junior ltefftlan.a At WCR to 5 ] :Vt faeyaa atoorIm oeat bes II( UaMl WWII( Neal,IW Mlfe'Iatwtlaa: None L J 0 P 'NCR 15.5 N Ratiodd PrOlornity U Acctoire '_otwe No acne.)acne.)Nncotta' caevae NA NA .t NA in No "ore Nn :Trento. 4 o"•°te No:Awips n Al.! ^ere No Nla o impact to mW?NnereolresovKn vii vet tto.- -Of Rltt+n rljnt. out Rammrorded 5/LLCM NA NA Yes. but craws eta miens' Minimal No 'rw it Jr Vain Not an ?WI NV* NO Modest. Mins pua' ps ter •'ibrt✓'land , cededeMle lard on IPOrraa in trawl *'moll va3 Vet 4taptalle Olenp sad ,_Goan in y with anptMrrynn m WOt 14,5 end WCR 1D Irep ovalwrtN: '1._ne MOM Wynn, Interims 'mpeynrae: None '.NIR ;d Safety R•0010t. p reoatmrty ACCall Auxiliary Rev 'meta pram Converted to ''loco ii fo Witty I!D^NIT s wait,) No act on No K9on tnnale NA No 1.01 No No No None N Ye% No No Nate Awed. snatch to moire entel remains= vn lel RdOnN 'sided We intersection tp rpenenl *crr[%enal comae. Na Recommended No 101 Nn at YES. out a Or cool di orna outer.. ii M: tit woo wooa.l new S.Pa! •b«l!Of pros one preemption fpOAM90 n fit d w nfl'oa potsStreet treHic wnri rain will yelp Mbar knee= re: • Coa.ca! land Net mm • Plat4willeDitchcord r Jilt ono ailment (Patina NntorC 'eto✓tea: "n Yes Wwd anew myowla ilgna. Rabbits, out I✓np'Ja,a $idtli ant >anion. /roadsdn 110/2)) Tin Reproachnts MI Yspeeees4 ciotinj median to create AIRO «Dula Sip •tsohe both Ira" MORI s-b. impeowslito Segitap0n, wren wArranted COLORADO Deportment o1 Transp Ottatien Pace ' ei US 85 P anning and Environmental Linkages Study 00T If COLORADO Drpartment of Kepner Pieties lewd snow ese rw net Gelrty, Maabry. Aallrob aoMml N. Aalf\a tpernetlw navel Modes Cattsar• Ceraadrase tamA1*anadetlee ( I L at S F FfS f [ E € a aI E y : a E fi a i Mohan, taws Safety taitread AL ante. Mode V Natural arei Cadaal imaur baa I rart,ponauon Cearnion dly IfteRid I Err a r —S o 6 ) 1 ¢ 2 ` a ` a Dead* i1 ! tt ! b E 6 e fi Y L j a 1 .i3 1 t n 3 V s E . y h1N Mtrrr.ctbn tl�raw n.prior ler dawn be the ,timed) • a 7 11'ti6 t� iT floor Ih. a pruwnlOM .nllnc. blbind end w.Lk WNtatN Detetwlal for •nMnciq name .rLai and pinned teflon, Do.,the uwan *noW tuba. stun economist .nd taut en l tim'"? Don IN eeebnn Iti11in1N asRM Diets Spoon omnunAr) Does tN */line aIYYate •0/d *Mobilise raede7 Won e»atN <emnuntia response to its option i E F s Moen Oo.s,M ea hen. path* lies nNata.• �•rt� n. ooi'Alt I•.0. -I a/tlaa Peres a//nprlal* access Mel pwY tool baldM 3 (aapMiti Dees at hen **netball+ V/C Redo? ICI) rinse � service?rservice?w.lw service? i nrwc.d E.pr.uwr Imnimradl > 3 I V WCA 18 lmmen..el ssafetybeabn Reamed yam, M1 earlsotOw aWIlar law .mpr rammed (medium p a.ty) Cpmwrudm Yla ratty Ilma.,.rm Wady)decamraIdn rroin*aron ImaOhenertt Canw.an fwe/Seller Sinai Fetude. hot aecommeroan CRY �punl Yo 0 9 No ft, ri <:n: ,at haWI nee shear , Mla.iKari. orNmpltbn mad•ana Tat Mrtn tmbmous crow urea DM6'contra meat Me NW hnpeae ter Yes MDder*feW Warts prefer toaVaai tiYl Petite Dun IVnp (lotto • : arnmerciel Ramat ready a east of )53S) Mme aftt/tWM Yea ,aCt Oats w'moaIS we minimised compered to other icon MIS) • %ana.•ee Oath ens retreat wren' Cr amier MttaK 'etOlY[M) PolarAmanita! r Gaps la araton ;il ae•-GmnaWee Q� a r.. .e. -, ra rie b Moderate mronwous DIM fine, annsn WYaffic Ie1D. Cart we rampsas slow Mamas la • Coinnaeciii ',wind, I.cwt eat Ol US as; .M aff[aDpM Ord an (moats are nd Contra roe I�amad/Cr5S.Z11 • Wenrd% and Sari Inane emit ftoodprein • sea nasal. pith and •ala letmare m lea.Mrai"mai raswca) Moderrta. to nearbSam y Dudmt Mpdenb $P! imfKtto la newt.; way not to I,Jn' irs etadorm Accambe Ward Mown in cOryuKtion Wadsysam ee:wean WCR to and WCR a %se Detternt gradualist I to/131 <pOtgTurin 16/1 11 nte,t1e s ciosar�madan :o a crNb AUp kip 'twin ootF .1Mai•Yc MDtlllia Shifted Sala Maitre. Not rri � :: r, r e el ea MDoe.ro caymanVS o0{i ties Vert control mean will MD Cannot we nine as two. IwrMeb la • Canmirroal that ma west of us U)a iSl and egiastaal land uses limpaas Me mimmted compared 1D 01rIMYd/Cc5S all • Wetlands and South tatte River Madam Mattadi. Ditch and r.bde siren* Ipnama. Natoli resources) Modn•an Some impact s° warty busmen Modey4' Sane maacnm nearby butane. may not be hal aWulYVd11 1etlnb bw/oYennnb: :iris 'aa:on wren N.....ted .bek inn irate. Yet aetOnnM^010 I Mt so 1,: tot • •n yet No rod ramps put •rt•nscmhm _Oler'L "e railroad ‘at Moderns continuos cross -street merit synl7Oi inn ill rNp o9ea! ta • COIMRroatlM /Qicyln4al lend ion • thermal f*Oitat eat or U$a$ •Wtlr•IIIe Catch *NI railroad liniment tootanal hnpm' rennet') Vases* Some mown to -.rev West Moderate Sam impact to !toastyYMIM PtuMe Out may nos N full ?a md maid r Tara•No N Recommender] yell a27 . No m .oaVol Mt -7 rrl •e: t.t «fin aet..lttY1 Impious Yo COO man matt to nearer Dairen Na %Of come* al bas sit to • Commercial and wecun ores rend tae • Mahal recites en: se • etattate tan am ninad *omen, IaatVtal Finish wowcell =ape le of 41 nth and Environmental Linkages Stud COLORADO Dnpartntent of Ti anspottataon 8 [9 e Knows problem. Based on Ws ;•.::I•ry• +,nrc+d p.vurmp. ACeen.Ce AlurltaOW navel mocks US [5 Access 11� rMManon S 5 C ≥ ! Mobley Ans me Leery Railroad anat. Nod. NMual ardCdlral Emeonntln[ Comtnuteby iI g 6 g WhioSaffle Ltal ; G; 5 • E c - x 0 oarone [movie... .nron.+[. urnttlrt supports owlgeed lea pbatsryl 1 ! y `y +• i c .a e a ji. $ I 2 S e E• y! f _ y II 0 i i , a Y� Weneetles ident� pelosity far bythe ra7reeA pp.. the all 'educe calmed/ road oternbrel Yttrai p{ ! p≥ l ' t I i Wlut'a lathe potential la. enhancing e• etrE and planted rel.ors& ?revels service? Odes the cMion nod suwant Yl r.ne.nt to natural...:lonamm and culturaln{oorcn l Dandle WUonfl wNMn the context of the *Watson Deaths NSW wMiahe NOW aquiWa nee/!) Wltlt was this Cel.mwtM. response lo the option? Dots blti R here peseta menthe altenM refold feeditP7 Its 0.'1 oo.ttM at hen Bogota bY V/C ►ate7 (.oq mlenttetlryl loer•Liave*Apeco qam WCR 16.5 Wirt Rai ed orwlmey kiwi Au YN improvements Ined..n «Iarm'I Convened to fa safety Igor tetnr No action to Klein : eette Nil '. •I + ` In No 12.‘e No No O Now Nawp.nan[pl ernats unworn m en rat Sp.c.nl with WCR 18 may be woo close to ramp. $ > •) •fin p O e a C W m man oa 'nom, bbl imp.pe.Krtr kept -in. Kr, pap ntaie. ract Rlca••me^OeO'oathbaton SetY i Imam Improve manna ...rewith Rrlgblll� SA net Yea any. parallel ram Vernal NO Minimal. vet rat an issue at tees No Moderate /tPaine 1rr11Mfnb :on rn.tJ'ann wry.Y!t Topeeled Okay with agpOlOnl ',adwociwe system Seamy with may be to ramp. .'t9Aa Opted NA Vo Yet wnn wralel roadsissueat Yet Mm:m4 NO Miasmal, end not an the O[Aten No MONO1! We*peasRa • Commeccal lam Loath IeNnp in Pavel canting rf1 net ObY with wgpomne veinal iced trrnm '.buns would reopen .n cmlwcnon the •n[eKM1efiw at WEIR 18 Would rupwn in cOfVKOOn with wrap.: toed system between WC, :8 aryl WCR 7E � lawrWater) lmpnwrMnb: NPe RecnmmeNCd WCR l0 Safety Reenbed aoamlty AMuliary lira Tlpmwmenn IrreelYm prlortyt Convened to BIRO a • fa Watt -term yaltyl NO sown No.cvp• iratbe '.A NA No Ms NO More NO lid No kW! AWN1'mp.enro enraonmecml resources re, ye. inter -tearer waorenent R16ht lrt rI 't OW Fecomc7ndla Safety NA yes vas wpm parallel 'oath yes N•+me NO Minima. And ref an Ida at :Ns ioeadon Nodaou Miter tweet M' • CM.MrnH, and '1u0e9JIJM teams ry IP9 travel wne•ml et rat Obym:h tupd0'nM eamllet reap system Would M[Aen a cayuncdon con earaol •oad system between WCR 18 arc WCR 28 weir Impronnente: Mire McMllyl Cbtw. Crowd eataie • Not 4aCM•rrerrded NA No ilea .em carte& roods rem Vhn ma No and not an [aAetOrr No McylaAe Mine l mmas to: •Walnut, • c ornmerral. and repoantul land uses (fFL1(ld lfNll Nitta, ea) ve. Yn Obr with r ting penile nosd {ytnT interim ImprOMreelA: N.ne .ilwulatyovei tan mpwem ,enb (rredunr priority' Comslttd tO PoROor\Ip Went (l«r6'teen pranry I So soon NO K[o^ caste NA No 11 NO • ci '40 an Nixie 'sot No No Va Avoids 'moons to en.irorvnentol,atoufr.s Nito Yes NCI a[caoub4 'improvement WCR 12 %eM, Railroad pfpaintY Korn Ina4Nn6(l Lra de sew'el on Otsewnd Recommendedboth Win net 0as • No n In 1 'qn No It rr. - Saestentief Rowans to • A46040.410 aril ...ideate, lam use is the enecea,bnd Mma•ne•v No Gavel Oenol Parallel ,ofd Man da cornYad ow, wpll.I roof to :smelt .aCdwylerea Marco viral Si arRwnt Patterns' Mont IrtwrAtr Imf�.etidl' Ow udvenced !na[seCtlmar warning slit C VNert roRIRO eased address fuadeido (4) and .00foeeh twins 171 MiM►1 Seeds lmprewrwema: Additional WR ielt Bonier* Pape 19 of al US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Transportation V q 9MalaRly Itnetran hadlrwy Rnd onlM Puff.. and .td: Sales y' flaerchld paanlry, AWNS.or5 ad'^A bard rrwdy. us Rs mw. Control Plan R.mure.ld.0or. t {a { i e a i 1 P p € a 6 E [ MOMh Amon Safety Ranted AS.rnR•Mod. Natural and Cnewel Commutate MdbEaY Ration.) "*1 . 3 4L d • o _ S p • i 1 oo.. tl. optionMonde . i.to •c I4t .woven b[.I Ior.Ow plaIdle/ �[1t ; S e} c C Y > u,we 2 a Y L o I I y i ! S j _ s• It by. ammeation i/pttlfN •e. priority for tlmw• by the railroad? Doi the •R man mgoul/ apwetblW es%r47 y e C S o tee I • a j potertilfor Den tha oaon.wA unworn SI Mummy to natural WodRsr.l r.atewa4J Doe. the orlon re !whin the mYd..t of •y.tam aaewneyl Don the option nankeen. ROW .aRIiW mak? Whitt was the towev%.y's it.pnw to de oRi4n1 • NasJl+� Dearth.** • power. or nq.tive eR.n>n e� rn t� haw •mooteble V/C Rotbl I.9 RI •nlunck g flexing and planned ngbnl been service? mobility? Io. IL) itl C 1 1'� ` 5 u z. 6 y L ; WCR 225 Safety Railroad pp6min AIan.ary: en* nnpnwemenb 1^npnon Door tyl COrvervem RIR�CYrp n Iby:arm piannn No action No.c on ..nice V i •A No !. No NCM No No Ye NO'. A..o.A n+pbeDb en•nmVNntol Yet Yes Oqy. would nroan on =matron mterft•y4 WCR 22 Word reopen on conviction w'br 0•r.11e, reed swlem betwM WCR CrO.We awed Rw"ammrrdoU Safety Nn So wry tenth par411t road intern r n No Not an maw hre Moderate 'novae, Miner blpd[R • •�IHItRes:I%1 �Metart yvt Wturml > r • .4141 rod could .I/ecapp.rrL4rly n.udt 7Iteh Tm Tet CYIY Roth wIc a tm4'ae !noel wad twee Interim Imomien.. .: fib'. itY Ma ran Improvements. Sr.-. WC.A;a Streit Soaraid p®Me JNt NO Action `o Acton ; enlde NA Ien NA No M Np NJv YO NO ho Np4 A4411 omptiCn 4 war -menial resources rfe Yet :8and wc a C::nwe :iO.M 'tattle. Nw Recommended toped .may Ye Nc vo M Min.rnar No Ye. ra iced a one SO Mt from hihwer No Mw4e.te Mimar2npme Mt • Commercial rand wit (there. , beet wn.!rt) r!f Okay. w.tn gavotte.gavotte. 0.11141 %dad system nwnrm al mmowmne. Mr.&trgn. ow Rercmnaded as..:. vements: ImproNote MobilityCommincial NA No let. arm oxen& rose inten rei M�-r nei No net Mtderna Miner law. W. • rod agricultural land 014 (thareRea •n Uayei Muerro) .v4re'4l role mwla affect pounnwly Nstpre dicer, Ye; rn :lacy min yQ� larCi 'aid wrintern t fihoar* carer tlon rah te'rtnM/at WCR 22. WOnd •4manm Coryvctw with turant ro•d system oetween NCR Irwin N ee•nren R None NCR NS Safety Railroad pOVmre Awilery kM rnpmremenm No action No ac:.on :taupe NA NA No net No None No No NO None h'r Ard.rdor,: ro m.tronmenbl retainers ray Tell :dead WCR 29 (4441101 01410111 Cp•mrted to RIR0 or It for ulety I onplarm xa.nl rumen nor. nrpowmNrlt R{(!It'.Tl ng�l out Irma dnue (ant) bolas aeRwelrmac Ntti MAIM• NA Tn 'el. 4•41. peak! wad twain% Yea Minim. No rea meilmad.t way yD feat from rot 1144 Yes Moderate *Ram anima! • W Ct� mlvettOrd wl teturnal •Pe,e1141rdd LpPd mutt potAntully historic ditch net vet D4ay with tupto+tlnR parallel 411 system Would neOpen .n cpyrKbon Recpmmerded +nU ovally *Cod tytmm between WCR Tar and WCR 22 Mambo Npnnames: Vona 'NCR M Safety Radioed yasuhle Awn. rte 4M mvoremen! on No ray No KCG, lenlble NA NA J NO !e. Nq ro.• rn no b Nprw A`n'as'nr ecAm enerom4nnv reibw.cn !% Vr. Imed Wm 0110'11) Co.wrbe to 91ROp♦Ip safety IIpV'wm porgy) ...penance1141444.rl�rtrallro.d, nvo.emr.11 M Recontt4Mad Win NA !^ Yet w Mtysumwd vet Mwrw Yet (UM MMNbt CO 001s) in Only SD leer from NNwey ray A•ootNte Miner Wpm' no: • /r<W rural rand w. Id4ysm Rawl Witte) • l.e'eIMI '000 (040 anp.ct polaroid". Nucre Wren .n Yes OW .11x11 � 4•%.144 oval baam W Win mower meoryurdyon .11x11 parallel .b•d tnum swan WCR U end W R 29 Interim Mot n.r Ra. None MobR41r Irnerin Improvent•ntl: None cage 20An US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Known Problems Mad anther and ttaad, Safety. Mobility Podm Railroad Avaa4•P Allerathe travel mars USES Core� Ma Mmedatetdatlen r� 5I i F ! [ E $ y a ! Motility Ames Sally taped Mama Aanda Natural ea Cara Enrimnmwn Cnee•tily E fi J € tagbal M the onPowtneM <omh4eM w*h the Atli Orion provide.. appropriate Wan 1h1 %Yppprt' kcal land use planning) s 3 E $ _ ! i C 3 i R 3 i i a c y s • I a ' b i 55 e Manatee is the mamtM .. • parley for donee Wwd1 maroon Oars the et reduce ra[rwd/ a apantbrel MusaII if a g a 1 i • 1 What sill voeantwl for enhancing a.�t HrE and pruned ,epkma trunk sand ma Don the option avoid natant' Mama to nasal wtMrorvwam endtatrnoWtes? Dean tb clan tit within tb contain or tM adjacent awantu ky? Coe,is option minima ROW saltation neat? What spa the community's re.Wnr.te the option? R Oat the at am posKiw or negative .tenon loam! mobility? (..0. •) Don at Nw at WC Rein? 1 61 iImedbw 9 a ' Web County IcoMmuedI WCR 28 Sera Railroad bnum,tY AwWry era emelt%wbm4 Ilwnanknol WCR 28 with WCR 25iaM Maori shoat (frontaltisane) toads) needs to a •elocateo (IeNrt rm Florida No new stark :anVd'NanilnaO YJ action No anion I lathe 'a.Y No .)9f ..4wgt ho e.et No Nora Its No No `yens ,mpxb ft mP ,rr' Y Y e+ mummer mummer Iminementa Traffic ugel [aapba Recommended }[gam 095 for 4S 85 vatic •to WCR 25 vatic \t •M rat None accidents onnentedYes onset W raw nett0OWblty Warn wittha sr I Yes chow, Peemotton rey Ma wtpabte • llM u •nta •AncepDa MtVI( Poverty Yes Yee p•els,�. even war anted Conde, put Quote ,ulna •^Inch^! Spul Commanded '1 ,A W; .n e. I e. e. Yet Moderate. may mama YGO,I.ry IP cat:lal ureic* Mpae. to • Commend ,esidemW and N'cultlral land uses • plavndM and Matra Oda Do,g dada Ipdnnbal Macro •eloltae) •MeaMt •RMani Vain cum loolen8aaa resin -of Avoids Spike tar • Railroad ternent Iwbnal mare .n Modena. amid require 1Me a(OUltrbn A(Ceprlthe an al the wralkl road system Would happen e1CMIVKCIX, with araisl 'ydiy{bm atwaian V2C4 Eas WCA28 SgnlBunt I haunt 8awdsdes (I/nd) taloaate teprovebellb 3Mradvan<ov'Sc InbMcuon %animates Cct.wn to tight turn only foe WCA 28 Ma C'mum oval Orate oval Elinuabd No• )9i Yo S net '1 Yn paipoAy Out Me ]WO wll anal I Nose tow, _ tWC 2$ continuity ,nbrsen:ona 1 senndateo 'tattiest ocai f would PM+de •M'eOltsisab Pr Reattente and Ioengea rat travtand el patterns: Mown noY • • lama Milan lOotannallY restore) Moaberis • Aehgad swonl (petenal ntoc 'elan* es Y e, Clang the 'wd at US A5 amt acceptablepawn WCR 2t crosses la Matte Rune end caters continua topron.wev Vm< Cola: Gen.bio. NO( Re[tmnerCed YA • Yo 'It• In net rev Railroad is only SO laic[ Item 'YhWIY YO Low WCR 2A monde, 'anomaly. -ManKtOnh •ca orator tor nemesia laniard cave wdule PeclWe Minor Maas as • (Caroni nni and 'P ar4Y ein uses (c..vt "n lnrel wo n) dedlala2em •AOYM Mbar [aim IPotMnGY nultatcl Arab impacts at • Rawcadsepnent 1paMtial Nary Nomura) n Yee :Saing to red at 4585 'Sea sasobblt WCR as cravats it* seam Wes, end often aiepTive continuity COLORADO Dep.utmc tit MI Transportation -1• US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO thpadtntent of Str♦ VTanspontatIon 4 S al f fi c 8 Gown esobleen a�rel►Iss. bona ReorRteemtiadersI I I t £ g € E n € E s E F j Rb►Yy Aetna Safety RYtued Alternate Mod. N• mra dCC vet ant cornmuMly Salad on rho poise awl seek Safety. M? Railroad aodmra' Atreus or NbiMdve VMI •' I 1 Roebmul E 1 ; E s r. o. • ` a •1 a t i f3pw Hta Mist wont •M•bM• access that supports : E S E E E c Y C • n t g 'i J a E w S i itM Ma.nKtbn id.rdaid naprbrer he dome iy1M Panne? Don the alt rasa mama/ iced E a ! 3 • i a j whet. the for DOW DM option amid wademilimpacnw n•wnl environment Does Ow optiontS withintM comsat pllM a {at<M common"? Don the oplton wlniteoa ROW sauaRMn ninth? WMtvws,M rommunR'/. rnpnnu to Ow Option? S 9 Dc..tMM Mws oculars or tv. moult Dda.IM sR M.. amtapYRieffe V/CRal 00 al potential •nMminl .•eth.p and pinned reaiprrl tramp .: 'NO on 1 recede" t It. 4 f and rubor•i reww.Mt phasing? apviorrl Suet . L_ y 1 [ WI! JO R•�•d Wamu C'awr.•men WV COrteete• oaatrucbd m WCR 32 Ifrlgr ord..ry) No moon YO noon i eotsee NA VA V; 'Cl No Sone vet No No Mn AwrOl rmoocnro en.a•o•.menml mourn rn bee ClpUre ODMd Recoenrmdrda0' with wrclki :rxmechsm WCR 32 Sep Intern Nawpwraares' v.,.r Nbbll(Evn NA re. vet en NI amtina) Ym: RR is on. 50 Incfeel rrbn NRmw.y No Minima, Mote Impacts Ur • Ag Nh.al taro m (champs in trawl ankh swam row • Reamed segment It OtMWI Naar° neutral Yet Yea 'rwowmant a.pWOpgb ^WrlredeOri n..witpop connection up to WCR 3i (Great Ave) Rwurrea raw yrdrr correction :o WCR 3? freecee Improvements: ,,.r. Y ' Slit 66 Motility Access So wrote .mprgemenl Mmfleo ISH pop 1U and dhclv.von refPrdry the 'I•'tadl NO Diction NO Action renrb:< tie. No. 13 NA No ire" :onr.rd ere. No NOy MO OMUnR f NA NO Non Andlmoons m mb wwrewmn fewer: •<.l vet No emoted' 'AUTOMAT / G•W Senorita Dimond (WI and Of set Spur ICJ recede. Mot R.cocnmenoed 1 ii ygrdcmt ..<ttermt None bb.ee MpYewrwlsb: ._row °tonne *Nrnne .ice Yes Diama+d J e), SRO 0.6A • NA No •<a ,z hA NA Ye. Nun ;romeM[. mobi.ty•bry USES ere K<noM:tY to future oven .satin SeReelleielinvests Is • Colleen -41, mmrnante 1ptatWrile Ra4at Cru.ddA ant •e. to YM um" Mimeo4 • umat!an!�nn ''bpd°taut and aren't • R•koad segment I potennai ...tit raaoac.l Yc No N.r. eccro:Aee intersection :anmrr„t clow/$rxar 5 W� a*101 Not Ne<O!nmend.d h0.• 033 NA No rn '1 NA NA Ye) "Or: .pty.O n m•�r USBS•ro aKSSSaryb futuY tracer, nano/• Elge. A T. • Comoros, and 41.40414.1 ero von IrmroKe .41 'me a eomwred to MI ll.mond Alti • •WlmetrK4ip40 s • WeOk . awdb Mimed% • .RwlanSiPt nt oid porn tgment rearm) YO NO Mot bb. acceptable mprdY.menn lwnrerrua-r CiminoWon be a pou.M.i interim mrbowm ens MI -II Mdfliti �.- Na e• .. -. NA NA i W. HIRIr, ..pay.. R5 and Kassrb.N1 m tuna v.na %iron Raeers M • Commeraat and iMeMW lord as QtrgKr ere mrvr^rlw samwrta at the throne Ah1 <t n AC:<puo,e Re n Nan • Halmatrarlitiff . Wetlands MSS% • ince es • 9NIro•d terve (Wort* mon 3en,a-gem Gemmel ode. wrdr ill ga0e nor asap Raco4-bound. tOrpada.M gads u pMetbn ves p41 NA Yp. put V..eo! curb Nb Ma need to be Mamma Yet -) NA NA Ye. '� mcreaY. ^roS11 4 ry Ion US SS ern r versa accesibIlity to station Abv beper. Ia • Comme!pal aro inns m W and von I"nlem are minmrled tOmp.nc wermin°the wa.rd CFI Nisi ••Llmsl Iacono,ry.et A.oir lswe.0 to • 1aYnaa segment Iootarrt aI Intone raw No in Cfnrjtppr.. wrlT rent srwMAreame"o Aide- mender gourdeebr acrd ahlor. rgv div .to the east ND Accepts°. -Nice) "age 22 of 11 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study 5 y .'TSYt A f a E 5 Problems led on the W<KN and end: Safety. MofNRq, Railroad oahnn n' Mass, a Maenads* VMImOdn UStl Acton Control Plan larassratdaton I F s ft booroeenrnt Type Re<omnundetion 9 a zy i I I Mobility Aetna teeny Polkaed Alarnet• Mod. fYan1•It1 ten fnbamnwl COINNAV 9 e �• s t9alte9 'coon& �y Q fEf ^ E C - g! a a i 6 Don the onion proven Z I! a 5 lY a S S 2 _ y 1 If yet, whet II the .Mkbeted annual trash tedonion! 4tlr finenetbn Identified as a prating la ably,. in end rairadl bonds at rota unload/ rood opnncnel nun? ec ; E e e e • I c 4 : E whit b the ro1em Y&for .rlfemlr,( nla+lrngad planned reties& transit units) Con to apnea avoid substantial impacts to natural alv4onment and cultural nnounrn) Does the oatenfl wnhM thy wrrtant of tM roadj.cam mmur4<) OwetM orlon elnbab• S acgSYtlw needs? What von late rommunblva r npanwfe tM op o*J Does these tiwe posEN. or negative affect on redone& mobility? 1•, 0.-1 AtpbiaY eDoes l Melt acceptable V/C Ratio) 1.0 .61 appropr'wt. neon Mot ruppwts local lad W pYrniq? i J 6 if V a n P .). - c S S g ! a V.anon AA, lac 'NAY 'nun R'RO I m•raatton NO Action VO ACIM fex,b. NA 5n E/ NA ,o No ha* NA NA N;. Nam A•eb[•meacb to ee,Mpnmf•Ilal 'elan n „n vet Accepta➢e 'matef4'[T rmaowmanc Partial Closure 3/4 moer ena Recannrntd Safef NO. J AZ NA rot Yr. Abbey. NA NA No Wont. M'ne Mahn Or • ResCermal ad comnvecial tad uses (char in bawl wtte•rY1 •rs en Ac:cotaafi Intarlbw Imprownwt •I, nap MobUly Interim Inlprpwrtenta: ,renecon Imprownnenn WCR 37. Gud Me MOMry Railroad proadmty AuntIFRI Cbt.nt of srpmap Ron: lin Dap 40 are enamor •'wand to nnrosdl No Acte to AC,or at. wt' NA 105 NA No No None rot No No Nara to nano �.nowm Ter On rftrfKtOn maovament Sapu. Jation Recemmedded; lent No. 094 NA Y es M••lna.r nn Mvrmelh urn 400••aa hnaaat. to • Commerce, lad uses Impacts VC uastantally a+ compared to the SR A MI In MOdarati N Acceptable Frontal rod ts4-da use to tmpO a signal effciarce Cat del Os queue &lamp Improwmenn oak in Cer'sdl to, with parallel rod to WCR 30 , mattnll4 sitnlKrans Patterns- Noes dean M�wsnea R'ooar'an sera seran ( W331 M/dtly -zrWnge / Grad. Newnan Spry +colas. Not Recommended tat U3• NA No .any ,misecda vas -) •t, vet Iron, the me •n redo ,roeaet fa ebbrvfra 0S 15 SaaaromiM Impact. to: • COn'/ne•:let, rnrmcfoal Ialat4v:Ie Town+Yll), •no repcenbe find :+e+ • *format aci,mn • R.&aad segment tooenbl Heat ,poured No No Not .K[eYUble Moths be�ewraerlta Cu -done tns frontage'Oad MR a Ralroad PrOumry Sg ra+utbn No Action io Aaiun :eeap< NA 4J' J Sl No vet No None No No No Nan Maids 'Alpaca lO fnwPvrin Pal • tlounn n "b !Rooming. / Grade Separation Ii4al md Recommended Safety it, „V - No Yes en Minimal No •es It rtiln. men rut s fa 'atonal Met i along J585 LbstanftMirrpacts et • tat,Nral •ra comm<rial Jd wn Ins ac fa •Ws•adt Anima impactsM • +•nodNd 'reenact Moorster< No AcceptatH• Oat !MOT scrod to may more apaocsate lepton ba lken RmRO to sous :^ I'na'Yn Improvements' ,•- nn Mobility loam ImNewmema. 'NCR 36 Ra4rad watm,ry **WS W a^ .Me of /S dines or ma -0 I readterm No A:ba• No •sate •avt,n NA No :! E4 ,. so es No sort No No No Nero 4sots:mpoca to mwomne•llo/rewumei urn ve _.tar Ostend Recommended with :Onnecborls to red .fNneCtIns north and sown ttif N:. N: St nets V'rmaNa'. NO en RA n only 50 Feet n 1u1• No Mo Mkt. Mpeca fC • A4rrCWNal tart oats 'canon in trawl W Itee^a Ins en Acceotate a•tef nat... auras +s to u585o Motdtd nor Ott ?WOO routes With conreCIon to neat .ntafNCVOnt north W south Closure will MMIM In 5 canonp wily ,narchafs at WCR 34 and Si. 60 I'MAW'S,Vovided ImflNwit.ntt: Non( NBataitjty how - bnprowmenn: Nor, Great Sep ratan ()WON COLORADO Department of Tfanapcttataon image 23 o' 41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Mee. bin* on tieI nook 'Sete Mobory. Bearded 115 $S Act* Canute Pion R.wam.Natbn a •F• F r a d D € 8 E Mobab Ad* Seedy bead Meade Cedeberineeemit N4dMICIimN CoNemodt9 ! �� "renal 6116 Inowq,nt mtvitt.nt with the ICY? Dom the eptbn mo•Ib vpopYM aan.IM 1Wpab lead VW i 5 1 ,� i*i ! Ili b 2 j 66 ^ 9 c 4 • : 5 d • . f3. 41Y i..lane.l4e d~� •t•mY� r e1 tb.oe e r•i.*M? Dees the gred.o teiw.r•/ reed eppnbrel Sent ! _ 1: a S9y I 5 c a What 4 red ...amid I* .Nrnc' •.bt and' pYnt*d ..pa•W tope OrttM*ten a•tYl ri•l.rewli.n impacts to Don the mitten die comsat dlY Cede* mTn.�R!) Does the eY4M.4• Orien law 408d•ton mods. I eMirn�nRt wee eM Al GnttM •■ Mvee or n•at tmi• elect on �r Viii �-� Dwlled hove ie b0Y secepMw.mdet ' V Rader (mq Atom. or owe! males newest .nnt *ego** end eats, .etom.m J enMnu to tM omen, (•.a3 £ ry 1 § 3 33f Z 9160 RilYOed pm6mlry Soull.0vund A* fl lnsne.t Nn ten and Myu.er term 3a led rrordmear.rd lea torn (medium *Wed NO Acton NO Actor Iea ble NA �9 No r,i.,No Nom NA NA No None toads Anima so anwr�� ad s n Yes to (repdta••/e/ Wade Seim*Seim*• 11M.ad Rmdrmeaded X 19• 'anew vn. a%d serve me Lon Yes Minimal NA NA M NlAh nmcauen do*: abbot OD<a nl Sel.ee.ei/ indoors me • Commerce,. resident W. era arCrmrral Via Ian Maea M •MCITIL Ind*al}a.natnR (tame COOT ne moral Ialiuty rich patenbel Mwdo* meW WQ Yes yes Prefer* �•Y Ypen.rnu Nam r�� tat lwpeveer.ec Norm WW 38 R.WoS �Mry Betted can ante or IS deflator more IY^f.a.^. primly) *Action No Amen teaeb. NA0.63 Yee 0 No yn No Noe No No No Now Ades a..a`anOlplresWROI Yes Yin Clot* Closed RemlmpMed; e.Ynal�Iel ImprovedKim ort 80 and flee Elba NA • No No Yin MwnW N0 Yee � '•y 50lett Nom Ng** No Nam Allow Lope* tar • Mdhael Y.a inn (dle7ninbMl atonal yes *, rive acwm US SSN Mtn** ...des When ree sr* connection m NCR 40 aM WCR 6000:W MRMA:^ aria** Vial mpmmTptb it 51.60 Wean.Accepts* Yrea.Y Ypewea4R N� ligti YemY Yp.nnnrea ,:on. WOI N/ 185 Railroad Irlm.wry Intersection *cud be *Acton No Action Ye** NA Yee 06i 0 No yn Ne ec a yes No No Noe Mods _ to as arornrlFltei.�m0 Yin Yes *rod* Pont lean orbitd Want Se cods from CR 29 era CR 386 e.dbe does but Me cor.ecoorl datwe*tMe .den Vino .neon CR 09 w.1 become BIRO on eau ode .earn [dead : ohm W eAOi �� ._M NA •No e4 m MIMmr Yes RR RR n a 30 het Iron cony No Net. AbrlpeteaeN Mbar •A�W.Raa. Y.a.en •No ides*, in tnye. totteredl Yes yes Aaepteete remnadve �d 10 Uses n Daided via eternal* Aeeunee WPM Improved connection to WCA w WOI60M immune N.p None Mobility more* Ypimemen c Nom•molt COLORADO Department of °age 24 or 41 US 85 P anning and Environmental Linkages Study III- 16teM Podium OntM luladMobi e1M1:5aNry. Railroad' ml prod et, liana. or lake moon US 15 Access Control Plan AKannrN.Uon 1 e! i I3 €.5 F € e pE g a E �' i Mobley Mead Seey Allied{ All 4 e. Mode Anb Hawn and cu.l m'rorw er r i ! 11oNW Is the bpowort+ consistent rah th. K►) Dew tad Paton worlds a ! p; c g in it r t? a y 2 ass R Y g - .c 1.- = i lathe intonation anted 0e•ntM .e reduce rako.47 nodre emotions' h•.an7 o c• S • • 3 1 n jl! A o WhNYtM mantra tot ...among •.bt ha and canned 'amend tenlu7 lona Dw. the option. void sawn m4l impacts to wtplal endowment one caw el rwowan7 Don the anon lY wainth contest oflM savant �mR17 Owe tad epWn minidse ROW .wuYMw rwd.i Whin rip the comnunay's rnpwuso tad option? Moult! oo.a tlse al Mw• wstMw moths .Kett On 'eppnel mobility? I•, d.4 Mak! 0ms Ow pRp aomptable NK (instil apaop4a saws that rupporb la.11and planning? irY • primate to. downs yytM '••rose? 4 I �5ai ,p WCA.O Railroad onnrnitY Rolland ben and. of 75 Clarets es mine Iler'far^e aWltYl AM rabCN Nonni' reed on No Actor No Actor teatibe NA I Yn' 0 71 0 No Yes No No Nom No No No None AleCtirroeena amwan.IwrldretewM Ye Yes rntertepgn Improyam.nu TrdptSpl Ralnrunanded; renA'west hone need •t dm wtarttlon Lfc y • v .. v 7t No Yet No Cr..'.. likely to I'rut. Plod � No Y•n, in that rt.lIcn Pwmptipn Possibility Yet, amid n US SS coma t wOw Moderato twain tic • AfCJtaa red tamnwt& UM .Ns Heat&wpm Nt awa •lr/fN7andetN nhlaC �y.y, Wet Yet AcospaaaIm Pent of toms to u5 tS n ottoman, la nearby rnlertection reunions Realign honor road tO IM.Yntof intersectionwith . Consider butWa{tede *owe ham awn ImPowmema: N:.nr MobI1M awns Improvements. None Elm St Amen p'R) Wino medium onoiry) No Anion No Action le ignoble NA NA ., No None NA NA No None Alegi. enwonnMtd moons Yet Yes rmenection tnorowments N{ Pecs Wcciromertded: eat dde dace oily when signs *NCR 10 MICE NA NO Yes. with derby ntertettlon r. n n di Dorn YesMiwmtl NA NA Yes impact" Moor a - • Residential are canard&tao tows (char travel attend • Katmai Moldy yes YesSird kcepab4 rn ompection at WCR40 Mon eprosienseec NOM Moyp� wars Impreverim.ttt No. Man St karts OR) Oran Innedlwn pnwnty) NO Action No Action 'humble 'humam NA NA 0 No en No NOM NA NA No Alcoa e nods e1ievn ImN � Ye{ Yes Inanecton Impaarnmb RIRO teamed. Na R.mmneNed Safety NA • Na oartaty rn Monte NA NA Na Nom Alan ash Is • Residential I COrnerniimV tarel tan Manse) • K.mutt.opties yea re. Auea.Dk Im.ran Ins prom Nor, Mobility Glavin reades. Na dad NA _ NA Nu No ♦et Moinel NA NA No None Ms Womb Mr • Ren4en&.rd co.nmeroal laid as Cities lraYN Marra) M0. Town wake atW Kc•b tat tam Main Semi Y.. No preferredRKOmme Intel w. Improwm. ' Noe Chwlr*aast Recommended: raetNl4FWd stain hone' mods NA r No MAID,/ YMAID,/ inanectlon recommM. dalla► Ye Minimal NA NA No Na.. Arn�urpm OE • Rnldtns.l anti connote' l.N viamull • Nostra facilities Yet In knowable Wet frontage read bin OA -0i sec WOt 317 Ain 51 Racal Plimda Acaae(TR) Clod m.dMn OSP Priority)•es. Mow CR 31 on wafipw'•nitro' 'ran US 05•N bawd Street NokaY. NoAct in R Konmerd' eN Maintain current% NA res. 0,59 No with n mMoraromanro intersection ratanmen• Moore No None NA NA No NOM Mor mYirenwna/rooar(es Yes •es Acceptable ANo•OV constructed Wl7'i 42 Railroad orositnir• Rtw4/ad to an PS to 75 dterm or more IN'orlaNY) Si,Nee. when warranted &non Amon No Aon 'enrol. NA rn. 077 Yet Yet No New No No No New Molds awn to mWorhnslalratwNn Yes Yes rwM4nrOn woodworm Add FA 4h own lane Ri tl0 nbed; create wttarnd turn lake Yet, 0?7 Ns Ms Vol MNmY NO No r•s Mlnimr Atka a SpaIs • Northern area din Ale•V•rmw.l 'Kitty vn manta deferred Consider Oral Phasing during we -emotion tattooers' ton 11M Wdrdae Conde. bus eueN lump. Senrliant 'anent Rroadsrde None I oe•e fPalb. New tend stow A77017 �I•�. aAy ...LIMA Swim ImP•AIee1RC intersection mono Bent. COLORADO Depattmcnt of Transportation ?•• US as Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of M Onoren Fiefdoms Owed on the wad:�•Seh�y M pmdm:ty, Atom. or Altenmtlw nawinlpdes biu 4ce» Pin ■amrw rolirrsdaeoo i 6 G Y e,• . : E i ` E o € • b i E Moellty Access fss Leery IWad Atort. Mod. e Natural and Cattail I min:Anne s r ana yclrsauvn 0aswnsthM ye ,..rMI A E. • ≤ e 2 3s S 3 Je f3 j t < c p Don the option provide appropriate Mess that ttseeata I.nl4Nw pleaid3 _ I 1 E f p E' f F L .� L a € j • I I cc y .is t a 0= Si S _D S �+ g. y la Om letewblas M . Is datum r.Wped7try the 4e the sit Mute `W, a� .N.tb41 wwt ��{Stt ) i i s 8 WWI s the M.siel ter twhanent satire and x�. pinned Ininrl manta ».Y�.? po.atM opt ton ..dd L�.Lamr11 Impacts to retail.nerona.rV W crdel r.tounn? Owe the epl.w ft WWII the m.,etial Om adjacent m..r ert? Wes dm wow wiNhs ROW .gsrYldns napes? What was the I communtr', ?mamma to the option? I E ti AbeiMt Owl tie sit Mws pmtY.or ?tepees vevd°n .Mist? mobility? 1•.41 Me Ibib Does the all hen acceptable V/C Ratio? IAp $ it tt o cRR 3 in p 3e 9 5 V vie. I) galnoed -Ot✓e ImM:vm pmIQ:SY) Close ow -set -1104 OUS 16 Rol* W- 13 in coleM+m ct WCR tee east or Ya ActAe 'to Acirn 'nAvme VA " .J 55 v a n No %one ^et 'to `to Watt Awdf'mowcn re env40rvmMmlrnOumr. Yes Yes Anon model CIT.d. Cb'la' Recommenced: .ntsl Interim 'mawement d et N and TI. it will or u WS NA met vat alit -0m.ttoon to MA ea Vet Min. ma• Y et at So Yoe eke newts R •RnAenCalend .O glen hind u»t (M.npt:n 'see' petterml ..1 Yes improvements Mara •n torture non rim WC* 44 .nrprovenents Mwx-^ COryW1Ctb^ sMm WO at AVIA u are conmcpw• between Wanto WCR u a new Airvl WCR road connection antdth 'sicced. tiny recommareled condppsten a VD, IntWCR intersected. .nterteeuon •maovem.nt m�p�l Chm» 'enlbe. Yet Yn_ 2S) 'to nn vn Maemal Yes SKI n V ine hwe-al fa • Commensal, •nid.nw. and .creatural hind u»t • Swami elms: lacilnrt • Miser( paten SO man Sect agar IpOfMp.l nif[aK 'flouters) w • tare neat, re ,educed compared to the wawa, MI hide ntleartpYsto • Wntwn Mulwl Dltn Ipotrtri •YYUK ,n-tC. re, veer bombe Yeptewr.e rlb: Nere� Mo blltt Sines Ynpnp»nMIMC Yom po.imita Access s iatipmen. rRl Recrn•m.Med ntf.clence / d•!de 5lWam� Grede Separation hat in ,there Mm WCR M.mq[ta {pmtn.tS Yet �;; VC Ye. Yen Mwnrl (",pre Renee Y WD1 Mil Vet Yet Yes Mce.rate wee a more a6atLbl S.YOestYl YO Mode•a:fh ;onplea+Y Matt residents ima.rmm.twn MaYd,mole:/ d(re ¶0 thy aM:r. tOMl•Or 'ecch m hep•n. e • CM.etcri. •nidenlai. and sweatiest land use • Several hsmal m.Optr. • Adtment pans*50 vein old or Ober 1 trttetN W Yak .nW'CeI1:.Idw .r. 'toad alpared ei the damned Ain pepnw'Yll•H.a.m • Wnbm^ Mutual Pan (Porter' 'start 'noon) °acee :6 of 41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study w KnownEmmanuel helms t1u.e.e1M C A US IS L Plan Reper.r.etedaUen C .Il ITJrj)1 3 - € T e I- ) L ! E b9 E .1: R Eacceptable Mobility Access Sebty eaWeed Aternam Mode Nate:eland Camel CPmeadts ({I E c' c m1 ^.1 .. > Ef tF fi ri E s p 2 a 0 g Deese* aRIfRR MR,� pp�./If e. a¢as Melt telpfprb beef lrri w planning? E 3 R E T = 8 i i • z Z .! a 1 i $ 1 2- - a a •d Cr £ g s btM ion intemM wemaW uaprlorRy toe Closure by On rahmN) DULtM •e .Mwa reined/ road opwaorvl nrurn> ti _ g 1 T y R = 5 Z f a y t Z• ' Whit\LM potential br erdenci'g sating and planned rfbrrl tmmm weskit DO the optmn eroid wbu.mrlrmpam to natural mvuonmeM and cuhrnel resouwn7 OaeLtM op+ionIt within the wmntalth. .dj.cent communes? Does tM optSen math* ROW .cqubitbn nedt7 Whit wetted commune /a rnpoai. the option? @erPn and naW:5plery. M Iro.d WBroad Wo,:mlty, AIALnatM travel mJIIe. DoeLlM ar MM • pwiMe or nHetM effect on .miens, rvebiWYi po.stM ~Mr' V/C t.OoL (`fl II (•.0..) g S e o re 3 in g 5 C § — o WCR 33 Iwnt rat) Railroad ypalmrry *acme Ialpmrm, FR) Clouse Imed re Vents) CVn mmv M n onto VS R5. Rear lNCfl 33 to connect went WOi a enl ol RR. Darec:no . imitated ves ClX Nc Net Yee ann Mrap�p 0MEN at WCR 44) Ate Moderate. Vntintfe .trot S.Ysanbl Newt. tit • Camma•cui. residential. and at'C1.mnl:end uW • Enloe Naha rind use. •eWenM! thrsearneet .Adjarrxh 50 •yesvet naM1 COalGr historic raaovice) bathe • marmot rac>VlW • Western Mratte cn l MYfpY 'n 'naval tovul So Moderately Cortn.Iy ImpCM eolau 'aeon mecum implementa0o world rmpa/ dt tie entire town of Peckham mmaroemen5 RIRO Not RYCKnmel!df6 064 'rc d✓Lent Yes Mydmdl more benefit al WCR 44) in rer "m Nose! bctptalse .Convrwrcillardu M. IuNS Lae Impact are LwtandatN'edleod comoared to ma other actor, Albl • Several Nutn.tintersectionInsole.intersectionYet realities • Adl.Ltft pa roils SD yean oil or alder (potential Kure reacts ail • Lry lye YnopCts re srCuantanY 'educed Comnrad Zr, Met RM' acnon an Yn Yes E 2 Y ,i WCA a Safety Reamed orounnry Access IaIIgnment) Realrtoan mbrYCPM.ntle of R degrees or an (hit Point) No Anion No ACto- 'tattle NA 0/3 ] No in No 31oe Yee No No None m ryVy.ry howCn Yet yesd Yon orefem lntnuction ImtOMf4fl Gentle "nurse= U585 over: with cMnrWNeO' t wCR 33 Elimioattl Safety Wes. 0.11 No Yes yn '3 Yes Yet, wren US RS mNrvh Yes won increases mobility .lone US RS leans iet Lo: • Entire def nem lard be. 'eddenbal clevai meat ncIWlyd potential Mggdo.a m.WIN. Isogon. pod potenta Nurse panels • "peels 'r CiitvmtW L. 'etdentJl. and arcwtrel tenduse Nllp/m to •Poiecen wrcnt SO rap's did o• older iMtntel helwa •esdvosl uw to. (mpaci. are redK.C wmwred to me "Amory Alt Pasntil Swop NO No: tenet antes to Referrestaged'dsenrae eta Congrtety .mpKt Imaemr. e.t.on Aped "nbcl/dlspYfe own Of hAMn. m }P,11CAm Patterns. drotbWn 17%/ZR) Mann Insprereersiete ter advnn nte�°e" MY'Yne sirs *KM0eton Sietwlln wive• warrantee. MoW es • W.ITV, Mara. 0. WI IPOtenWl MsttlL rewurcel Interim eepronnrelet' 'net xcan 'mlwrsemenia SdrsWaeo• Recannnd.d Yet 313• NO re, Teri -I net reductor. leaden% [spathe« /d *ear ends) Pet . wan Ynw ae.nxton Yet Moderately Mrs imam hr • Connecil lend uses • P antile road, . %termini Naaor< ditch • WeiMna yr. NP MYeO MuuWin conucocn wed date caus wd113 Craw era Queuelumea n the Interim. with new nronral rod Nlrnont(n fallow, of radioed COLORADO Depdztment of Transportation Page 27 0) 4' US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dtyutment ul aJ I r� ai r 1 E I aSF p p 9 Known Problem.Enrironnent USq Maw.q CaIVMPM RemeWtlOe ; G fE E a ! e '4 € f E Meal* AMwe Safety Raihoed Alternate Mod* aria V Natural oral Cultural Ti.nspOrtaUon �� !a*donthe Por a+ma soot Satiny NI paadrrriry, Accau.o Alternative bawl modes Jledonal Y R p s E Dom Om *rondo *PPreprtJ I ! e c iy ��r J! 1 i• • E I r y.a. vst.t Y tn. .ntkwud annul trash sbuaioh? It lidewNedn as a prb.M y It. cosine In tM named> alt redtuce 'aimed/ cwt ! 1wMt.rM a , t • E ; Ci y jl I pmrltrlfw *Nrrrcp Does Ow *Rion *ad r obit not Sl impact to Own the option fit *Rhin the motor altM a1{acaro m1elellnRyP Donthe ptgn wY4rW ROW a't*pdaMbn rwedt) Whin wit the commwerr imports* to the ogbn) I Matt4M Dew ak Dt haws Wane* moodad eMtt on reelelM wae�P Ire0..3 wetrn'and planned regional tramA c.nw) *Rai that *Wont bcal4NW p4nrdaq) natural Mrrlwwnele end cultural mouanl opentbml stun) i 3 tl(Potential Y c a 1 r ry WCR u !continued] Safety rAroad ry *cost (Mgrenentl 3La: Qr for .nwhetnon angle of iS *wen or more Int aontl nwrchan�/ G•ade iemnaton Grata Seyretcn 1N0 intonation, with WCa 33 ttfl.b*. Na Recommended Eill'212 .*f •. No "et rat -3 4r e. Yob n nth awe's* moality ebna liS 84 Subtentnl rnaraaa to: • t -ital. 4ecaroc ara tae. resident* devrogronr. ''KIydl Potential *ardent museum !acuhln, sad cowman nuonc careen . 'moue commercial. • udeM,M. and IRtKYlyw14M Oa *�� • kdsacant win* 50 wan dal Or older laocantui nun< •eaovt st • Ia*A use impacts art iodised combo* w :h Qrrno d Alt p-I---Mhpeaa roc • Walborn Mucus! 3.tcm nto+a 'noted •aeww) Va NO Co."oiewl y .evdeMa 'fie our ton MehwecnNn :ot*r. of la*cahbn t j,,4 am aamnnt 3 wdwlo (/)/1B) Iraelti [wgsceaee6 'mom advaea n:enneon flare *rim beJOR LyWuenn warranted. Witt Gym Separation.*mine night triton Dlamwa} :nwrnrd • Ntint of t u RI<QIImeIVed en 0:1• •o *r n -1 n .n no e. ' araeaan motility aloe% 11S 6S ManImQea rnWVar to Ur rwdMrrOl and vn rn *ceptab4 MN T! fewest :moocea MN cnrmmTImry g ntmeroco on* of Iertalte r Gralda Seowatcn beaturban �•�� South of yin M rentwe. Not *commended eeterbe Yegewnteats: 'oterrectcn mPfaremen.a Yen .., No a. nits -1 .its roc vet •r gn incomes mPpiary eery USES n !n Ac<epwp4 Na •ecomrme.wd Atbce toe killer Coco Mate. commits Ow new rood in rare Weld County rre (%tooment nom stops' end too :ante road (WCR 44) i* waMnrbl ond tAt tt entoI and NNMMIren of Peckham. Adwm A. room Fete Com Mown Grape Separation iw%le come Orton :raw cnere tomato. lid Wfdmmeededn Yet 0 .:: No n •e - er rep r*e NIRm: **wet moDury tots% 0583 MitIimun unmoor to the madame; time nets ye, amPwb4 Net reomm.Mee •INn tnmmunrry mapace tied JINDnwntldN: alrrmrnal wool o/ hdderm 'h lane eon :'aye :9 or :• US 85 P anninq and Environmental Linkages Study ] Known ►robb ss e..eenthe wpm, aN ttaad:%kh. Mod11h. Ialrwd Prowlrrtity AAunts, crYerN� bMlnlCdtf nS6�o Cowl Non Ieraleaaetd.Jen a I C I 3 E j a s f pp yI E € 3 b ' . 8 ! Whitby Access Linty Ie aia. AItarn.ta Mode N.ta.I.N Cslvel Fmionswit Cearrtttr ytc.14.P. R..IaYI h the Inpronsont rAntlttsM vMh the ALP? Dan the option Peewit). .pprawrt. *coats that suppeett bd.l krMw planning? F ! p .. a$i >`i • o a z • O g : c 5 2{c 1 ' 'p _ t• is the Irn..wrtbn d.rnilkd n. ben r fa down by the '.aroWT Don 1M strata ••Y.a.d/ toed op.ntbtel ^rwe> F a ! o 7 a I t i s tea` a 2 WMtith. twternkl far Dow ion opt .uhn.ntYlfenP.sh to n.tunl .nvironmrrn .N cultural rataartni Does the p non lR within tM contact of the ro�tlT Mt v:ar3 Dew Ow option Saint* IOW .Weiabn ea.daT Whet wet Om community's tamponwte the option? Mohakr Oasts Ow .a Mn. potties es mantic. enact on caporal mabdl3'i l•.0.'1 —S Dow �M .t M.. e¢pt.bk V/[Ibeb3 I.A4 MM enhancing rr:siry.N planned r.pien.t I.smrt t.rvkai i p 5 t `� e i ` ?[ E 3_ } F O WCR4 amvwal Diamond =eaebir. Noc 9Pmmended K vet :: 1n 1n rr..(1'.f *et I net •rdu¢jot I.N trading pro.y;6Li to rear and.) No rYetryetNo "Irk !conies rroalAy Plat uS B5 LYbettfr.l a peyr. roc • (ntvr Patinae vra vat. resynthi deyebbnent towline parMW rntudo.a m.tetWs I.cllitett end poc.ntwi nsm.c P.Ktlt •Impact mnmaci.l. etWfMai. and aOCulhl.l sand usev algd' C K Parcels 50 wean all a alder Ir.xMtal hunk 'non,) Pawmel nprb ea • Wntvr sa films; Ditch I pout(' heat 'rto1cc) No: WM.yeatb import to M resident mpkmtnt.ben mpact/d%tplace tar Ile te of Peckham 'Wt)A a61 'NCR )5 RaFeed oloe.m:ry Resler b ieWMb Lief .I+oraacM (bniterm ooityl No Actat No&coon Invav NA 0 0 No et No "ire No No No No .gg1'mwocn re tnwwnnrctitteovrcn re,. Yet 'Ken.aion '�map..mint QaMMRMd T WIN ldoalre clothe ant side Sat ytt 0 S No let with concur, to WCs 4 _s No Yin would be clots on east sale of n'{hwey rn Moderate Impute to Angela' aryl . I land vies watt of • %PeK el 1.5 85 *cry, I.otect MINI .5 a peaceful historic rfeoWIX `n ves a.ekrred WIT WIT 35 Not poantaI to be a moor raedw•y to the Inteim bapeawenYitl. None INObI1M Pese•,•:vnwd weerre Ne�w.ttantr ievn.p. re COLORADO DepY3t tncnt of Transportation '.9e 290I t)1 US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Dcyart:nt•rt V: alma V Teanspottalton F Y F e Known emblem. EnM cm the n•rpoee mod aloe!: Safety. MMhry. ITallrmed etOaa'ed Accey> 4arMlM uMl mddss 1.683 ALSO Ceae1W M Aim a G4 Y t 5] K o E F I F E E 0 z f E ;a E { Moeda, Aces testy Wiest Aennda Mode Natural and Cdtaal Immanent Canleeblry teatime Pitt it ttr k prownes conrhtenl with the ACP? One the Noe MSS a//eeletktq adetelYel Iawl Vr/lY mulls) i [}[}[} R j ft 3 .i C 2 I ■ I { e O y M ter, whet S the wide -vain anneal crash (Sun 'Ohl 4tH lyrwtion d ntelN napriority tat[ioaw.panes 4y the rabn•4J DatIM J rMuw raboW road ommitielet awes) F 2 o ➢ i •raetl k 1 a WM14the Ponm�l for e•Jr•r.l� erd Ptsnrtad poe.tM option mad subean4l minas natael err t Oos.tM option ft n the toner of the adjacent • IK. comminity? Pow the opaloal minima* ROW acquisition needs) What em the mlmtys response to its opbnd 1 MebYey Ooe.IM e4 Mw a ecsaMS or Mryw• allese an aMb•rl mobility? MN.II) Does th• s■ lure era able ~ I V/[11atio? (sQq nm and coquet resonant) 'Wan.I threat, .wra[•) I •t e 9 a .n G 'N a WOl )7 'M1t 77 dittoed Acmes ikons lallpmum] 9a41i01b peroMrdktaar a0 reta. s II:o wm wordy) 4o Action No A[tgn •e.uWe NA j _ No tea ho bone Yes 4m 4•. None Abed, aNDO[l fa TnPOmMItal rn0✓•C., t r ''^herons / Grade Stanton Ili Movement r enire 4w de[wnme•'ded L(egt •e1 • ?yt No e. Yes Wynne Yes Yes •es opt tans Ipcsto • •Resdentol an] aI<Wm/al end • ;tailcoat se/Mm (Ootenot nstmk restwce) Mode•ablY No ,exmet- fret -robe l/e MmsYnant 'reaf•ble hot 14[omrrended es )6! 4o ParWEy fn Minn* Yes Yes Yes 4owgtPy MCgegirr ND n.:tar. 'storable bestirs ImKowlanl. None Mobility Mite imports ro and.ntaI lord .Cauw[elund nut •(4nrold fe t kMettn bmton.Mn '�.ae sal: •1 tw, 'twilaone) ••sMk 'mane) "TrCrJars myoPrmentt i1MnMIlts4 1 weds anWe Okla RecommendedOi; 'PI No Yet r Yet !Animal Yes Yes Yes Moderately Parr inputs is • Aprcutral and •n •.. Accept/°e :wt, nrca) and use. (Changes Fn bawl MOWN) • Ranted wren; loolenne na:Onf •norwl =arted 7. _ t AveAye _ wenor•N Recd./Mel testing signal No awry, •«IYmOKOOn took date .n 1994. Gwe access Pmnn. art 'Shred sidewalk. as rltaswy m *titres safety [o'w'ns Tam •V d [ NI No era' NO Action tenor. NA No. nE! 7 Yes its No 4ma i.e., NO NO Noee. 4 0,dt rnlemo to enrronmenrd radurces Cr,is rWnm to save 4A awry ns.o "tectonic/ Grade $aW«lmr• Jona ntrOmnip faNb4. Not QICJmraSMld S. _a_ �L NA Nu I No Ire moafl•.d Om Y•' Yet from tilt .atni r! uses Yes Moderately. .rooms mobility lV puy� seartMYyt /bn to ntul• .manes Wand co numty (Lisa. Gnu ar nbytereel Qn[Ir)4nd �e ••lalmetlK:lltMa .restored two Mane stations . Aduwnt watt 50 sate Old or older IPowrrtlal nttOrk •esnnml No 4o Yw «C!o'JMe rAes rot reflect [OmnrtA.tYi deny interim Imm.mnmKY NTe Mobility Intetbm bmmtenameal4a: Ara may Mad to be;ranted by awn' that eft darn laden of Me Wlnl.DPy[n lnteYRYYtI • oicare •entf - THdRC 5lQlal NKommeMOd _- - - 4ve oat :)•n 'm In N.n-rn vas MOONateY NO NOM :Minimal epoch to: • dl'fidentat and yrnnittop lend uses t mowM etalrarn • Varwn SP win dm or !der (Dotentlai Nat newton) yid a ilof•rree tan lam a• edeN4 tea edrow �dwte•atent rte>e Cancer bap maw junto 'age Beget US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study GG V LLL �[ 3 known Pinta... Dn.d on the pvrpw end rwd:≤afety AedrwO IYPlllmlly. Procne or hawed modes US E5 Acton tr.nlol PYn Aemmmrndetbn &• t lE G pi i a t VV y EZ g e € �p fi Mobility Accts Salty Aaboed Ate net. Mode Naval and Cultural [mbenmen 13 f �r s louWad Ft A F'.{option a o a l € i Z e a 8 Poefth. 'mkt' • Proopro[e eRn,IMI supports local land use planning)a I F y: a q i ,� L L 1 a I j 4 e i _0 I a bdw y� a• t ��w ~tin roamed? the at seduce n6 al/ coed operationalregional loci..) p2 S. • 1 What a the petemYller enNerc e.ning and plumed heron heron servos? Don tMo an.void , artime& imWrts to Nrur•I .nrllnnmM[ and culturalraw,eta7 Does the *Mtn h within the concept cot tits ed}Kem tommunityJ Don end 'ninth** nimM *OW !<nuhltbls needs) Whit res 1M commuNrl response to the option?AlternativeWCRene?regional uo.,[M,eDon lave . positive or negative went on ��Aey eh MN eaM[ttY PAR rowideyJ 3 S £ 6 j i I - b I , Ave m No •rOr aerie No dung.. :econttrucnon toot Seca in 1994 . date vast, DOOM. are ulb w '•b&ne!t. at necessary to address :story concernsMpnwmeMs: NO Acton 5Actor r.•.roe r.-.w NA YH. 0 73 0 rot Yet No Nail NA SA No Now erode imports m nnrotnelrol rnourrn Ye, Yes Closure PIRO Recommended Recommended kin NA • No Yet In MnsnW NA NA Yet, mar to dons J5 AS None Aire (chock, hr • Commerce, ere tetadentte Wad uses Inges. n navel perarnsi • mayn't Lachine& • ParceN SJ vein old Oe Jber (Potential into, c recants) Yet Yet Aaeouu-• Waring Imlrovennemv N:re AApbllltll MecM Nurse 1rd Ave No 'nape vies No Pangs. rttonnUCDOn toot place in 1994, ot6e oasts pa+ttem tild seleamir 'Conn a nmury to address solely O rcerm NOActtOn No Action Recommended NA YG. 0.74 _ Yes Yet No Sae NA NA No o Akre A,ogl �moxnro enwolme'ltolrnoVTn ref Yn Conn C:C. I eNxe. Not Psrpmminded Sag NA - No I No Yes ,nrns' M NA NA 1 Ya' eager to :: Sf ..SAS None Aline imports to a ilHdenlJl.. commercial and 'ecreervel tend .net Idyres in trawl pstaral • train's t 4011,1 • parcels SO years old a ode (potential 'none 'na✓cal • Mom Pan (Acton 41)1 Yet Yet Muria Yeecermars. Von* saw. k. laterh improvements: kr a l Aye No ms vre& No change0 acanlruenon out Piece in 1994 dote cans pine and •ebWY seewlk, es recsssary to address safety LORe� NO Acton NO Amon reav?! NA as. 79 0 Yrs ran No 'lane NA NA No Na'. Acids:motenm arnrdrme!.W ',sources rn Yet mono e^vM R01O aeco.r f 9 q 4�• Na ref Yes Marna. NA NA Y!&. me,.' to ;rots .15 AS o Noy AlMriepen en' a Aemientel. cornrow •ec enonel rand toes (slyness:" neyn. peltereral • Hannon • e.n tied. tin • Main LaSalle Part 1 471 re& .r AccepterY Im MmeMt:Wenn VSG bl� hers kepmwemeratc None ended S Ave NC mhos sales No° 'e. No Ace*, #environmental )o Aetlen Recommended NA A NstateNa.et 0 in in No o NA NA So No Avails mill, le W "et Coca Closed feasible. Not AecOrrintenOeo Wet Sand::cant Pattern. None Aerie Impnwments Monitor lyaow, tan miles 6Aitt NA No No Ms Minimal NA NA Nd None Biller isOW- ex • Commercial' and wet (mars In DM'. patterrn) r.> Yet reconstruction took p'ace on 1994 close access Pointe and rWWld tidewn, a necessary to address safety common Women's,'" Impromrnann CM'nenred'' MIRO (vent Ode) fervor*. Not Recommended Yes. Yes.• 0. P. d•rteuy Yet Yes Mlmmal NA NA in NM* warn (enpefla to • commerce. end ion (WrrRsin Part omen", • hairnet lapinyt • Parcels SO wear] old or eider jpotanti. 'Mors PC rrnWraai • Savm Teter RNer IItt notelet and "penan ea.) Moderate Ye. Acadian.. Sarbe Inere*erenta. Nana COLORADO ihparttncnt of Transcoteation ;sage P 01 .4 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department of 1 know. ambient, slain on The purpose MI5 was[ Safe ty'Mobill waNad� V�naJte encases Alternate Vint mean US 6 Aatww CNAroIpYw BeconaMndedan 1 c≥ $ L it s — IE1 ! qa I y C +(`d w j [c a g i MatN\y Access %ahoy laDrool Alt./nate Mod• NatwNatd Cultural Gnllarlrwetll Cause laut4W Island yak It the !repro wino €ont n.M Win th• ACP Ose tin open PrI owda eOYoNYte 5 0 y c i i = tI ! 1C }_r p 1 9 _ ! 1 i 0 E e a. h tin a�lo't SSW Mail r donee by Ilia raiON1 font e\rNw : named/ I road epnetenl newel . 5 e 0 F \ • E 3 i ! Y whet Atli* l For mote.rtY'W antenc stinky and pinned regional anima awakes Don,Mo eneeeid oaten sehwamllnepaca to natural envnomove and whin al rr,ounwi _ option fit the within Its coffin? of Ow adjacent community1 0� tam clarion What wee aeweaaa� moons* tat IM a}Ian7 testae Mw• peaky ea negative afloat on Intend mobility? (•.0.-1 .RY at bon acceptable V/C tatb> (0)lt1 access that tappets lot die pYrwl.\1 mein** ROW aobu\kiwt meads? $ C 3 } 5 n 4 3 5 la 3 • . .rout 4O+e NO Acton NO Ac on rau ,_ NA NA Not Adarea,ed via No Nora NA NA No None Aw.�++Mxn to mwdnrlm+lnl rneu2ea M Yes intennbon,mil t liaruu aa<ammrrded: NA • NOt Add,asstd Yes yes Maims NA NA tea Now Mina • Cw+r.rcll'aM vets (thane's ,n ono, "attest •e, can Accewlb.t MaAen Uanrtpbaton for Alt hum tent M-m IaRow inns' N• MobIHty h*aran Nnwown.rel Nor. W� 34/!S7 witty Rained pomtllry ',key to an nntanectwn aye al 15 Owen a meat (mamWm war. WOOL tract grade and *utilise. ie., affi anaa No Acton NO Arian •a. d. NA M 0.18 0 NO sea No Nme No No NO Norte Acdl +mpocaro rnwpro ;of rewun:n tri Yes mersellon maraemenn Covrbr Inta.ylron Rocon.nw. d 8!!!91 reg itam as exm ?treason (7/8) 51111055a*raaata MwowrMIAd ell., Maned• ntarattwn warring signs w.m tenons Montag status of MUMS Mobility Yal 0„ Nu n e t el No v Y w MOOtrater. +tietia mobility l0 as • Ag<Jt✓e�'arc we NRNp1•gDl<O ten segment lhnnec 'MAGI ••ocdplan Peeve b'0t4a • Weninth • ioum plebe Rita• TAE and noran nab ar Yea Na *atoned Menton gads separation at SOU?, aloes ^pl:.a[Vr\ Iaaer_w 4w/aMlMllll None g S A? $f Safety Moatlty RaiIIo&d NOwmlty N!ernetlya never modes 5!gaWatbn NO Acton No Actor ctaalbie NA Sic : 01 Ym nn eve None NO No No hose agar invert to nn omNn a maitre, r, et Neared 'nrrlec'-0n molder.ena *union a IdOIWN %commanded Safety •O%V I Significant al !tent awe Na 0113tt 'it No Nana aimed. tents No Noolargr vas:Nanette., Moderate lmwpyta air serving mans:[ Iacilty Motor imports tar • :And ..al. octet,* cone,, al (filling station' and ,arldettlat daYlepmant • 00waIal:•!•pwb to Care NbtaIN Varier Aral* MdNw trusser • Scum of 31' re *eat of uses Yet 'el At:act•we Oar pnaly) F,ynagr rod :ml..dlaNwed oa us A5 V+Oud a+aacernn tw watt .marwaan macaronis turn aaaRlTgnAr.va eeaHD1 We Aefagnmer'OM ere heeds MwoMlwalwa tail meshy *a•nry slgN W2 11 nOrtltbarrd vas. Q71 No Na re, '3 No sty In Lot. access so VarsY rwdty on sett 'de bait Vega to • Yosemite MIOr<ticl• • UN Less wean el 3l ana nest d IA 8$ Yta rn Not aeMrad- syW tip Medrd ataP' Newt" trans center *11 rata fop mpraments to us its ^:rc+ansa/ 5•we aa'itoon run -tooted yer:tP eteas Aacagnmerdcd t1 len, Yw/1Maa - Nose __ les. p y No ar:.a,ly 'es -) No rn vas _ Nth. rKOMl been onrr+mbitM along U585 IpatbMc • Committal and t unadorned Land uses • tannin !mantra • Evora Evora'tntonce Meter • Soda Matte Nis NU .abut end rworn area • [tmodpbn • Saab Matta Riven tan rmvytSac0ona(r�l NO \a:.pporad •'doe 32 of a•. US 85 Manning and Environmental Linkages Study r 2 e 9 Known problem flatod on the Wreee and nee: Safety. Reid' prownlry. Access. or AlnnnAON bawl $1,00l1 US I.5 Access Control plan Anom mends ten E C Improvement Tin i F EEa b a (Main Imprw.nrrnts Mobile Amen Selene Maptori Aleeaile Whoa /Fat Fremeal m.m�� Censfeu.ka }calked Regional > E 7 • E F E p 2 :• L a f Does the cOdlon provide ppoptYts e�atYt 4 E t 6 1 I1 $ ia 1 I I ^ 4 s t C iS : e kiln y eesAled n. prissily for doter,nerobv• brtM mimed? Des the .t reduce named/ rood ofe.tnloml Inge? !t L I I I What ehM petametfw enhancing v,eclnaeM planned region& [r.n,n .renew) Does the nptinn .woo Does the optanN a+thln the tamsrt d the d a,e a (•r COMMuiei One. the oy1M. nleYRlu tow agtJkbn needs? What was tM tommunfr. response to the optbni n scq I`lobattl DwadM .h have. 'nom. o. met on tit moMakye 44,0.•) W.Don the al hey* eccepabY V/[A.tbi l�-AI selenium imports to 'atural .nvl.onment endcultural..counn? Man bpYnW E C 8 i o 0 E Z • Mob.Ltr Access AYCrry1M VIVO, made Cane Watt Served Road ,ntanection (madmen to long- WmariOn nl Yton 10 Acton redone NA Va 099 .. No res No 1ve No Yo No None Avoid' mpotn ro rn.rommrof resource. YesYn -1r1•••,: Fnsoat:On mp,o.err.an: AndlWe tare Addltlorht ReCOmmlMad: ante awN bid frontage roads USXCoradk, L05$1Y11 Feast 1 App turn pan.ecant aat•.ern-Non klterka IreataYelp.rt.. .000OtM riasht war -ng "Wm IW7:1 �� interim :mwovemen:t Nwe No. 089 res v n Ye No No a• r a Modena to mare aslant batik aryl Ages aPna ter •'Cannnetal NM a at • numet Nan/ tenni station) 'es ref pasta urea. M COntunCOCel with colnmeCer but tsrva:e P.destrnn crowns enlar an,tnn. intentions,/ pad! wyratar� Tern lawman]Not %eafble. Recommended re; i1._: No Privily Ye No YesYet Mall; gyyyl buses . pin F oat o5 AS Impute 10 10 Not ...Loon.) Is .Cammt•wIend :deans.,l and use, •Hpma[eKdltn .,AyAHPR.opble Gm�e egerce I d{Or.C resource! . Parcels 50 Kean ad ar Old*, Ipoaml.' Mtoec ntourcel `t MoWnv Accra Anymore [revel n'aws Close West Sannco Road And the Sate Street utanactbns (medium to land. arm oron tY) ho Action bit Actor neeoole NA No 09l 0 NO v Yes No Noe No No No Nine Atcidt impactdro tn.tipnmvmlreouncn let wt Preened Intara.atgn imprprenenn Aulls Lane ry Addldcns Recommended. 11 Na OB7• raw Yes No c. No NOOeltaa re Mtoerat.aJ mflc We' •n vas Aeenp frontage•obi R.etOonentd hd•ear roads O�SA 1 Sergeant "Moms Roar Eno wrier Impre.oaaeab: .wa noshing warn? s IWr7i 1}� to nnoten Watt Minor immix •iommetaellMd tan • annuli Indi W t Imrch.n i .Girode left aratlw t •� �d dewed.. Not Recommended d51• 10 oa•tails Yes -A No ho ado far wen Yea mar•. arm mop resole, bias 'N Wand US 15 Spun to • Coemyrdal land uses .TevenlNnnAt tarobbes • D1Kn IN4z•i rerovice) No No Not flpdorted WKS katowtaaab None InlecMn NA Core.dtrea beyond Oa tcopa ct I.. ACP No Acnnn TAD Re0NnrRMed Witt NA NA NA 1A NA NA NA NA NA NA M1•o"w'•"oatnm o, MmY,U'noYTr No Yes NA So* Dear U5851US1a Garrett* yNy.,mo .y � V Mann YeeretaMtle Spins plan COLORADO ? t. Deyuttnent of Tranapoitation ;) q .s? .4 US 85 P anninq and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Drparlmcnl of 'NaNfru lend settle ewpw erg near WHY. Mobility, Rabo.d aco.inrh, AnewCe Alteened* Vaal model USA Auer. Control Plan YeelelrwRtnn 3 ¢ y i E [ o d _ a 5 E o a w Ina,tn lmptog*mono nor Satan Railroad ARemtaAWa Notre' an CaseKannMonty I.arYammM1 Gminurtr tauOrN !RBI Moblkt a E `j I _ a E ! _ a F o oe.. the flame repay sample. as tar .tout? fecal land sea. pl.nNrt> ! V S .I1 g a ! S 1 .. y a Y Z 2 a- : .e a { i a e le b tha iMtVM Sr dewm forted mired? Dow riw at rhea n4oN/ toad oparnprel rues?baled Does Ile imMon moat onhn°, Wiling and welkin"? Wtie a the pat.tbl tar .aMnb. eaplanndtt Don lb. mean dray susumeI intent to [[lure, wtri.onnat end corral roar ) Oaaath. orionft willtin the eelltn tof the Speent slatn_k? Orethe What nos the comnwe . rwpenu to the orlon? I : Ef 8 M Do•etha all ha*a poser or motors .art an r.g brel many? AbplRy DN.tha alt Ira n(taanblo V/C aatio! le0,q anion rnnion ROW mansitlon nods? planned isogonal ambitI•.aa S c 9 a9 .i ysnotatd 0 % ""ygepflant g 5J I: 1: u :a It Safety Mobility Atten N'wrnao* red; mean Nelocadon d Noon. rose awry PornuS AS limp -term. Opacity) No Acton So Acton Fumble m NA 09* 0 No in No None NA NA No None Ands 'morn ro animavnenrprno.Nn red Yes but not yenned prnpPe•ntnh 'r•1bc Sear teas [to No ieCCr—onned Mal LOSS peel Bran ?morn. Rear EM ~Is Irnpro*waab' nttarl Rating waning sr IW).11 rormmpnd hkiiitt born Improve want Map IN s.gra. coned or Michigan U't Na CAS 0 N:: No Same a a ttl "� NA NA Yin 'fever Acton mCM Awls .mpcnm Same Some Saner ens.ronew nm/+paws Ton Turavnnd Recommended Yn. 069 V;r vat Yes -a NA NA In 41 N tea a per mrm.riry alOry J5 B5 Modera:ery Moderately Profaned CdYeat 01 Non U nn the O adequate wadi and octets alo'; Rotary ',Drug,roadf Enforced ten/pad croons gequrrn parallel file cMectfon ro Plow b .ls ess Keen On tr. am:?race of me ration r1/wb for • Cm.rerc'al and ran • wimat'Kaifu[. nth a honer dty of lop.• nnprn ant of US Is duo to new frontage r fad It St Safety Motility Access NtertatNR travel mode. Overarm lour US SS bang elevated) IlOrg'tarm priority) No Acarde NOACLon reatpbe NA No J Ne Vt Ne Nev. NA VA No hoe A*•n•rrOdcn nOoe[n enivanunee fWr +ef rat •b•w.,redo .d 'MoneC[dn mOovetnenn AddrbOV ruin ones '[nabs No Recommended WO No. U$ Vc .n net .1 NA VA No Moderate: r�nar operators Alfa engeRat • (onward&and wit . mono (snipes re; rat G4ln Petro Find %9ec11 Interimswith raN*a.aente: IM.rt,Vnpn/ cane Sepa.eton fear 'a"'rgad Recommended Yes.• 060 ref -'et rca NA NA or Wgh. nasal buses pin ro w along U5 g5 rued to • [brrrrrarCalaM rarains's, and or a Nen? d.rwtr on lmrcn Mid Uf 45 qua Mara frontage road •Mensal lXlllbn • Moe.. "we °inartJh ltmeentw nun neriesal Halle potruinerl a 'dtenlaly `mlacn Puns 50 taps Ord or ode r laotantlal entree rewurtn) MONr lei s a Moderately Or I a Corot of 'eat Uliin due madagate K[en elan; eawre nonage roar Enhanced bite/Pad rod n0 No:O.Kllbrt pars.- �'t nern nAwealellt Trot,: signer :YU, o Mrctigen Vs :o St Safety Moblrh Amass Namara Vaal modes NO Actor NO Acrzvt • eaabr IdA No 0.91 - No rat No 'too o NA NA No No Sera rat fee yr p le the not emak nU Co.,,. Closed :eaten Not Recommenced Sahli NA • No No net -9 VA NA No Molests- road .sped* moop:rtyfo 'Kama service Inns b etateer • Cacwnpn.t and reddened and ram (trawl in !row petipr6) net Yes LOSS ilin significant patron. Turn rads npro'e"•ets: needy etokacMaaraa efts lance MITI Intern remvanrnn: acorn ..f a. comm. • r V cnpn s Closet Avenue en •set:ion INbnuge'cadl Ilorg-term pmrhl •neec.ana• I grade i.opacan OutAdeOTm.ndaC In 61tan"oan 1J et n 061 Moderately Mora 'p NA NA In 'on •Mona buses pin mmety along u5 d5 telaeete� • Commercial and naadeMlal land uses torn• Nfr.r denim of roans east of us g5 etonerModerately homage To rood • Helmet Irisen • Potential 'Stone railroad segment w•eely referred Comes: or liensU pat due toarena naQ rend KCRI•'Oy ratting frontage roan Enhahanced bb/ttFt crossings rage not dr US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study I a I sE O KnownEnvironment emblem. gated on the purpose and eyed. vrry - !NoodleRecommendation Railroad awlrrury, Aw M.Or Alternates navel dude: US 85 Attest Cnmtot PYn a .� L E S Recommendation a E Mobley Acme. Sebty I.bo•d Anemia Mode Natural nil Crwael CaAatnilte E y to I Soto led tad h lM Improvement consistent nit the ACY1 Dom the option Provide appropriate wen that wooed tonal Yedw phoning?a Oon the bpnnlrn reduce the mWomhrnt sash Penner I S 9 i( y F S = a ; _ k the intersection detgW ee �� fm douse try the radioed? Owe the all reieN/ toed sMatetal Stoat 1 � I • l i What a the pourRYllor enlyr.< beoption *thing .b planned does the awed •ubtaMYllmpebb atvd•nthaeNnt and odosai raewcwi Omit the option fit within th canton of the adjacent ammydtyi QMath< orlon te'J- IOW eg.iMM e•ede: What win Om rommunly't response to the option? Monett OwatM alt Mw• potent or neeaUv e11M on regional noonday) Motility Don the al have acceptable V/(Ratbi I•d [I itlioal trarnh limits?1 •. D. I co •J 4 9 Al i X 5 8 r g •.') 13 it L/arty NONIiry Access A.01001•11••A.01001•11••Spab I V awn model Close uS 85 medialeH.ale. medial IWOp 010) Creates u rain. flirt -out al 13' A� won emended to wont NOmoyrn.nr controlled arced NO Attics, No Aston 1enmu NA Na d90 No rH Nc Nam N/. NA Na •r:ne Aced. [mown to ell•m��Nl efovcn es r. Acceoaba mtemktbn imn plpT<nJ NI Ac Sinai Not Recommended Ufa 0 9 - Y<: let No Nave adv a'n•41 cults NA NA Yobllryw MoaHate. could lm prove mobility regional mid Aims inspects to •[ommerJa r esdenti•I lad uses semi, ie Mine n055'h $pt•b t naivete: Brooded* been a Yeaeveaeb: xd tiro 1012 'nn•tanp/ 3,0. TAU. Twarand 5ecoraton armed et let• 061 Nn 'et Ye. -1 NA NA Yes wear; Accln m NA i5 EIS B1 regional buses pin radDrya US 85 Dell —. to • Commercial end resieeml4'end Net al hone odes of u5 045 Due to few lrontega coeds • Kant .purest • ipodpfar • Cache to iodre Rivet T&E and 'wren natnat Moderate r Mole. at<IV Pr<krrH Cornea of ,noes U nn du• 10 achnivale s ea •A0 scone *kind seta.( "ramp •woo Ent reed ate/wa Irwa^p b.pOve.eaMa: AaptM troy, cotOUl Or M,chpn u . 8^ k ny:capons Mob4ry accessman anTNitH navel modes turn arrow (nit Orally) Spilldiamar•a "Mechanic Ikeg-Mem OM"ity) No Acton No A[:cr •cHlb! NA Nd 0 95 0 No Yes NO None NA NA No None Moth nmpacOm enwonm.raulrHWRn Yes Yet Acceptable rvJ'carp / _rote Separation Meat raue lent :0SS IP Significant Parterre Non. Meerit inapt emosita: Mahon( yarning or IW7-:1 MoMIM Yee 0.l? _ _ n e. Yea -a NA NA et 'es wets base pin mobile." ding US 85 learn tat • Com...del& land heel • Hermit IapblYe. . Cache le Pouffe RNv 178E Rohm and noanenoas) • tbodya+t and Wapardt • Poet, a awe te (Stair 4netlource) IIOOdpbn • �.mwty to •uetet croared to m :toe spilt was c0 Al MoanateN Moderately preferredrantingorantingtwa CM(elt cd Thus U Ab dun m Semen same Watt alone frontage malt E^Need tote/oed tai" np ,Recommended het Damae tenib<. Nat 4ecamrarbU Yes, 0,10 Yes *es vet -c NA NA eft l buses •egioah pin mohdlry on US SS Selirea/MAtpects It • Canmerwl Ord at • Rennet halms • Cache :la POWs'RNet t habtat are ripariant) • ibodp4n end Webnds • Dadre Fiver tell ISernon 97 raa.al MO0eeataV NO AWNS. Improvement.: A0a0we civetcivetMigh cooties or Mlchtie en Sr Safety MotiI.' Access Alareseve trawl modes Spilt4latnond Shoreham.,•rtn.<nampr keg eerie priority) No Acton No Action ' cash. e Moss ,114 0 VO 'rrs No None NA NA No • Noy Atolls depicts el eneoamielmraperon H YesAccePao< :D4S i•ni Significant Patterns ANA Eno Interim Glade ,.oa,atron tew5 tunrcurel Recommended let Q 55 Vet rH 1n NA Yee Most,ale'Y wen rapped buses pin mobility an U585 s._.• It • foremen* and uses • magnet faditISt • Poodles," • Ceche u Dad.. River 'midi. 178E arc riparian hbla4 • teen arwacb combated m the shit 14,n1A1 Sit East Eau ode tunnel natty elected elerrel Concoct Ot 'cadss u r,b due m adequate space and at:au tare t it% Arena real tnMK<d bb/ad ap pwn Improvements: !sail itatomg wan.rttrpn fwp•l1 needed ®y Sprat bproneltl: aapOw it St/e ;Aaron' fallible, Not Recommended a ugrnl V <s dJD tin Yes Yes ") NA MA VASrYgm LIwerrtielienpetu to • CommercialCommercialand uses hrrp'.tsy is •ytmal l.{i4lya • clocdna.n led wet'res Mcpau:mv No east ads tys:am II •e V Olean •�e� a Michpn U's COLORADO Dcµutntcnt of Teanspartation Pape 35 04 41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Depd:br,rnl ld • Known ernatim• aSoacho AIOYStalely Aafioad ISIS Ann t '� yy 5 E f ? { € c`III- c s• L ` i i Mo6At, Arens Salon Ilallend Atna e ta Met t• Nelsen( sad Cassel FnYamM ftiott DoertM N fan MeprM V/C Stub? (AIA b the Improve meet ambient with N. ACP? Dan tlr t e e _ r 1 1 I C i a _0 2 , titM I wyMyn n • prbfitp Iw !Stowe Inc 1M nLtad) 0081 the all reduce te4wd/ �d ! I P g •n•allna •� 7 < a , B / iii wean Y the for ot..tM option Enid uinamYllm Impart. to N Does Ole OpennN MNM thin wnte IOltM ed is f'ca OwatM • d.e ntednit IIOM tit kbn resdt? I WMl wen the fommuMya I rnponwto the nn> a9i f alb t�tKl Owns^Mat • pptl.a or tiptm• dIM on r<abrnt r 1..0 Iy I •. O.Js pptemnl enforcing and Fla rnon.l Conn •tutu? Mnlde appropriate noon Out ninota lawllald ma platlnirlt? Rddytalh. Aetna, or AlMnaow caul modal natural KEd camel ,exam.) opWW.cbMl inns? community? = p 3 p 3 5'5 § ;9y u is r?;: Mobtih Boned OvefOetL WeeaAeworry O Street nannyNone over 0545 nteroveyf (met" onwiryl NO Actor raa Acton ;anbl. NA O.il ••0 Yea 10 Nm< Yn No No Rocca Ann:impacts m•.ran ertal 'nonce, e. Yat :mindsets I Grade Sanratlon :natant 'Aerobe. Not lecomnterWd NA et ea "ea vea Yoh Yes MIp1. not on• raYdnd options are tonne S.Ystwail Impacts la • Correctly an: federal WS eoeesn Oeoanm<m)Ynd 'an Hamar !oceansRp • aarcels 50 veers cide. oner(tannin Shone rnWfls: • Railroad segment (=anus I KIM'S recd/L!( VJG.•a:l.'. Vo Sb.CMe our aW VS AS so ww;t1n t surrounding IMO Mt SIPdIrMt 'imams: NO. Intern eepi t•1•ereta Con�binad Overpass nth WC Q5 Fen�de, Not! R.wnnne.dsd NA • na•: a No rat -. .es es Yes NA ittY.mwf6••paenes- •CORYnIerCe.at Warr (US events CfetertyMntltiroan • Kamtt (scams a • AKIN Sc wean ON Jr ACMfoowntn satonc sirs( • AaarOa4 atfytent lOotersin.e.4tl historic rewvgl lfcdanttY NO wonmih Wine fwdresen•ent Co.. last -t pr'ea weans! won:•vanon rah wen 56 a carnotite Imraaolan I•garemenl/ Cowes NI clown on total Welts of VS 65 end• tontine meth sirs( at WCA 66 Kpcominnded NA uen a'. No In 'es en Yee 1A MM. ot4T. raew> • Commas I. rendental. and ifituttural and .an la.ndet •h :raw. enre•n1 PohMNi,.r. t • M�rwd segment IC :renal nude'( •eso• ecel VJOe•at<1 ea Corueucmd.n ea'finna• nth a in nit oeryl at WO 66 won some Ol.tot direction Nine( • in contact or surrounding taro no WI_u �.. Sa.eoad NO action NO ALWn Lsn11e NA res 0 No yes I No Yore No No No NA r arvnnenrolannver» Yet Yn turning movement afWd per 0'street "wove mem% stroke. intinecyo•I Imed.•.m or, ty7 Tnlrnare n traffic 9fni knornmertled Yes 0)? es et Yn _ . S'/+I'« Jontdtnwe t0 TOM agldann Than .1 ptyentt No yea n that .7 y<aaaUs o IwWWnh enNA Awed. neon" re en vv. are.trred peen fpm own<of0 Stmt w% add aepkwtfxt intersection or 'n Conjunction tMtN naow menu at 0 Son WS lnpeewnwrn.� None CRY •.rnT+v an addNnft co bit ahGtidl Intern 4nMon•nerpa: Add tonal EB and WR Left nr•• a -ea n....•,.a..., rot rfsooern US 85 P anninq and Environmental Linkages Study I _ T p 3 S4 known Problems Need on the gam .M need: Selz, MoMlry, Railroad ratoetvw AherNtlye uewl modes u5 a5 Access enrol Plan Recommendation Z 3 r i C Z I : e a. I 3 F E o b € 9 E Meaty AKnt Safety ReMoed Aa.rnn. Mode Natural end EmkonmeateM Commute u Lo ew•—� �ONI # Y L • y_E a F E ! . r .� 8 Does the o/bn provide ppprowYte access thin •eppwtt kcal land rag ) I cR G E 0 I S c a. o i E B a s I Y yes. what is the anticipated annual <nM seduction/ le the I nb� w.nlrYd /ardMen es • priority by tn.spent Den the .R r.dw ra4wd/ coed no) Mon? E ; ; n S • 21 1f 2 • What a the Don the opt Ion avoid stARente l impaN to natural cantonment ennaturaluesourt.si Own the optiontt within the contort of the *Anent mmmtnlryl Doe•the option Snit I ROW amalgam rwdsi WMt.wtiM community's 'moonset* the option? Mp►rRy Don all Mwa positive or amen.* even on regional mo1IIRY1 1•. O. -I Mobility pry nYlb enhance noting and pknned regions trefoil oon is en eccapVbY V/C Ratbi (9{I H ' dbarb aAdd.loral c n 5+1191 Mobllty Reamed a o. miry 'titulary Line .m MRat lmeawm woml So Acton No Action seaube NA raj 04,,, 1a rt Nv Sr. So No No NA AWgt •rrearnm envvo'wttnad coerces w was •ntersettwn npnOyemp en :Unary lane Racamm..dm SRMIr .aS11VM v �uEGnt eaner!R AaorOK$ Turn 116•/481 brake Irnplew1Y14. Relocate mast arms to ihotildee% nastiest yellow snow Or .sacra rsnlyeebll WW1•COnyneralaN weredn{f+n (W1l) MWpIM yet, 0 I: es Ym So SameAron Wendt eqn %C.M Tao ' prMmptlM we nolo NO NA tops inns Is: me • 4von lYeaav Sc. 1G • COrnme•calera maiden? al and uses\ tee tee areh•rad :Watcher. •I too inyKlt.4 Imm prolent ;MarWry./ Grade s.o.nn,or :tended :Mkt. Nol l.comnendd Yes, o35 Nn No too •moecna ces .1 Nn 4t 'es NA Sebnrai/itlpae to •aWental ard,M •tVl'na11Ka.IM • Greeley NO l Caress •o�ar�tah 50 years olds • Retmnd(patental restart nw srceel • Wetlands No.ntrant. So Wawa result dN•Tao pof nett percentage of theh :own NotatttPVO< at Ms omit much tire, wrla line w prertelea: NB ett turn aye. aOdtbllal accepor>{ We arc on 91197. MW addinofel W$ 'eft thin gas WCA 1O Rd PrOe:mlry Au•Ilaty arc mpramenll a• n Ined 4a rwrte) No Action No Action Recommended NA ]58• rrt vas Yes V,n me. Nc No No NA nMOrr,nO•NIro et re,esorces Omura on ant too geavbl., least toe only enrane Ch l91 'Bete NA No No Yes V'n ma Sc feeellrn. al. t only SO het from ,•{My No NA Rene. Marge IS e '. FefWrlll.lq WOW r urger aatte.nl Yes Intern blrprnwMM•' 1d < Mobility Inter.n interim Miens wmems: ',it C COLORADO Depat anent at Transportation ✓age 31 of 41 US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Departmcnl iI I Known ►roi4mi Owed on the f Plardeamee•fery', Notary. vAru•d poabnity, Accent. Or ARHNew bawl model Uf�AeorCoabliPbel boeRlltaR��lt C I E e rE c F ! E 'P- E Morley Aonw Safety Railroad o Alternate Mode Natural and Camel rnNremerR Abbate E§ ` D ! F s ≤ Y 3 i E t t Oe.a the oaSlI Provide • etepYt• *caw that steppers bc��slr :I E 0 I* e [ l e Y lt C 3 a 2 7 I i.4 i 5 • j ' la Ow _ Dow Ow alt reduce ,%Mood/ on.stutwl nwnT F= o e c g I • E d; 2 d WwtAIN potential los enhancing M totting and rtt a Owned Dan uDtbn •.aJ tubnentel'm 'mono to pi vtu�.l .nwonmem and oath, al rrounn? ppe•yN canon M ,with the contort of Ow Wirers' Do.,:.. option What wet Ow rommw,R{t .et pone to Ow option? E Est Don ^w sit po,aM m ,items effecton ctrl r reorlht 1•.O. I Does alt haw royal,. V/C Ralb) 19q bf.ntrrdn w a pare, la down �iw ra6aN7 minimise ROW .cquimon needs? rybral writs? mmminwel Y ZwVoc• 'J NCR 72 Railroad tiosonY Audit,% arse ,morawmn'(a ai appopata (medium Y) orally) No A[Don No Icon r<42,124 NA O • No si No NOV* Na .c No NA AVJdI �mpoib ID Cones a :0frnOVr[n r, •n °owa Clot.,% (on astride ON1 R.ca,tlrllYd•d (ant tie only trauma U 3Q) %J NA - N0 NC Yet Meows, vii •e. 40.M1ONY SO Wet fromDeer 'rimer No NA lemmas to: •toDy al/,VtVal NO raYdenW aro win (Owlet +n paw' rearms, In Yn rmyW O VYGA f9 to connect WO1 T< (Nara Imposonone : Na-e NN�(li(Y Intni NnAwlaanb: Sae Cosine, ;Wm. NO mmawMµemant :was'avi,n No Acton 3/a W/o Alromrrianad iak]y Yea. Dal• No 'Melly ♦et Minn* NA NA No NA Minor /apRat •Car.wrftwlaro splcultsral cord Oat Idanpf ,n trawl tern) re, yew Na atoneable sue mowrnent dewed oy Eaton Der ACP Intern MPrTem•ni N.r'nn PAsb SE( Minn warrtlww•Iltt AdOtiaw ."Flw wet WR rift nen an 'Orchard St No map rues ;Ni No Alto' M•rtaln RlAO NA NA NA set Yee Minns.' NA NA No NA hew Myst ax • Comwwwl and resdentl WO wo (Owlet ,n bawl wan) Yes Yet Recommended -JRIn $; ND rivp A.mlriry'+r. mDcn. nenp. at ate NO A[.J^ No Acton flKSnmerded •.A �tb• No Yn No Woe No No No NA A.edl mnnb orD enwomnmml mourn its Titblue •St RailroadAtari >.Dzirnty ry are mpwete,.as •ppnyrao Ao4cnon No Aceun Iieconmetided NA U52 0 No Yen No None No No tic NA Awrdr ,,,Dote r. en'nowt.", Ye, rey St Railroad D.wlmry CaRDKt raised median cashew m4R0 'medium pro ry) No Acton No Arbon 4•o cnnanded NA Yea Oat 0 No Yet No Now NO No No NA Amdi rrrlppcb to environmental mo lun rc re, Yee St No maps rues No Acton Ne Actor, Recommended NA �1 3 No Yw No None No N NA No NA Aloof .nNVibm env Kn renewal rewwu •et it Conduct fined median: DDlNart to MO Imednan ydof M IrterlMVn 'ntpdwrnnb NIRP Inns•. Not Ra:ommenwd ��•.�. 5!.__ NA • Ye. •et 4t Mnm<: NA NA NA NA mite dPtdM • ReiG-wl in ern Ownl do • didilPert(potential Oder c'na,w wrote •eaun•I vet vet ISIS baprewm.ME' •:::.v MObjE Interim I Impownants: ' 7t A' it go mop run Autiiery ant m0r0w.rra al aDprowat! No Aster No Acton Raccrng mMed Selety Interim Imapwmens. • .fir. eytgbilfty r•S 0AR Nt. n No Nona No NA No NA Awe,. rrrypinb mml enwmenreiounn vas m Intelan Meese. mant% N.r.r 'age 38'1 dl US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study i t '! i E known Mara Seed ,nom Palleiee rtaed: Safety.Y Mobility. ty NARrd.E Clannury Amen, ce hNarrvdve newt modes DSO Access Central plea 1lwarnrnasldadoa a F v} 5 I e = I &I ,ff� 6 Mebdtt flaws Salary Railroad Mode Netwel.rd Gsdtw.l tn,Monm.rn Casm� loco Rational t r'� $ e r s r ! a S i DwstM option prw46 k pS i . 3 5 .e 2 $ q I W rn, wet a tin salaamed aunts& anh t Wualun? Is Ylearaaalkn bentikad Ice down ay the railroad?boar? Dees NMuo mimed/ rood npe•tbwl c _ f} F o • a i • 1 3 j a Whet b thy iwamrl for abating aiming and planned 'flair! : k? Don th nation avoid aobaant. I tenants to nnw.lmvi.onm.nt en naval rnwunn7 Does tls. option Mthln (M contort alth. adjacent community? Oa.tb. dpefon reap ROIN .qu►kba neat?4 Whet cwt iM eoternwrky. macaw to the option? l� F ! b MooDT D Sn eN Aew♦ positive or renew effort on mob:IRY7 1 Abb/kr Oaatti et an acceptable V/C Rabat Ole) .pryoprb(a sac. that ruppwta tanningregional itto I land ) Man Stmt (continued) p.nuiaat) Urn F3 No Actor No Acton ',abbe VA V.,.❑a) ) No Na Nan n No No VA A.Ods.mmchro vet tat MManmon:W rnoYlmr �. ^15.)1 Isla Imprpwrawa Now Meth aspens to: AOamry are • CoeYwnal and 5 51 Cabo-id41aN n" prorly mcrowm.nn. as MYoor.a4 "tv recto' nYowments Tr.flic Signal Recommended INAWR) Yes. Yes. 7 e/ J VU as In H.-.m.Aa( In .n al .ndrKal'ard uses • Han 'tables at Yes 'tele•ea 1 mild allay -wend Interim Mpmwtia. aaa.urvn • NRNpaIabla Gran, Wattage,Railroad crampoon .mprpw mega and eddlparrl :amok rnavt.l We alt ton ant No Acton NOAcdon Recommended NA NA \m rH No None VA NA Na NA each nmagnm vet Yes 71h54 NAB Cwnmrted to % o are mNi5onSnate (Medium pdalrVl MWOMlnlmtreuboos intimation Mme. ImwOwments V cmriguratmn Leaf' Sot lacommened'adtavrens0as) an NA - as as loan ar local boa 'd as Mn-.'e. NA •A les VA •llainomer ..i tar 'enfantW.aed a( cuit✓al land urn as Yes Maeda as�ewweett- Now pglobll Inman • nrxdpan Improve rants: More Patens with Ye.. Avoids mown to WCR 77 No Moor No Azar 'panne NA O.My..,No U %o es No %one Y No NA m Nronmrrelrnourrl n Yes conn.c:on to WCR 76 `�_�{{.•�� a WCR 76 RsunwO i%onrti IY 5Rpc•ttd. wan warranted Mori warm Prong) Illlaras 15111•551550550 Aarfa(manta to • Commprjat Clan of WCR ll.nanacuon ibra6yrl McvnrnendsC Mcibegy Im.rbp ypl.- pat as Yes No 5'BYI maY .'date rpl IH. MN tramcar, Yes NA resdentls. and tee an to Ma north will aspte etawa. and, tonal EB and We con accidentsapculAYll4rd Loa • rlao'daam add bat etc a the ostentation ISMS :rrprOWmenh to Ud auxiliary No Acton "abbe NA an Sc as No are les %o No WA Awoidr impacts ro awamintol resorrto Yet Yes lawn, a necessary y (medium pra al Clete Co east AYaw' wgas to Cbaure happen n conjunction wawaWalld WCR 17 NO map' narrea tea lnmrwctvg sabrade ea abroad creams Ma acOwOant •mMecbM wall _ba. f. uda and Drellsouth to 16 (whch will be cruised) Recommended arrprowm,nlLL Now �rlabllla NA - Tn res Tel Minimal Minimal r _ Yes Na NA • Andantal and awindtet al lard vacs (aarr rn trawl p tarns: Vet Yn scceoabte with as tomato, to WCR 76 wlm slaw at WO 76. Must wood, Daman road to WCR 76 Onest side lama Improvements: be built tab :o Now CR 76 _ I COLORADO DrpAl[mrnl of Trensporteuon Page IS of a US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study COLORADO Department c! (( y Rome etelEetn semi MIM M.pp and tn.i: Safety Mobility,Cae.d Railroad Padnlry, Access. et Alternative U36 Aeons C I t p t I I AAsbf y Access Sete?Y Reamed Ak..Mode • Niteroi ue/Cliu.l beybe ant . ia..ap.v..eu..., Community � EWES t t i i lFF ; I met~ modest h .I F ( o p Y 2 a }' /j Z Pi - 9 g ! Y : < _0 �: le the Interectbn w wYw nepbrlh he dean the railroad? Oon IM ale reduce nilM/ rood F _a 1 i I •.harm o f 1 - r 1''3 What le tie poant.I for n ..I.tI�.M penned r.atolel sinks? OeestM t option o e eslpAbllnp.rn to tlttteRlenn.onmsn ooesthe n le w+1untM ewden of the aliment connu.ItY? Does the o meat ROW eryeYRf.n needs? I What e commune?. response to the option? °t�--�-� Phut Re00 a" "d"k ___ lMw Ow al Mn e loatheflett� effort on rooYdYY> natality) (a. O.I � Dims the Khan etrapubk V/C AtioT (ARI ~pia W emean sweets kcal lelldme AkniltT end Dial lne.n .? ep«.tbn.1 Ywn) Pall motes iiiNo j o ii j N M Railroad pr a", Arena y lane mprd mane, a apWoprut. (medlum pnvrtyl PM Acura Pit Acorn Recomn.enoeo NA vas. PTA 0 net vn Yet Vt—.r.a. res i No No YA A.CiO1 inpOCn IO mwpnmer:ld tnov.rtt An Yin _ R� RAlihoed PrperrNry Aui+.rY Ane .mprMmMK n .ppraprlxl Imedtsen primly) Action No Action R.cemnended VA 52 0 No its No Yore Mo No Mo NA AwN. rrrydcn to nneonmenrol tritium Yes Yes : IQN Cased m ant sN. .essay MA • Nil aart.iIy Nflnmr Vo I 'h\ RR a off. SO lnt r\� Newsy No VA MinesInventto.' •Arc h,. and �.es •vet latest raw :enamel 'Cl yes MeetEnharce piney day for rest side nary WOE 11 be can to SM It end WCR I11 Intern. Mpoesmeme .4-:, r Mobility Inneen Imere..memA Nixie - e F Set la Railroad pro may ONE NOA[!m pelastMn in'pcw marts Recommended YA U 0 YA net No Yob rn No Yes NA Abort moons mwonmerno/' toyrn ref tit T"iI Noear on 'ONE No Acton No Acorn Mcmannntss VA M 0 NA res No None So NA No NA Mode 'memo ro mworrnerr dl'nou cn Yn Von p 5f Railroad Ropnnty ONE NO Acton No Action Recgtvlerded YA Y!t. 0;8 0 NA res No None res No No NA Avoids .mecca to mrronne+rorretoents rn vet CR54 Radioed Ploeimlry ONE No Action No echoer Recommended VA Y.t. 032 0 4A n No Mont Vo Mu No AA Acdl'mdecnro e'nWWenentor lnW2n Yet Yp. 'Wale, YOuttnrt b • CRK Radioed dreamily ONE NO Acxn No Acton Recommended VA Ys39 039 0 NA n No .Move No No No MA Avoid: im.oeoto rn vet Widen aEers errxdnrn.nrolrnwrn : N 80 RailroadONE INodm.ty No Action No Asacn Recornma d.d NA Yea. OHn 0 YA r No Yme No No No I NA Awds .npocv to re, Yeesro, worn ders en.nwvnrlro/ respveet tr 9 ! a U. Men Street RAdrOid Yroa.m.hen.epmnerrol .]NE No Action No Acmn Recommended NA 0 16 0 NA rn No None Yo No 4c NA Awds.npxnro r ewe n wet Yes CA 40 L.ItWd p.wlmn4 NO AttM NO AvonYx�m. VA Yet 015 0 VA res No Non. No No No MA Asoie impacts to enmw -roofresoYnrt its Yee ONE netwcton mprpemenn traffic peel Recommended Saf t'1 Y•1 0.1$ • NA 'its Yet Ciao*. weed Jet', to be offset pYr<M and Grades <a`n!d DV "e•/ lire' No Yet. in that i2 allows Plemptgn true lily Yet NA •t aide impacts to etw UMITNT t!1pYnn rem yes wean Intonnemenn: N:w Monti RY (NAM Inform) Imerra Im}.wa.ar. - 4m. ,"'age 43 of 41 US 85 P arming and Environmental Linkages Study i iC6 y Known Problem. BrN en1M Pepin* and net: Safety. Notary,Rrpprn prim �. Access. or Alteroawlnmodes �gAQpw Caere' Min y�pp 3 v + E L 4 E 5 $e e 8 p� C c 6 L a s WheatWheatAtAeta � � Alternate Mode Neural old Cultural 1mvenmww Censuring L ff titilltx NNE vs. V ( Ilene? Rfbnel i Y EE e f g c F C p Dee, the option provide ; L• Z{(5 Y • Z w a i Z I 4 c = a 2 . t { to 6tM r�r ified dam_ et e for raNwli by hAi ppe.<M aR ISMS ,droed/ ,wd opens oral nun? S tE 2 e i % ! I Mutt athe autumnal for enhancing ...Ming and planned .Kbrwl tremo honks? Does the option avoid .ubb.nt.limpecbro natural rrruonm.,tt end cult= el resources? pore the option lit within the comets oleM *discern community? DoeatM option t........ ROW acquisition nest? Whet was the comrnuM?t moons to the option? Mobb Rv po•.tM .k Mvee pwR1Ye« negative effect on r nel noDdrYi eppoprrt. access that import local lend um planning? Y T. s r CR9? Railroad Ptotlrilry No Action No4cdon Racommn+ded NA Yin. Yrt, 0 19 NA rh No Ncr•e No No No NA Awdr,mporrsro M monmentol rnWrrn ye, yet Widen 1hT/liar➢ CR Mil RadrDN Proalm,ty ONE No Action No Acton Recommended NA Y� D :9 NA •n No lyre NO No NO NA Avoids mpprnN nworfmnrolrnou<n Yes Yet Ween trWden CR96 iRailroad prot,m.ry ONE Yo Acton hap ACUdn Recommended _ NA Yes' 0. :9 NA int No VQe No No NO 4A Awdl,mroCp to mWomnen to! rnourrn Yet Yes WAen ~lett .R 9R Reamed ;roamer'JAi No Acton 40 Aodan RttOmmen ed NA Yes' 0 19 ., NA let Yn NMe to No 4o NA sheen ,mpOcbro noro mntol incomes Yes Yet Okay to chow ill- n na Plotted try n1•eli ti wm Cootie ..r el: -0.e fBt£tY NA • NA Yet. if RR alma, to not lob=s 4- Street No. None +n Yes No NA Minor imposes to Ap¢aMaiuM at (char'Bn m viva: Wtbrmt • Dine tied merle dog habcn w/papntuira Purulent own n NW uca rem. eel Yes RR operation to Watt e1NMn1R l" to be bpdod ins frequently Clouse on east aide Only Widen teohiden Interim. enpwpeeb: Nme MBYnnN lawn Improvements: %re —_, r Le < 4 St Ratuwd V•pe.m•ty ONE No Action No Action Recommended NA Yes. 0 19 0 NA Yes No None en No No NA Awls mecca to n.rommemltnouren Yet net Keep thn open CR 100 R&J,Md orovhtiry :Y'r' No Acton No Action e ovte NA rn. 0 1 0 NA +n Ncr Nona Yes No Net Sleet Ye, NA Ahodt,neocn to .n.momm�ronnwrcn 'et ye, ntne<von n•OrWe,^ ones Sepal aM Closed on Mu tide ate Recommended LEaN rate 1 Woodside Steered 'attn. Broande (4/6) lnpronmeter 'mete won stop otos -0° NQ$RSn inbnKDM• IR I0 -lion west leg Add oncorn l •JOwam peeSnp rel. 0. SB • NA et Tel. DM •nr<nd Kedah likely to ucutr -. Yer I Yet with orle mptiOn en NA Maids Ibprlb to a Cornmeal .rC •ademal lard Win IChants m navel patterns, • Black -tired wane dog ne6tt w/oountel Iva burrowed own M SW duNrs Mt Ye; re, (venue stylus ton when wenamN t Preferred Wdento noude left turn telva Yang tapeentewaa Nov COLORADO Dcpa?tment of Trans ono Uon :avve At N C US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study Appendix D. Traffic Safety Report COLORADO Department of Transportation Hello