Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/15/1999 - ITEMS RELATING TO MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENTS ITEM NUMBER: 28 A-B AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 15, 1999 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL John Daggett/ STAFF: Pete Wray SUBJECT: Items Relating to Master Street Plan Amendments. yf S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the improvements required to build an arterial street on the Modified Vine alignment is projected to be $45.4 million. Of that amount, the City can reasonably expect to receive $19.8 million in Street Oversizing fees and$5.1 million in Local Street Portion contributions by development on the north side of the street ($24.9 million total). The remainder, or $20.5 million, would be the responsibility of the City. .The cost ofthe improvements required to build an enhanced major arterial street for the purpose of relocating Colorado Highway 14 on the Modified Vine alignment is projected to be$51.3 million. As a highway the project has the potential of receiving up to 80% from federal and state sources or$41 million. Both Street Oversizing fees and Local Street Portion contributions would still apply and could be applied to the City's local share of the cost of the highway. For a more detailed analysis of costs see Attachments Page 38-60. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 99-77 Amending the Master Street Plan So as to Establish a New Designation of "Enhanced Major Arterial Street" for the Possible Relocation of Colorado Highway 14 and Identifying a Future Major Thoroughfare along a Portion of East Vine Drive. This action establishes a category of streets known as "enhanced major arterial streets," with a right-of- way width requirement up to two hundred fifty one (251) feet as described in Exhibit B. It will also amend the Master Street plan to show the proposed Modified Vine Alternative as a future enhanced major arterial street in order to accommodate the possible relocation of Colorado Highway 14. In addition,the classification of the old alignment of Vine Drive from Lemay Avenue to Redwood Street would be changed to a local street and the classification of the old Vine Drive from Redwood to College Avenue would be changed to a minor arterial. These changes are included in Exhibit A. This action also directs the City Manager to negotiate with Latimer County aproposed intergovernmental agreement between the County and the City which would require that all new development in the County • accommodate the streets and transportation facilities shown on the City's Master Street Plan. DATE: June 15, 1999 2 ITEM NUMBER: 28 A-B Finally,the resolution directs the City Manager to continue planning,design,right-of-way acquisition and other work to allow the construction of an alternative truck route and/or the relocation of Colorado Highway 14 along the Modified Vine Alternative route,to the extent that funding for such activities is appropriated by the City Council. This action does not relocate Colorado Highway 14. B. Resolution 99-78 Amending the Structure Plan Map and the Mountain Vista Area Sub Area Plan Regarding the Establishment of an Enhanced Major Arterial Street along the Portion of East Vine Drive. This action updates these documents to reflect the changes made in the previous resolution. BACKGROUND: The relocation of Colorado Highway 14 out of the downtown historic district has been studied for over forty years. Proposals to build a new alignment for the highway have also been made during that time yet no decision has been made to precipitate the move. As Fort Collins has grown and the volume of traffic through the historic downtown has increased, the problems with leaving Colorado Highway 14 in the downtown area have intensified. In 1997, City voters approved Building Community Choices that included financial resources for developing an alternative travel route in the northeast quadrant of the city. Projections for future growth in northeast Fort Collins are substantial. If realized, future opportunities to move Highway 14, including the truck traffic, would be severely limited. This project was approved on April 8, 1997, by the Building Community Choices (Ordinance 31) vote. The official language used to describe the Highway 14 Relocation-NE Fort Collins Truck Route Project was "This project will provide for the planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and/or other project costs associated with road improvements for an alternative truck route in the northeast quadrant of the City". The Highway 14 Relocation-NE Fort Collins Truck Route Project was initiated in February 1998. The project team included Transportation Planning staff and consultants from the firm Balloffet& Associates. A Citizens Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee were established to guide the process and provide input into the research and development of alternatives and staff recommendations. The Citizen Advisory Committee included representatives of the affected neighborhoods as well as members from the city at large. The Technical Advisory Committee included representatives from various City departments including Traffic, Transportation Planning, Storm Water, and Advance Planning. In addition, the Technical Advisory Committee also included representatives from Larimer County Public Works, the Federal Highway Administration,the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Colorado Department of Revenue. The Highway 14 Relocation - NE Fort Collins Truck Route Project was coordinated with the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan, a plan City Council adopted earlier this year. The joint planning DATE: June 15, 1999 3 ITEM NUMBER: between these two efforts ensured that land use and transportation were considered essential . elements of both proposed plans as they were developed. The Highway 14 Relocation-NE Fort Collins Truck Route Project was conducted as a"deductive" planning process. It began with a broad view of the possibilities available to the City to move Highway 14 and narrowed those alternatives as information and analysis became available through the sixteen month planning process. Staff, consultants, and committees examined nineteen route alternatives with two additional alternatives,suggested by City Council for a total of twenty-one that were analyzed. The final six alternatives include the following routes: 1. Modified Vine 2. Mulberry/Lemay/Vine 3. Mulberry/Timberline/Vine 4. Vine 5. County Road 58 6. A Downtown Couplet(Jefferson Street and Willow Street) The following problems and disadvantages associated with four of the six alternatives make them undesirable, unworkable, and/or too costly. 1. The Mulberry/Lemay Alternative ♦ Traffic engineering design difficulties at Mulberry and Lemay ♦ Very high level of future traffic demand predicted in both the Mulberry and Lemay corridors ♦ Very high intensity of commercial development at Mulberry and Lemay ♦ Proximity to residential development ♦ Limited mitigation opportunities in the Lemay corridor 2. The Vine Alternative ♦ Was the least expensive of the alternatives examined,but separated the Alta Vista neighborhood from Buckingham and Andersonville ♦ Displaced eight additional homes beyond other alternatives ♦ Limited mitigation opportunities through the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods 3. The County Road 58 Alternative ♦ Cost estimate is $50 million greater than the Master Street Plan ♦ Would not provide a connection to existing Highway 14/Mulberry for 85,000 lb. gross vehicle weight trucks. The additional cost for improving the frontage road would be an • additional $18 million ♦ Is 3 miles longer than the current route from I-25 to the potential future intersection of US 287 and extended CR 58 (Existing route= 11.5 miles versus 14.5 miles) Adding additional miles to the highway system is unacceptable to CDOT. DATE: June 15, 1999 4 ITEM NUMBER: ♦ Based on traffic model projections,the County Road 58 route would attract only 1,500 total vehicles. Less than 500 vehicles would divert from Mulberry and Vine ♦ Is located in Larimer County, not Fort Collins. Approvals for this alternative would be necessary from the County. ♦ Is located in the Upper Front Range instead of the North Front Range. Therefore, any CDOT funding would need to be obtained from the Upper Front Range to address a North Front Range concern. ♦ The CR 58 alternative would require CDOT 1601 and FHWA approval for a new interchange. Key to this approval is justification that there are no alternatives available to the recommended new interchange. ♦ Could result in growth inducement. 4. The Downtown Couplet Alternative ♦ Would require crossing four additional sets of railroad tracks, in addition to the current two sets of tracks on Mulberry at Riverside and College north of Willow ♦ The City would likely be required to grade separate roads at railroad crossings ♦ Cost estimate is nearly $11 million greater than the Master Street Plan ♦ There would be major capacity and safety problems with the merge of eastbound Mountain/Lincoln through traffic with northwest bound Riverside to Lincoln traffic ♦ Homes and businesses would need to be purchased along Riverside and College to accommodate the additional traffic lanes ♦ Parking would need to be removed along College to accommodate a second southbound left turn lane ♦ Truck deliveries to uses along Willow, such as Ranchway Feed would be impacted ♦ Limited mitigation opportunities exist ♦ Trucks and Highway 14 would remain in historic downtown Fort Collins The fifth alternative,Mulberry/Timberline/Vine,is primarily viewed as a phasing or interim step to implementing the Modified Vine recommendation. It contains the same alignment west of Timberline as the Modified Vine alternative and could likely function for a number of years as an interim solution until an interchange could be built at I-25 and Vine Drive. The Modified Vine Alternative is preferred as an arterial street because it: ♦ Requires fewer purchases of homes than the current Master Street Plan ♦ Allows the City to reclassify the existing Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue adjacent to the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods as local residential streets. As such,the neighborhoods can regain a residential atmosphere. Allows the City to replace the traffic light at Vine/Lemay with stop signs. Allows the City the opportunity to build sidewalks on those streets. Reduces traffic from greater than 10,000 vehicles a day to a few hundred. ♦ Allows the City to build an arterial that facilitates the construction of the Dry Creek channel to its south thereby creating a natural area buffer to the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods ♦ Allows the City to design and build an arterial capable of handling traffic demand in the Vine corridor through the year 2050 ♦ Allows the City to build an arterial that improves the traffic situation in northeast Fort Collins into the foreseeable future DATE: June 15, 1999 5 ITEM NUMBER: ♦ Has minimal other environmental impacts • ♦ Avoids existing neighborhoods in northeast Fort Collins The Modified Vine Alternative is preferred should it become the alignment for Colorado Highway 14 because it: ♦ Has a cost estimate is only$5.9 million greater than the Modified Vine Alternative as an arterial street in Master Street Plan ♦ Allows private development to occur adjacent to the new highway in a way that make the new land uses compatible with the highway ♦ Significantly reduces truck traffic in downtown Fort Collins ♦ Allows the City/State to design and build a highway capable of handling traffic demand in the Vine corridor through the year 2050 ♦ Allows the City/State to build a highway that improves the traffic situation in northeast Fort Collins and in historic downtown into the foreseeable future ♦ Allows the City/State to build a highway that facilitates the construction of the Dry Creek channel to its south thereby creating a natural area buffer to the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods ♦ Adds no additional miles to the state highway system ♦ Eliminates rail/vehicle traffic conflicts ♦ Lowers basin wide air emissions ♦ Allows the City to regain control over Jefferson Street and Riverside Avenue,thereby allowing a redevelopment of the historic district from Jefferson Street to the Poudre River • ♦ Relieves the neighborhoods adjacent to the current State Highway 14(Riverside Avenue)where noise mitigation cannot be built or achieved in any way, from the impacts of the highway ♦ Provides noise and visual mitigation from the impacts of the highway for the surrounding land uses ♦ Allows for the construction of a northeast arterial(Vine Drive)with financial help from the State and Federal governments ♦ Is located in Fort Collins ♦ Avoids existing neighborhoods in northeast Fort Collins ♦ Was incorporated into the planning for the Mountain Vista Sub Area The Modified Vine Alternative Route was recommended for Council's consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizen Advisory Committee, the Transportation Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff, and the consulting team. It is the only alternative route examined to achieve that level of support. The proposed resolution would reserve sufficient right-of-way for the relocation of Highway 14 along the Modified Vine Alternative Route and the establishment of that right-of-way as an alternative travel route, subject to the appropriation of funds by the Council and the availability of additional state and/or federal funding. • Attachments 1 . Preferred Alternative ............................................................................ 1 2. Problem Statement .............................................................................. 2 3. Total Number of Alternatives Evaluated ................................................. 5 4. Country Road 58 Alternative .............................................................. 1 1 S. Downtown Couplet Alternative ........................................................... 13 6. Alternatives Evaluation Process .......................................................... 15 7. Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................ 25 • 8. Truck Traffic By Time of Day ............................................................. 26 9. Truck Trip Distribution ....................................................................... 27 10. Homes Displaced and Purchased ........................................................ 28 1 1 . Noise Analysis ................................................................................... 29 12. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................ 36 13. Dry Creek .......................................................................................... 37 14. Alternative Cost Estimates ................................................................. 38 15. Arterial and Enhanced Highway Cross-Sections .................................. 61 16. Modified Vine: four or Six Lane ........................................................... 62 • 17. Impact on Separating Neighborhoods ................................................. 63 18. Future Daily Traffic Volumes by Alternative ........................................ 65 19. Truck Traffic in the Fort Collins Corridor - Western Highway Institute . 67 20. Potential Residential Impacts .............................................................. 69 21 . Potential Business Impacts ................................................................. 76 22. Response to "The Council for a True Bypass" Letters ........................... 91 23. Presidential Executive Order 12898 .................................................. 102 24. Vibration Studies & Associated Information ...................................... 104 25. Developer & Street Oversizing Financial Contributions ...................... 123 • 26. Current CDOT Environmental Assessment - US 287 .......................... 124 27. List of Project Contacts .................................................................... 125 ii .}try-.✓ �j� QN � 71 )•- t F • Problems Statement Why the Current Highway 14 Should Be Relocated Based on technical analysis, community input, and input by the Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee, five compelling reasons were identified on why the current SH14 along Riverside and Jefferson between Mulberry and College should be relocated. These reasons include: 1. The current route has existing design deficiencies that result in congestion and safety concerns. The problems along this corridor will be exasperated with increased traffic growth and could not be mitigated without major building and right-of-way impacts to Fort Collins historic area. The following table presents an intersection level of service for the four intersections under discussion for the existing conditions and with 2020 traffic forecasts. Existing and Projected Intersection Levels of Service 2020 With Current Master Exi Ing Street Plan AM PM AM PM LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C • Lemay and Mulberry D 0.77 D 0.90 F 1.04 F 1.27 Riverside and Mulberry B 0.50 C 0.69 C 0.87 F 1.54 Mountain/ Lincoln and B 0.45 B 0.63 B 0.77 F 1.35 Riverside/Jefferson Jefferson and College* B 0.59 B 0.51 B 0.77 C 0.79 * College and Jefferson: The 2020 forecast southbound left turn volumes and the westbound right turn volumes will exceed the existing available left and right turn storage lanes and impact through traffic. As can be seen, in the above table, the current four intersections under investigation currently operate at acceptable levels of service. With the addition of 2020 all four intersections will operate with unacceptable *F* levels of service. In the case of the College/Jefferson intersection, this failing level of service will result because of inadequate left and right turn storage lengths. • a • The failing levels of service indicate that the average vehicle delay per intersection would increase from 30 seconds to over 100 seconds. This will result in increased air emissions, which will impact air quality. It should be noted that staff and consultant did examine improvements along the corridor to address existing and future congestion. These improvements would require widening along College and Riverside to accommodate a second left turn lane from College to Jefferson and from Riverside to Mulberry. These improvements would require building purchases along both facilities. In addition parking would need to be removed along College and Jefferson. Even with major improvements, congestion will still remain given the proximity of the key intersection's proximity to the railroad and traffic merges. 2. Fort Collins City Plan establishes goals and policies to link City's Old Town area with the Cache La Poudre River. As long as Riverside/Jefferson remains SH14, and the Colorado Department of Transportation requires a highway for serving regional traffic, it will not be possible to integrate the local pedestrian and activity linkages defined by City Plan with a regional highway. If the State Highway were relocated, the City could modify the design of Jefferson/Riverside to be multi-modal friendly. Without the redesignation, CDOT would retain ownership and require design standards to meet statelfederal requirements. 3. The current route of SH14 along Jefferson and Riverside is adversely impacted by two railroad crossings at Mulberry/Riverside and College/Jefferson. Not only does the operation of the railroad impact traffic flow daily through the corridor, any changes to improve the capacity of the corridor will require approval by the Public Utility Commission which will be extremely • doubtful given their long history of fighting any roadway widenings. 4. Truck traffic has a negative noise, visual and environmental impact on the Fort Collins Old Town area. Because the existing route has limited right-of-way, there is not the opportunity to mitigate the impacts as would be possible with the design of a new facility. 5. Limited right-of-way along Riverside and Jefferson coupled with a relatively high volume of automobiles and trucks raises bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns for those traveling along and crossing the corridor. The lack of these safe connections severely impacts the bicycle and pedestrian plans goals and objectives for a system of safe, continuos and direct bicycle and pedestrian connections. 6. The citizens of Fort Collins voted for the relocation of the Truck Route in Northeast Fort Collins as part of Building Community Choices. • 3 W � •r �" � W 1� � �� a r Y S m � rif $R t J 3- �J g 6 � Jf � CY� �� J�J• / ! _ � �� Mtn�. � �� Nr i ' s v4r a L �� • Total Number of Alternatives Evaluated At the outset of this work effort, 17 alternatives were identified within the City of Fort Collins as presented in the following map. In addition, two alternatives were also examined outside the City, the Northern Bypass (Owl Canyon and Douglas Road). Based on the Tier 1 Fatal Flaw analysis and the Tier 2 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis, this list of alternatives was reduced to 12 alternatives within the City. The Tier 3 Detailed Alternatives Analysis this list was reduced from 12 to 4. These included: 1. Modified Vine 2. Mulberry/LemayNine 3. Mulberry/Timberline/Vine 4. Vine Subsequent to the presentation of the four alternatives to City Council, two additional alternatives have been raised, the County Road 58 Alternative and the Downtown Couplet Alternative. In summary, there were 21 alternatives evaluated; 18 within the City and 3 north of the City in Larimer County. • • 5 9 P .rr { +rNll \ I III\l I r +� l� t +] Ap .1 I■�1 li '" (OIWDI"t'1 �,,,/ r ti ". ffvl LY 111N11� i .e/ RA N-r ' �'$:i ._. �� `'w � `�� ,ate•�.� , ^A I1t110TV ] � 1 1 V �i i ya: Yy�YMia1LT _1� ��� T pl . 4t � r� / ; • Wa M J p i• 9 ( r; �r 4"-y, if ®rl v x zug w i � M4 rt DIY, ,; 1 F f�"I E 1 JTyf� z >, x �MHz ' .•.- nrFM Ith. L, , .r! rMMvME y k wz TV x 1 e n � n; AnLnq l •K i S T ..� h i .� e� s • f 1 V V• I � J. G yd.� f a 14.. ��� �F r• �5��, 7+ 'e n R��� da• Sri • {I.-i rfi Ar f s x A f � a Z yr , co Ix W✓ m 1 G AL 1 } gpyiR 1,9 1`� r It x��f { k w T � r Y � . u sfi i "I IflK A� v � 5 • Z �iJ, �4 Q /gyp gw f� T 7��r r t, I f' 5' A' Ya �!\4�.I��♦ w • Country Road 58 Alternative The City Council requested further analysis of the Country Road 58 alternative. This alternative would be to construct a new interchange at 1-25 at County Road 58 which is six miles north of Mulberry. Improvements to CR 58 as a two lane highway would be needed for the one mile stretch between 1-25 and the junction with SH 1. The route would utilize the existing portion of SH 1 until it turns south. From that junction a new 6 Ys mile extension would be constructed to tie into US 287. Based on staff and consultant's review, there are a number of major concerns regarding the validity of this alternative. These include: 1. The CR 58 alternative cost estimate is $50 million greater than the Master Street Plan Alternative. The cost estimates assume a new interchange at 1-25, one mile of improvements along CR 58 from 1-25 to the SH 1 junction, a new 4 3/4 mile extension of CR 58 to US 287 and two railroad crossings. (Cost estimates exclude frontage road connection with Mulberry. For comparison, the incremental cost increase for the Modified Vine Alternative is $9.5 million.) 2. The CR 58 alternative would not provide a connection to existing Highway 14/Mulberry for 85,OOOIb Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. The additional cost for improving the frontage road would bean additional $18 million. 3. The CR 58 alternative is 3 miles longer than the current route from 1-25 to the potential future • intersection of SH 287 and extended CR 58 (Existing route = 11.5 miles versus 14.5 miles) Adding additional miles to the highway system is unacceptable to CDOT. 4. Based on traffic model projections, the County Road 58 route would attract only 1,500 total vehicles. Less than 500 vehicles would divert from Mulberry and Vine. 5. There are potentially significant environmental impacts that might occur with the proposed route. 6. The CR 58 alternative is located in Larimer County, not Fort Collins. Approvals for this alternative would be necessary from the County. 7. The CR 58 alternative is located in the Upper Front Range instead of the North Front Range. Therefore, any CDOT funding would need to be obtained from the Upper Front Range to address a North Front Range concern. 8. The CR 58 route might result in potential impacts to prime farmland. 9. The CR 58 route could result in growth inducement. 10. The CR 58 alternative would require CDOT 1601 and FHWA approval for a new interchange. Key to this approval is justification that there are no alternatives available to the recommended new interchange. • In conclusion, based on the above concerns and issues, staff/consultant do not recommend the County Road 58 Alternative. 11 � ... . .. + � v \j � " \\ « \ FL : � � • Downtown Couplet Alternative and Cost Estimate Included in the City Council packet was a description and map of a one way Jefferson Street and Willow Street couplet in the downtown area as a potential opportunity to increase capacity and improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility and maintaining parking. The plan would widen Riverside to accommodate a center left turn lane and bicycle lane between Mulberry to Mountain/Riverside. Northbound Riverside traffic would head east on Lincoln, turn west on Willow and then tie in to College at Willow. Southbound traffic would turn east on a one-way eastbound Jefferson. The planning level cost estimate for this alternative is approximately $10.7 million. These improvements would include: • Lincoln and Willow roadway improvements ..................................................................$ 1.0 M • Railroad signals and gates at four new locations ................................................................ .7 M • Intersection improvements College/Jefferson and College/Willow .................................... 1.0 M • Signal installation: Willow at Lincoln and Linden ............................................................. 0.2 M • Modify existing Jefferson and improved Willow from 1 to 2 way ....................................... .3 M • Intersection improvements: Mulberry and Riverside ......................................................... 1.0 M • Acquire, demolish and improve 8 homes, ten businesses and 3 service stations ...............4.6 M • Widen Riverside to include center left turn and bicycle lanes ........................................... 1.9 M Total Cost for Couplet Improvements from Mulberry to College .................................$10.7 M • As presented in the City Council Staff Report, a number or railroad tracks populate the area northeast of Jefferson. To head north on Highway 14 on Lincoln and Willow would require crossing four additional sets of tracks, in addition to the current two sets of tracks on Mulberry at Riverside and College north of Willow. Furthermore, there would be major capacity and safety problems with the merge of eastbound Mountain/Lincoln through traffic with northwest bound Riverside to Lincoln traffic. Homes and businesses would need to be purchased along Riverside and College to accommodate the additional traffic lanes. Although parking could potentially remain along Jefferson, parking would need to be removed along College to accommodate a second southbound left turn lane. In addition, truck deliveries to uses along Willow, such as Ranchway Feed would be impacted. In addition to the above mentioned impacts, the large block structure and one way couplet concept would require extensive recirculation to reach and exit various destinations within the immediate area and increase vehicle miles traveled. The recent trend in transportation planning has been to covert one way couplets back to two way streets, rather than create one way pairs. • 13 � . � *» ��\ � §�/ ^ � / � . � � \� ƒ` \ ! . �\ � � ` � . �:f � /�\ \ `\� �� :� � /\ • Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Alternatives Evaluation Process The selection of a preferred alternative was a rigorous four-step process, consisting of tiers of evaluation from course to fine, until a preferred alignment was selected. This process was conducted extensively with the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee and presented for input at public and neighborhood meetings, the Transportation Board, Planing and Zoning Board and City Council. TIER 1 & 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION As presented at a previous City Council work session, the Truck Route Study identified a series of evaluations, from general to specific for narrowing the alternatives for consideration of a Truck Route and Master Street Plan preferred alternative. This concept of tiered evaluation is presented in the attached graphic. The Tier 1 analysis considered all previously identified alternatives and additional alternatives generated from the initial set of public meetings. This analysis eliminated alternatives because recent development either precluded them as viable options or the alternative did not operationally work regarding interchange locations and minimum interchange spacing requirements by CDOT and FHWA. The second tier eliminated those alternatives that were identified as having incremental costs greater than $30 million when compared to the Master Street Plan, would significantly impact homes along the route corridor or would add significant distances to the existing route. Two • significant alternatives, Owl Canyon and Douglas Road were eliminated because of costs. Owl Canyon was also eliminated because it would add approximately five additional miles to the truck route. Douglas Road was also eliminated because of significant impact to homes along the corridor. The Tier 1 and 2 evaluation was presented to the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board, City Council Work Session, the Larimer County Commissioners, the Truck Route Project Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee. All organizations agreed with the Tier 1 and 2 analysis and conclusions and requested further refinement and analysis of the remaining alternatives. Subsequent to the Tier 2 evaluation, fourteen alternatives remained for further analysis. NORTHEN TRUCK BY-PASS ANALYSIS During the course of the NE Fort Collins Truck Route Project, a four-tier process was used to analyze a number of alternative truck route alignments. At each step, those alternatives with promise were kept for further analysis and consideration and others were removed from further analysis due to fatal flaws inherent in the alternative route. One of those was a northern by-pass. The concept of a northern by-pass is to build a highway well north of the city linking US Hwy 287 with 1-25. This, proponents say, would divert trucks and other traffic from traveling through the city on the current alignment of US Hwy 287 and SH 14 which runs through the downtown historic district. • A northern by-pass was eliminated from consideration in our process in the second tier of analysis due in part to cost. A northern by-pass is projected to cost from $70 to $100 million. By contrast, 1 �S • the incremental cost above the Master Street Plan of the four remaining truck route alternative range from $3.9 million to $9.5 million. Our analysis shows five fatal flaws on why a northern by-pass is not under consideration as a viable alternative truck route (highway). I. Cost: $70 to $100 million A northern by-pass is expensive. It is seven to twenty-five times more expensive than any of the four alternatives under consideration. Based on discussions with the Federal Highway Administration, the Colorado Department of Transportation, Larimer County and City of Fort Collins, a project of this cost magnitude would never warrant the investment given the minor returns. $100 million represents either • 20 Years of entire Citywide 1/4 cent sales tax revenue for the city's capital improvement program, or • 30 years of operation of the current Transfort bus system, or • An amount equal to 35% of all the identified transportation (bike, pedestrian, transit, & street) needs for Fort Collins projected for the next 20 years • 11. 85,000 vs. 80,000 lbs. of Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) Many Trucks Will Not Be Able to Access or Use the By-pass. Trucks can carry 85,000 lbs. (GVW) on state and federal highways, but only 80,000 lbs. (GVW) on interstate highways. Trucks carrying 85,000 lbs. GVW would not be able to get to the bypass (e.g., Owl Canyon) from 1-25. If a northern bypass were considered, their would be major impacts to existing county roads or an extended frontage road from Mulberry to Owl Canyon would need to be constructed adjacent to I- 25. This cost would be in addition to the $70 to $100 million presented above. III. Effectiveness of the Alternative Building a northern by-pass will not solve the problem of trucks traveling through downtown Fort Collins. The truck fleet that currently using US 287 and SH 14 is comprised of three categories of trucks: • Trucks with a Fort Collins destination • Trucks with a regional origin or destination (defined having a ten to one hundred mile range) • Trucks carrying goods over a long distance (e.g., Denver to Salt Lake City) It has been estimated that the truck fleet currently using US 287 and SH 14 breaks into three relatively equal parts: • • 1/3 Fort Collins Destinations 2 Ib • 1/3 Regional (to a large extent 85,000 GVW trucks —e.g., timber, cement ash, rock, flatbed, cattle trucks) • 1/3 Long Haul Since one third of the truck fleet must come to Fort Collins (FC Destinations) and a second third of fleet typically carry 85,000 lbs. (GVW) the capture of the current 1,200 daily truck trips on the northern by-pass alternative is projected to be a maximum of 400 trucks each day. Building a northern by-pass then still leaves 800 trucks per day traveling through Fort Collins. Environmental Impacts There are environmental concerns with a route north of the cites Owl canyon and other areas north of the city are environmentally sensitive which will require significant mitigation of the impacts of a new highway. State Highway System Miles Adding new miles to the state highway system. Building a northern by-pass would add 10 to 25 miles of new road to the state highway system. Adding new miles to the state highway system is unacceptable to the Colorado Department of Transportation. TIER 3 DETAILED ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION • As part of the presentations for Tier 1 and 2 Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation to Council, Commissioners, various boards, advisory committees and public meetings, a detailed list of evaluation criteria was assembled from which to evaluate the remaining alternatives. In general, these criteria fell into one of three categories, Cost, Performance and Impacts. A full list of the criteria is presented in the attached table. The cost analysis was simply what is the additional cost to construct the additional improvements to accommodate trucks along a given route compared to the buildout of the Master Street Plan. Performance measures considered measurements such as number of signalized intersections along the route, number of turns, length of new road etc. Impacts included number of homes that would need to be purchased homes within 150 feet, neighborhoods bisected, business impacts and various environmental impacts. In total, twenty evaluation criterions were identified. In order to prioritize the importance of one measure over another, weighted voting was introduced to the technical and citizen advisory committee. In simplest terms, each member of the committees was given 100 points that they could distribute by importance to what they felt were the most important measures. With twenty measurements, the average was five points per measurement. The individual criteria weightings were averaged for the total committee. The resulting weighted voting by the Technical Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee is presented graphically in the following chart. As can be seen, there are some similarities and differences between the two groups. The Technical Advisory Committee identified criteria which had a greater influence on building the project and the performance of the route, such as incremental costs, number of turns or number of at grade intersections. The Citizens • Advisory Committee, however, were more concerned with homes taken, homes within 150 feet, and economic impacts to businesses. 3 1-7 • Alternatives scoring was based on the sum of the criterion weight times each alternative criterion measurement. Although the Technical and Citizen Advisory Committees had differences on the importance of one criterion over another, the resulting top four scoring alternatives were identical. The attached chart presents the resulting TAC and CAC scoring. Also attached is a map that locates each of these alternatives. These alternatives are summarized as follows. 1. Modified Vine: This alternative assumes the route would relocate from the existing Mulberry Interchange to a new interchange at Vine, travel westerly along Vine to east of Lemay, head northwest around the Alta Vista neighborhood and connect with College just north of Jax Surplus. 2. Mulberry/LemayNine: This alternative would continue to stay on the existing route of Mulberry to the Lemay intersection, turn north along Lemay to north of Vine, and then head west to intersect College near Jax. 3. Mulberry/Timberline/Vine: Under this alternative, the route begins at the 1-25/Mulberry interchange, travels westerly along Mulberry to Timberline,turns north on Timberline to Vine and then westerly along a modified Vine as identified in Alternative 1. It should be noted that this alternative could be an initial phase for Alternative 1. 4. Vine: This alternative assumes the use of a widened Vine Drive from 1-25 to College. Conceptual improvement plans were prepared for each of the four preferred alternatives and are attached. • TIER 4 EVALUTATION The fourth evaluation Tier is Final Alternatives Evaluation. This consisted of preparing conceptual improvement plans for each of the alternatives and refining the evaluation based on the 20 criteria developed as part of the Tier 3 analysis. These conceptual alternatives are attached. The resulting preliminary evaluation for the four alternatives is presented in the following table. It is important to recognize the fact that this scoring is simply a guide, based on 20 evaluation criteria on how well one alternative compares to another. Citizens Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee Total Ranking Total Ranking Achievement Achievement 1. Modified Vine 76.3 1 69.7 1 2. Mulberry/Lemay/Vine 51.1 4 47.3 4 3. Mulberry/Timberline/Vine 65.8 3 51.7 3 4. Vine 66.8 2 63.4 2 • 4 ' Q E CL) CL) E k=.. E CD C-� C-4 cvi LU rL E Ljj C14 M } %} . ] 2 cu 40 cri � �1 | e0 � � �} � rm= l i r—mm P" } ! Room 10 PA ID IA cn 0 rx a Lu 0 um a b. IL 2R P In � k k 2 £ / ! ! $ 2 ) \ § ! / , * § ia } # ! / 2 ) - ! ; 2 k { / / E 2 | k ` —2 { k � { ; ) ! | v0 § 2 f kCiP2 ! ! ƒ k ` 7 ! + ) � � � 0 o a 2 - ; E ! � ! | 2 | : � ! { 2 { / o - , \ ! ! ■ ! ! § ; ! ! ! \ 2fka ƒ ! v � % ° k ! ! ! ! $ \ ■ , � . , � ! ! , & ° ! ` - � , ! c ! k ® ! - § 7 = ! i ) ! ) £ / • E „ 2 ! ! 77 ! $ i ! � . ! 0ma ® 2 \ ƒ ! ■ $ ® \ i ® 7 � | / 2 2 k ! { kJ \ ) ) / f { { ■ 15 o » , ! ; ! | ka . E � B Q w ` ! | ! ! 1 ! -5 | � ! | ` � | | i ) » § - ° ` Ek : 2 � . � | 02 a 0 _ ■ ` l , 0 6 $ 2 2 - « � VZ ` E IE | ■ ; ! k ! ! a ! = � 2 - k 5 ) ® 2k) 2 ( § ) kk ( E 0 | JEa 'c ; E ) ! 2 | § B � E � 0 ; Bk % ( ! \ 2 ■ k ; k ! & bbw --2. ; ■ a - ` �• Ss ■ .. 1 § 22 \ � ; 3 & S - ` SIR § ) LeaB: 3 ; | | ate !! o § i ( ! ! ! ! ) § 2 ! - *m «i ! ■ | � B B - & � k� E § aa ! ■ kkk .a | , ) ■ ■ ■ o -0a0 �Z ! £ l222l ; LUa 94803 GO_u¥Od slokq . ƒ§ co ou la— U c ■ ■ AW O 0 d t m C ' t cc • L V O �N o W A� N AW, W O � I e 6 $ Z U s O M1 w N Q • sainseew 0 m a � co m 0 ■ ■ C O co 7 > W � > o � a c � • L R ♦' W Q d c 9 M L 0 2 K C N p ani�euaa�ibr .� 0 m �l c •� a _. .j �: # / k 77 _ ° . - �'^-,w�� c �R } f 1) r + .J,,k ve N c ` ` lai r 4 ". < � .:� i^ 1 ^v�i J �ac:i r �• J.. f „rra...�"wr •,K { �f 'X. sxyWt:A j fi ����� Z.�"#5�"r' •c���:`+ai4 3 w. r r � e i l ^ �� "` .t a�v""yr•i� MIN w CIO '.go U U .. .10 a� • a E J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z d a d a E d t c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d >} d o 0 0 0 0 Z � zzzzzzzz " O0 } zzzzz a c d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N 0 0 0 h } } r } } } } } } } } } } } } } } Z Z Z T 'O d W W L V a v C 9 • .{�C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 0O ZZzzzzzZ 0 C1 OOf m m � c O U) m 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y wo y = a 0 z Z z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z } } } M a 0 a m c d U> = N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 m m m m d m m m m m m m m m m m d m rrr } r } } rrr } } r } } } } zzz r N m N m m N J m m m m m OO m m m m m U) m > N > > > 0 > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > N N N C N fq N N N (q N 41 tl) N U) h W N N m m m m 3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m d m m m w w w o w w w w w E w w w w w w w 2 w W Q O O c N w < O N E O 0 N V O v (O N O N N M Y a- O N0 , > O O N N • 'fl Cl) O CDO O C N eO T N V N N O M O M M Q N N 0 CD 0 N N d N N M M � e�.`I r� ln son c aR 4 2S a Vj i ~ D O C1 C� S o YYff 3e d _� IO wal — — e•! — tgi MJ Ni — r•. _t. itt . ;)nu,AV a3a o s$ e II � w v al N ml o. O u � 8 v O� $ Y L+ e m a Oi 10ai1S SPa!45 e o ae CD < J y o a ° g � � 8 � � o Pena u!H o�i a — a r �' 2 (- liml puelian� 59 _ 5 ,ZS oC AH j 1 06 18 -a 0 9 a L a� E >, 0 O O � � _ E N z �— • a U) uadZL E i- >° 0I U 06 i_ 8 Y I 12 r > d Q N � U I U r N m m � c 0 we7 LL Cs � O O O O O O O O O O r • O O O O O O O O O O G O (7) 00 (D IX) V' cM N 2 sauanlon AjjnOH z6 0 O O N r a p Z W mc v - v N T � V Z 2 O WWI H i all Y�1 E d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z c zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz E_ d Co o o o o o o oN N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z } y } } } } } z z Z Z Z y C 7 d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N N N N N N N N m N N N N Z Z Z r d N W L V L CL d o e • e > W y o0000000 '� ,� ffi+ � �+ yN000 0 A zzzzzzzZ �.,.,�,. �„ �,,. } ,�„ } } } ZZZ � N {00 O N a � N G d C E 1 E C o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N N �.,� = a0 zzzzzzzzzzZzzZZZz } } } a � C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N da zzz N ae E L'. _C C_ _C > > > N N N 2 fp l W '4 " iR R s u N N pl N NN tNtl r W W W O W e�pp. O O W W A @ W W W W WQ O IYWW EWWWW • OHO CNm.W IN E �iNrvOa fd tONONNMY '- �'" � 0w` O'N � N Q N N 0OOO � W.Ob i ci4no OD TT O r. N 0. N R R!3:co c0 CM Noise Analysis A STAMINA noise model was conducted for the Modified Vine alignment as an arterial and as a Modified Vine alignment with the reassigned Highway traffic. The Modified Vine alignment was evaluated with the proposed arterial enhancement of a six to eight foot berm. The Federal Highway Administration Peak Hour standard for residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks is 67dBA. Based on the results of the noise analysis, none of the adjacent neighborhoods will experience noise greater than the 67dBA under the Master Street Plan or Modified Vine Alternative. In addition, 12:00 a.m. midnight noise model was conducted for both alternatives. Under the Modified Vine Alternative, all of the local residence would experience noise volumes less than 55 dBA and the majority under 50 dBA. The conclusion of the noise analysis is that the proposed mitigation of a six to 8 foot landscaped berm with the redesigation as Highway 14 with truck traffic would be virtually the same as with a modified Vine alignment as an arterial without Highway 14 traffic and without mitigation. • • z� z N 0 CD cri (Jr GJ V � \ \ Cil V � L TW Avenue \ c: 0 O \ l< �. CD CDD \\ M m �\ C' CD N 0 rt O� \ = N• a a Q 30 8 O O o Z N O i 8 Cr Cl T, C31 �I N � Ul LemW Avenue zvz CQ 0) o. � 0 CD ME CD y, QCLa 2 3l • rlj o I o V ' Cal N o o C) -o co co 00 gg t cn \l 111 Lemay Avenue \ D Z Z Y. _. y\4 O ( _ cDq. �G CD N 4 f nnQ a\. 3 � N ^ ` I V ' O Z ) N l/ O g \. O w V T/�Y \. 00 00 \ � 4�6 _: .... . L Avenue `o = zz (52 CEO 0 e 0 � C3� CD CA 1-14" F, anCL 33 • SOME NOISE DEFINITIONS A-weighted Decibel (dBA) —a measure of sound based on the comparison of sound energy to a reference sound pressure level. This is a logarithmic scale, meaning that an increase of 3 dBA indicates a doubling of acoustic energy. The"A" weighting approximates the way the human ear perceives sound (low frequency sounds are not heard as well as mid- and higher frequency sounds). L,q—the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. For highway projects, the Federal Highway Administration uses the Leq(h), meaning the Leq over an hour, usually the peak traffic hour. DNL—the "day-night average sound level" is obtained by averaging the sound level over 24- hours after adding 10 decibels to sound levels occurring between 10 pm and 7 am. This metric is used by many federal agencies, including the FAA, EPA, and HUD. This sometimes written "Lan' • • 3V • NOISE STANDARDS Fort Collins Code -- Noise Nuisance Standards Maximum noise level permitted(dBA) at 25 ft Residential Areas 7amto7pm 55 * 7pmto7am 50 Business and Commercial Areas 7amto7pm 60 * 7pmto7am 55 Light Industrial Areas 7amto7pm 70 * 7pmto7am 65 Industrial Areas 7amto7pm 80 * 7 pm to 7 am 75 * may be increased by 10 dBA for a period not to exceed 15 minutes in any one-hour • period. Exceptions ♦ Emergency vehicles ♦ Aircraft"or other activities" subject to federal noise control law ♦ Any emergency activity necessary to protect health, safety and welfare Motor Vehicle Maximum Sound Levels (dBA) at 25 It GVWR 10,000 pounds or more 86 (< 35 mph) 90 (> 35 mph) GVWR less than 10,000 pounds 80 (< 35 mph) 84 (> 35 mph) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Site Acceptability Standards Acceptable not exceeding 65 dB (DNL) Normally Unacceptable Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75 dB (DNL) Unacceptable Above 75 dB (DNL) • 3S • Air Quality Analysis Air Quality is based on total vehicle miles of travel and total vehicle hours of travel within the study area. Two alternatives were tested, the Master Street Program with out rediverted Highway 14 traffic and the Modified Vine Alternative with rediverted Highway 14 through traffic. The results in this analysis is presented in the following table: Master Street Plan Modified Vine Total Vehicle Miles of Travel 409,142 399,592 Total Vehicle Hours of Travel 22,760 21,449 Total Carbon Monoxide Emissions(tons of CO per day) 2.05 1.77 As can be seen, the Modified Vine Alternative is superior to the Master Street Plan Alterantive because 1) the travel patterns are more direct ant vehicle miles of travels is reduced and 2) total vehicle hours of travel is reduced as there is less overall congestion within the study area. • • 36 n Daggett-_pry Creek Questions and Answers -What do you think? „ Page 1_1 From: Bob Smith To: John Daggett Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 1:09 PM Subject: Dry Creek Questions and Answers -What do you think? Northeast Truck Route Questions Regarding Dry Creek How often is there water on Dry Creek? There are no base flows in the creek. Those flows are intercepted by the Latimer and Weld Canal just north of Willox Lane and west of College Avenue. Flood flows from the common afternoon storm are intercepted by the numerous irrigation reservoirs and ditches thatcross the Dry Creek drainage basin. Any runoff generated from the larger severe storms would flow down Dry Creek and through the urban area. The last documented floods on Dry Creek were in 1924 and 1950. What is the cost of the Dry Creek improvements? Improvements proposed to divert flood flows away from the urban area include a channel that will intercept the Dry Creek runoff north of Willox Lane and direct it into the Poudre River west of College Ave. The current cost of the improvements is approximately $3.4 million. Latmer County has retained the services of an engineering firm to identify improvements that may be less costly and still address the flood hazard that Dry Creek creates. Who will pay for the improvements? Per an intergovernmental agreement between the City and County those properties that are located in the Dry Creek floodplain, both in the city and county,would pay for the improvements through the • formation of a local improvement district. The local improvement district would need to be approved by a vote of the property owners located in the Dry Creek floodplain. After the improvements are made to Dry Creek and the Northeast truck route,will the surrounding neighborhoods flood? The design of improvements for both Dry Creek and the truck route will be for the 100-year design storm. Any events of equal magnitude or less would be controlled by the improvements. Storms of greater magnitude, like the one the city experienced in 1997,would exceed the capacity of the facilities. Are the existing culverts under Vine Drive and the railroad tracks sufficient to carry Dry Creek flows? These culverts are not sufficient to carry flows generated in the Dry Creek drainage basin. Improvements are planned to be made to these culverts so they will carry those flood flows on Dry Creek. Can a de-watering system be installed with the underpasses under the railroad tracks that will address the ground water that Is anticipated? A de-watering system can be installed to address the ground water that is expected in the area. • 3 � • Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Project Alternative Cost Estimates Highway 14 Alternatives Cost Estimate Comparisons Modified Vine: Arterial vs. Highway Cost Comparison County Road 58 Alternative Downtown Couplet Alternative Owl Canyon Douglas Road Four Alternatives Summary of Master Street Plan and Four Alternatives Master Street Plan Cost Estimates East Mulberry • Timberline Lemay Vine Redwood Four Alternatives Cost Estimates Alternative 1: Vine Modified Alternative 2: Mulberry/LemayNine Alternative 3: Mulberry/Timberline/Vine Alternative 4: Vine Unit Cost Estimates Major Arterial Section on Existing Roadway Major Arterial Section on New ROW Arterial Section — On Existing Roadway Arterial Section — On New ROW Collector Section — On Existing Roadway Collector Section — On New ROW • 38 $ k . � � § k ■ a 2 # o n ® 2 ' — � ® ow "i coa a Jf ® m mmm 22 ® § § a � $ § 0 k4 & ) ■ 2 § e / I t U a L 2 2 7 % � o $ 2 e V LO � � # (D _ o U) 0 mm _ _ m _ _ ®CL / k § r « ' § [ � E _ e � a � E \ \ t W k dk a cl ® E U) r \ e V . � E c � c c Eco ■ _� � > k � § k c � 0 » E k 2 2 2 > . > � � 2 ■ - e 6 ) k ■ CL @ q » IE \ © 0 . > % kr © kV5 2 2 � § § 73 g ■ _ ■ ■ � � o � � e ea 0 0 \ � � � k ICL § � �7 Cost Comparisons Modified Vine • Arterial vs Highway Unit Cost Distance/Amount Total MODIFIED VINE -ARTERIAL STREET MSP Vine $42,700,000 Subtractions: Vine from west of Timberline to College $5,700,000 -1.5 $8,550,000 Additions: Vine on new alignment from west of Timberline to College $5,700,000 1.76 $10,032,000 Obliterate& Remove Old Vine $100,000 Intersection Improvements $500,000 2 $1,000,000 Cul-de-sac at Lema $100,000 Total Modified Vine-Arterial Street $45,382,000 MODIFIED VINE -HIGHWAY MSP Vine $42,700,000 • Subtractions: Vine from west of Timberline to College $5,700,000 -1.5 $8,550,000 Additions: Vine on new alignment from west of Timberline to College $7,400,000 1.76 $13,024,000 Frontage Road Reconstruction $2,900,000 1 $2,900,000 Obliterate& Remove Old Vine $100,000 Intersection Improvements $500,000 2 $1,000,000 Cul-de-sac at Lema $100,000 Total Modified Vine-Arterial Street $61,274,000 IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING VINE Vine, Redwood to College-Collector $2,900,000 0.42 $1,218,000 Vine, Lemay to Redwood - Local $2,000,000 0.58 $1,160,000 Total improvements- Existing Vine $2,378 000 • yn Couty Road 58 Alternative Costs Number Unit Costs Total Costs ($1 M) ($1 M) Interchange 1 15 15 Railroad Grade Separations 2 3 6 2 Lane Highway Improvement to CR 58 1 3.9 3.9 Construction of New 2 Lane Highway 4.5 5.7 25.7 Sub Total CR 58: 1-25 to US 287 50.5 Frontage Road: Mulberry to CR 58 6.2 2.9 18.0 Total Cost Estimate 68.5 • yl Downtown Couplet Alternative Cost Estimate Intersection Improvements: Mulberry/Riverside Units Costs 1,000,000 Homes acquired 8 125,000 1,000,000 Homes Demolished and Removed 8 5,000 40,000 Businesses Acquired 10 250,000 2,500,000 Business Demolished and removed 10 7,500 75,000 Service Stations Acquired 3 300,000 900,000 Service Stations Demolished and Removed. * 3 25,000 75,000 Widen Riverside to include center left turn lane 3000 400 1,200,000 Intersection/Street Connection Improvements 750,000 Signals (Walnut at Lincoln & Linden) 2 100,000 200,000 Railroad Signal and Gates 4 175,000 700,000 • Improve Lincoln and Walnut 1,700 600 1,020,000 Intersection Improvements: College/Jefferson 500,000 Intersection Improvements: College/Walnut 500,000 Modify existing Jefferson from 1 to 2 way. 250000 10,710,000 • N O O O ' M V , 0 0 0 [0000000ovs O O O Vi �- O O O O N N O CDM (0 O O O O O M 0) 0 M M M C OO OO p �pCpO �p O O OOONOOt OMO O O O CO V, CP N O R hC fV 1n N C N I- u'i to tl r- H V C c d ° OI O d � d ' Co C 0' m 9 C C c c +d+ V E w 3 Cr w awi w o ; u o V u 0 uuli m e W C S d C0/ A ; d 'd0 2 � d 2 U (°� :; _ •Ydf a .. m d „ d ., O 0 w H 'd' Ro: J c E o c N 'dt c VIM ?+ d c .0 > M CO S � 11 W w 0: 3h J Z U) V (Oj CA U m it AU (A W W F N O O O M .- O p Op O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v M O (cc, 0_ 0 0 O O (00_ (O0 M M O CO 1h m 0 M C O O O O 0 '- O O N f0 O N OO OOOOO O O (0 w CD CO M w w O Co O Co CD O IO M MN M• M as IN Ld O& C 'tl f9 V3 f9 f9 N • A C O O C 'O C Gt w C P m 'O C C C c m Q o c c g d r U O " E ` 3 � � " ° d 3 da d U :° 2 = d Q W d d J d a 7 W j c �'N OI „0 N C o x O 0 o R roc I o z o = o z c c o -i � � W 1' wa JZ V/ UUNUlm d' dJ U fA W W t- N O O O M ; 0 0 00 CD CD C) O IT v f•- t0 O O A 0 0 O O O O N N O aD O M O O O O O O M O) 0 M M M O C) C O O C O CD O O w O O O O CDCO CD O f� O N to CD Co Co v O � C:, N IA Co 0Ln .M- -0 f9 IA IA ff) Hf M 6�7 C C d ° IM y d C YJ Y M r1 M O d me ,�c U V V U N U d C Cr c d .t+ m ; .2 0) 0 N y G d d d �' «1 W wQ Cr0 cp a oM dv o t; E 'c C d E7 A A c d 10 d d d J 3 a ° 2 m u « d c� c ? o Q c ! 3: o: E o c � C c 'o a:C > rn ',3 CL r1 W w w it J Z U) V U Co U m � Vl U 0 W W F y3 Colo 00000000 It O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Q o co 0 0 0 0 0 fn cc O c c Yf yyy y Vi p y t O It Co 0 0 0 0 0 p W^ 0 co p 0 0 0 0 CO �0 O 7 N �O O Ln N 0 'n O M p1 toll. w ^ O �O in N 0 y ^ w N N O O wwenw wwwwwww yg O L � w N m O U m c aN y • O R 'O ,y p 0 O O O O O O C O O' 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O S p y 0 0 o O p 0 0 0 O O p y N d. p CO 0 aO p N 0 0 O N Q •C 2 O U Z O N N �O cc CO � In O Ln p .a to LM N , to w Le) N n w N O ^ O� ° O N a Q " v en ww ww ww ww www s/) d R 0 ° I y G L O L y C 0 b O y N O O •� d U p u w Y y w N @ in c d ` N p c Q i- E d o .� aU � Y� °� U ln ° � .- u y C C f` ) y N f C O O LL V y O D U oo n. c U �, y s � 3oOC ~ d � " rs `� � roU U N C c 3 U O i = 0 R 0 y as c 0 W N � V - i 0 J Y F = co F- U O G U Q ce FO- H • yy FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY SUMMARY WPINION OF PROBABLE COST Master Street Plan Elements Mulberry $15,500,000 Timberline $15,600,000 Lemay $19,550,000 Vine $42,700,000 Redwood $1,600,000 Total Master Street Plan Elements $94,950,000 Additional Project Cost Due to Truck Route Alt 1 - Vine Modified $9,439,300 Alt 2 - Vine / Mulberry / Lemay $8,018,000 Alt 3 - Mulberry/Timberline /Vine $6,539,300 Alt 4 -Vine $3,900,000 Combined Alternative Costs with Master Street Plan Alt 1 -Vine Modified $104,389,300 Alt 2 - Vine / Mulberry/ Lemay $102,968,000 • Alt 3 - Mulberry/Timberline /Vine $101,489,300 Alt 4 - Vine $98,850,000 • y5 FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Master Street Plan Segment OPINION OF PROBABLE COST E. MULBERRY STREET 06Jan-99 • Assumes: 0 Removal of existing pavement(2 x 24'+8'+4'shoulders);add 20%for cross overs and frontage road connections. 0 Replacment to Ft.Collins Major Arterial Section Standards;add 20%for frontage road connections and crossovers. 0 Widen to the median side;outside frontage roads remain In tacit. O Minimal earthwork to median side to shape for new pavement and fill median. 0 Sidewalk will likely meander between the mainline and Frontage Road. O Existing right-of-way is sufficient to accommodate Improvements.No additional right-of-way,is required. o Does not include improvements to the interchange at 1-25.Does not include widening of the Poudre River bridge. 0 Includes intersection improvements at four principal(signalized)intersections. O Commercial end light industrial adjacent usage requires minimal nolse abatement. 0 New drainage system is required with inlets,lateral pipes,and trunk line pipes to outfall. Cost Per Linear Foot ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COS TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 9.6 $5.00 $4B New Pavement(12"Asphalt) Ton 7.4 $40.00 $296 Earthwork CY 8 $6.50 $52 Curb and Gutter LF 4 $15.00 $60 Sidewalk SY 1.6 $20.00 $32 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $488 Signing and Striping 3.00% of A $15 Drainage 10.00% of A $49 • U'rb'ftaien`DesIgn 5.00% of A $24 ghtin 2.00% ofA $10 /Landscaping 3.00% of A $15 Noise/Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 3.00% of A $15 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 10.00% of A $49 Mobilization 5.0M/0 of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (B) $688 Engineering Design 8.00% of B $55 Construction Management 10.000/0 of B $69 Contingencies 20.00% of B $138 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF $950 Right-of-way $0 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $950 TUTAI PROJECT COST PER MILE 95,656,560 Summary Cost per Segment Cost per Mile X Number of Miles per Segment $5,000,000 x 2.70 $13,500,000 Add For Major Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 4 $2,000,000 • Add For Interchange at Vine $15.000,000 x 0 $0 Add For Grade Separations @ Railroad $5,000,000 x 0 $0 Add For Drainage Improvements at Grade Sepa $1,500,000 x D $0 TOTAL COST FOR THIS SEGMENT $15,500,000 y� FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Master Street Plan Segment OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 77MBERUNE ROAD O6Jan-99 • Assumes: o Removal of existing pavement from International Blvd.to the north. o Replacment to Ft.Collins Major Arterial Section Standards north of International Blvd.Portions are on existing alignment and others on new.Use per mile costs per each segment attached separately. o Alignment will shift to the east to allow for maintenace of access to raiyard and mobile home park. o Cost for access road to be included. o Widen for 1 additional lane in each direction from Mulberry to International Blvd.Convert median to major arterial stand d Minimal earthwork to outside to shape for new pavement and fill median. o Existing right-of-way is assumed sufficient south of International Blvd.;additional right-of-way will be required north. d Includes intersection improvements at two principal(signalized)intersections. o Adjacent residential use will require noise abatement. o New drainage system is required with inlets,lateral pipes,and trunk line pipes to outfall. Cost Per Linear Foot-lMdenlno South of International Blvd. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 0 $5.00 $0 New Pavement(12'Asphaft) Ton 2.7 $40.00 $108 Earthwork CY 8 $6.50 $52 Curb and Gutter LF 4 $15.00 $60 Sidewalk SY 1.6 $20.DO $32 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $252 Signing and Striping 3.00% ofA $15 Drainage 10.00% ofA $49 Utilities 5.00% ofA $24 Lighting 2.00% ofA $10 Urban Design/Landscaping 3.00% ofA $15 • Noise/Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 5.00% ofA $24 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 10.00% ofA $49 Mobilization 5.00% ofA $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (B) $462 Engineering Design 8.00% of B $55 Construction Management 10.00% of B $69 Contingencies 20.00% of B $138 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF $723 Right-of-way $0 TOTAL WIDENING COST PER LF $723 Cast Per Mlle Major Arterial Section-On Existing Roadway $7,200,000 Major Arterial Section-On New ROW $8.900.000 Widening of Timberline-As Calculated Above $3,800,000 Summem Cost Par Segment Cost per Mile X Number of Miles per Segment Major Arterial Section-On Existing Roadwa $7,200,000 x 0.18 $1,300.000 Major Arterial Section-On New ROW $8,900,000 x 0.48 $4,300,000 Widening of Timberline $3,800,ODD x 0.53 $2,000.000 Add For Major Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 2 $1,000,000 Add For Interchange at Vine $15,000,000 x 0 $0 • Add For Grade Separations @ Railroad $5,000,000 x 1 $5,000,000 Add For Drainage Improvements at Grade Sep $1,500,000 x 1 $1,500,000 Add for Access Management to Rail Yards $500,000 x 1 $500,000 TOTAL COST FOR THIS SEGMENT $15,600,000 y7 FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Master Street Plan Segment OPINION OF PROBABLE COST LEMAYAVENUE • 06-Jan-99 Assumes: o Improvement segment from Mulberry to Connifer o Removal of existing pavement from Buckingham south and portions of existing Lemay to the north. o Replacment to Ft. Collins Arterial Section Standards. Portions are on existing alignment and others on new. Use per mile costs per each segment attached separately. o Alignment will shift to the east to allow for neighborhood preservation and to facilitate the grade separation of the railroad. o Buckingham will connect with the new Lemay alignment. o New right-of-way will be required for the total length. Less where the alignment follows existing roadway; more where it deviates from existing. o Includes intersection improvements at two principal (signalized) intersections. o Adjacent residential use will require noise abatement. o New drainage system is required with inlets, lateral pipes, and trunk line pipes to outfall. Cost Per Mlle Arterial Section- On Existing Roadway(see attached spreadsheet for detailed costs) $5,700,000 Arterial Section-On New ROW(see attached spreadsheet for detailed costs) $7,400,000 Summary Cost en r Segment • Cost per Mile X Number of Miles per Segment Arterial Section -On Existing Roadway $5,700,000 x 0.50 $2,900,000 Arterial Section -On New ROW $7,400,000 x 1.20 $8,900,000 Add For Major Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 2 $1,000,000 Add For Interchange at Vine $15,000,000 x 0 $0 Add For Grade Separations @ Railroad $5,000,000 x 1 $5,000,000 Add For Drainage Improvements at Grade Separ $1,500,000 x 1 $1,500,000 Add For Connection of Buckingham $250,000 x 1 $250,000 TOTAL COST FOR THIS SEGMENT $19,5501000 • y8 FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Master Street Plan Segment OPINION OF PROBABLE COST E. VINE DRIVE • 06-Jan-99 Assumes: o Includes removal of all pavement; assumes one 12' lane in each direction with two 6' shoulders. o Repiacment to Ft. Collins Arterial Section Standards. All is on existing. Unit cost is attached separately. o Alignment will follow the existing roadway, yet shift to the north to avoid the railroad to the south. o A new interchange will connect Vine with 1-25. Geometrics are not yet defined. A diamond is assumed. o New right-of-way will be required for the total length. o Includes intersection improvements at two principal (signalized) intersections. o Adjacent residential use will require noise abatement. o New drainage system is required with inlets, lateral pipes, and trunk line pipes to outfall. Grade separation of the railroad will be required to the east on Timberline but without reconnections to o cross street. Cost Per Mlle Arterial Section - On Existing Roadway (see attached spreadsheet for detailed costs) $5,700,000 Arterial Section - On New ROW (see attached spreadsheet for detailed costs) $7,400,000 Summaly Cost ner Segment Cost per Mile X Number of Miles per Segment • Arterial Section -On Existing Roadway $5,700,000 x 3.90 $22,200,000 Arterial Section -On New ROW $7,400,000 x 0.00 $0 Add For Major Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 2 $1,000,000 Add For Interchange at Vine $15,000,000 x 1 $15,000,000 Add For Grade Separations @ Railroad $3,000,000 x 1 $3,000,000 Add For Drainage Improvements at Grade Sep $1,500,000 x 1 $1,500,000 TOTAL COST FOR THIS SEGMENT $42,700,000 • y9 FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Master Street Plan Segment •OPINION OF PROBABLE COST REDWOOD 06-Jan-99 Assumes: o Includes extension of the existing segment to the south to connect with Linden Street at Vine. o Replacment to Ft. Collins Collector Section Standards. All is on new alignment with new right-of-way. Unit cost is attached separately. o New right-of-way will be required for the total length. o Includes no intersection improvements. o Adjacent residential use will require noise abatement. o New drainage system is required with inlets, lateral pipes, and trunk line pipes to outfall. Cost Per Mile Collector Section - On New ROW (see attached spreadsheet for detailed costs) $4,700,000 Summary Cost er Segment Cost per Mile X Number of Miles per Segment Collector Section - On New ROW $4,700,000 x 0.35 $1,600,000 Add For Major Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 0 $0 • Add For Interchange at Vine $15,000,000 x 0 $0 Add For Grade Separations @ Railroad $3,000,000 x 0 $0 Add For Drainage Improvements at Grade Sep $1,500,000 x 0 $0 TOTAL COST FOR THIS SEGMENT $1,600,000 • 5 FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Alternative Truck Route Alignments OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ALTERNATIVE 1 - VINE MODIFIED • 06-Jan-99 Assumes: o Includes the following key Master Street Plan elements: o Mulberry o Timberline o Lemay o A modification to Vine as described below. o Redwood o This alternative follows the Vine alignment as defined in the master street plan until west of Timberline. It then follows a northwesterly alignment to connect with Conifer at College. o Vine will be modified as follows: o New arterial section for 1.7 miles. o Obliterate and removal of.66 miles of existing Vine. o Reconstruction of Vine from Redwood to College using the collector section. o Mantain Vine, as is, from Lemay to Redwood; cul-de-sac Vine at Lemay. o Reconstruct Frontage Road adjacent to 125 to accommodate 85,000 lb vehicles not able to use 125 Assume collector street unit cost. o Two new principal intersections are added. Master Street Plan Elements Mulberry $15,500,000 Timberline $15,600,000 Lemay $19,550,000 • Vine $42,700,000 Redwood $1,600.000 MASTER STREET PLAN ELEMENTS $94,960,000 Alternative 1 Adiustments Subtractions Vine from west of Timberline to College Arterial Section per Mile Cost x Distance $5,700,000 x 1.76 -$10,032,000 Total Subtractions - 10,032,000 Additions Vine from Redwood to College Use Calculation for Collector on Existing Ro $2,900,000 x 0.42 $1,218,000 Vine from Lemay to Redwood Improve to local street standard $2,000,000 x 0.58 $1,160,000 Cul-de-sac Vine at Lemay $100,000 Vine on New Alignment from west of Timberline $7,400.000 x 1.76 $13,024,000 Frontage Road Reconstruction $2,900,000 x 1.00 $2,900,000 Obliterate & Remove Old Vine $105,000 0.66 $69,300 Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 2.00 $1,000,000 Total Additions $19,471,300 ALTERNATIVE 1 ADJUSTMENTS $9,439,300 TOTAL MASTER STREET PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE 1 $104,389,300 �I FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Alternative Truck Route Alignments OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ALTERNATIVE 2-VINE/MULBERRY/LEMAY • 06Jan-99 Assumes: 0 Includes the following key Master Street Plan elements: o Mulberry o Timberline o A modified Lemay as described below. o A modification to Vine as described below. o Redwood o This alternative follows Mulberry to Lemay,Lemay to Vine,and then north westerly to the intersection of College and Conifer. 0 Lemay will be modified as follows: o Convert from arterial standard to major arterial standard from Mulberry to reconnection north of Vine. o New construction to arterial standard northwesterly to College!Conifer. o Vine will be modified as follows: 0 Vine improvements as per master street plan from 1-25 to Lemay. 0 No improvements to existing Vine from Lemay to Redwood. o Reconstruction of Vine from Redwood to College to collector standard. o Three new principal Intersections are added. Master Street Plan Elemams Mulberry $15,500,000 Timberline $15.600,000 Lemay $19,550,000 Vine $42,700,000 Redwood $1,600,000 MASTER STREET PLAN ELEMENTS ,950.000 Alternative 2 Adlustmems Subtractionsyf Lemay from Mulberry to north of Vine Arterial Section on Existing Roadway $5,700,000 x 0.5 -$2,850,000 Arterial Section on New ROW $7,400,000 x 0.8 $5,920,000 Vine from Lemay to College Arterial Section.on Existing Roadway $5,700,000 x 1.1 58,27111 Total Subtractions , Additions Lemay from Mulberry to north of Vine Major Arterial Section on Existing Roadway $7,200.000 x 0.50 $3,600,000 Major Arterial Section on New ROW $819001000 x 0.80 $7,120,000 New Arterial Section to College/Conifer Arterial Section on New ROW $7,400,000 x 1.30 $9.620.000 Vine from Redwood to Coilegg Use Calculation for Collector on Existing Roadway $2,900.000 x 0.42 $1.218,000 Intersection Improvements $500.000 x 3.00 $1,500,000 Total Additions *23,055,000 ALTERNATIVE 2 ADJUSTMENTS $8,018,000 sz FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Altemative Truck Route Alignments PINION OF PROBABLE COST ALTERNATIVE 3-MULBERRYMMSERLINE(VINE 06Jan-99 Assumes: o Includes the following key Master Street Plan elements: o Mulberry o Timberline o Lemay o A modification to Vine as described below. o Redwood o This alternative follows Mulberry to Timberline,Timberline to Vine, along Vine for.76 miles,and then north westedy to the intersection of College and Conifer. o Vine will be modified as follows: o New arterial section for 1.7 miles. o Obliterate&removal of.66 miles of existing Vine. o Reconstruction of Vine from Redwood to College using the collector section. o Mantain Vine, as is,from Lemay to Redwood; cul-de-sac Vine at Lemay. o Two new principal intersections are added. Master Street Plan Elements Mulberry $15.500,000 Timberline $15,600,000 Lemay $19,550.000 Vine $42,700,000 Redwood $1,600,000 MASTER STREET PLAN ELEMENTS $94,950,000 Subtractions Vine from West of Timberline to College Arterial Section per Mile Cost x Distance $5,700,000 x 1.76 -$10,032,000 Total Subtractions , Additions Vine from Redwood to College Use Calculation for Collector on Existing Roadway $2,900,000 x 0.42 $1,218,000 Vine from Lemay to Redwood Improve to local street standard $2,000,000 x 0.58 $1,160,000 Cul-de-sac Vine at Lemay $100.000 Vine on New Alignment from west of Timberline to College $7,400,000 x 1.76 $13,024,000 Obliterate&remove old Vine $105,000 x 0.66 $69,300 Intersection Improvements $500,000 x 2.00 $1,000,000 Total Additions , ALTERNATIVE 3 ADJUSTMENTS $6,659,300 FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE STUDY Alternative Truck Route Alignments PINION OF PROBABLE COST ALTERNATIVE 4- VINE 06Jan-99 Assumes: o Includes the following key Master Street Plan elements: o Mulberry o Timberline o Lemay o Vine o Redwood o This alternative uses Vine from 125 to College. o There are no modification to the master street plan elements. o Reconstruct Frontage Road adjacent to 125 to accommodate 85,000 lb vehicles not able to use 125.Assume collector street unit cost. Master Street Plan Elements Mulberry $15,500,000 Timberline $15,600,000 Lemay $19.550,000 Vine $42,700,000 Redwood $1,600,000 MASTER STREET PLAN ELEMENTS94,950,0 Alternative 4 AAlustments . • Subtractions No subtractions are anticipated. $0 Total Subtractions Additions Minor additions for improved turning radii, pavement enhancements, and noise mitigation. $1,000,000 Frontage Road Reconstruction $2,900,000 x 1.00 $2,900,000 Total Additionsi3IIif • sy NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROJECT Major Arterial Section -On Existing Roadway Assumes: • o Removal of existing roadway (36'). o Replacement to Ft. Collins Major Arterial Section o Does not include grade separations or interchanges o Drainage system costs inflated to deal with little known ground water issues. o Existing right of way width of 60' assumed; difference purchased with this project. o Urban street lighting included without ornamental or supplemental pedestrian lighting. o Noise abatement to include noise walls or earthen berms. o Relocations are assumed to be included in the right of way costs identified below. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 4 $5.00 $20 New Paving (12"Asphalt) Ton 6.2 $40.00 $248 Earthwork CY 18 $6.50 $117 Curb and Gutter LF 4 $15.00 $60 Sidewalk SY 1.6 $20.00 $32 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $477 Signing and Striping 3.00% of A $14 Drainage 10.00% of A $48 • Utilities 3.00% of CBI $14 Lighting 2.00% of $10 Urban Design /Landscaping 3.00% of A $14 Noise/ Environmental Abatement/ Mitigation 3.00% of A $14 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 5.00% of A $24 Mobilization 5.00% of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (CBI) $639 Engineering Design 8.00% of Cl $51 Construction Management 10.00% of Cl $64 Contingencies 20.00% of CBI $128 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF (Cl) $882 • Right of Way (141' -60') SF 81 $6.00 $486 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $1,368 TOTAL COST COST PER MILE $7,200,000 5-5 NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROJECT Major Arterial Section -On New ROW Assumes: • o New construction through undeveloped land. o Replacement to Ft. Collins Major Arterial Section o Does not include grade separations or interchanges o Drainage system costs inflated to deal with unknown ground water issues. o Full right of way purchase required at 141'. o Urban street lighting included without ornamental or supplemental pedestrian lighting. o Noise abatement to include noise walls or earthen berms. o Minimal construction traffic control. o Relocations are assumed to be included in the right of way costs identified below. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 0 $5.00 $0 New Paving (12"Asphalt) T 6.2 $40.00 $248 Earthwork CY 18 $6.50 $117 Curb and Gutter LF 4 $15.00 $60 Sidewalk SY 1.6 $20.00 $32 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $457 Signing and Striping 3.00% of A $14 Drainage 10.00% of $48 • Utilities 3.00% of CBI $14 Lighting 2.00% of A $10 Urban Design/Landscaping 3.00% of A $14 Noise/Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 3.00% of A $14 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 2.00% of A $10 Mobilization 5.00% of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (CBI) $605 Engineering Design 8.00% of Cl $48 Construction Management 10.00% of Cl $60 Contingencies 20.00% of CBI $121 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF (Cl) $835 Right of Way SF 141 $6.00 $846 • TOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $1,681 TOTAL COST PER MILE $8,900,000 56 NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROJECT Arterial Section -On Existing Roadway Assumes: o Removal of existing roadway (36'). o Replacement to Ft. Collins Arterial Section o Does not include grade separations or interchanges o Drainage system costs inflated to deal with unknown ground water issues. o Existing right of way width of 60'assumed; difference purchased with this project. o Urban street lighting included without ornamental or supplemental pedestrian lighting. o Noise abatement to include noise walls or earthen berms. o Relocations are assumed to be included in the right of way costs identified below. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 4 $5.00 $20 New Paving (12"Asphalt) Ton 4.3 $40.00 $172 Earthwork CY 14.8 $6.50 $96 Curb and Gutter LF 4 $15.00 $60 Sidewalk SY 1.3 $20.00 $26 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $374 Signing and Striping 3.00% of $14 Drainage 10.00% of $48 • Utilities 3.00% of CBI $14 Lighting 2.00% of A $10 Urban Design/Landscaping 3.00% of A $14 Noise/Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 3.00% of A $14 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 5.00% of A $24 Mobilization 5.00% of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (CBI) $536 Engineering Design 8.00% of CI $43 Construction Management 10.00% of CI $54 Contingencies 20.00% of CBI $107 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF (CI) $740 Right of Way (115' -60') SF 55 $6.00 $330 • TOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $1,070 CONSTRUCTION COST PER MILE $6,700,000 57 NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROJECT Arterial Section -On New ROW Assumes: • o New construction through undeveloped land. o Replacement to Ft. Collins Arterial Section o Does not include grade separations or interchanges o Drainage system costs inflated to deal with unknown ground water issues. o Full right-of-way width purchase required of 115'. o Urban street lighting included without ornamental or supplemental pedestrian lighting. o Noise abatement to include noise walls or earthen berms. o Minimal construction traffic control. o Relocations are assumed to be included in the right of way costs identified below. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 0 $5.00 $0 New Paving (12"Asphalt) Ton 4.3 $40.00 $172 Earthwork CY 14.8 $6.50 $96 Curb and Gutter LF 4 $15.00 $60 Sidewalk SY 1.3 $20.00 $26 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $354 Signing and Striping 3.00% of A $14 Drainage 10.00% of A $48 Utilities 3.00% of CBI $14 Lighting 2.00% of $10 Urban Design/ Landscaping 3.00% of $14 Noise/ Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 3.00% of A $14 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 5.00% of A $24 Mobilization 5.00% of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (CBI) $516 Engineering Design 8.00% of Cl $41 Construction Management 10.00% of Cl $52 Contingencies 20.00% of CBI $103 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF (CI) $713 Right of Way SF 115 $6.00 $690 isTOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $1,403 CONSTRUCTION COST PER MICE $7,400,000 58 NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROJECT Collector Section -On Existing Roadway • Assumes: o Removal and replacement of existing roadway. o Replacement to Ft. Collins Collector Section o Does not include grade separations or interchanges o Drainage system costs inflated to deal with unknown ground water issues. o Additional right-of-way required but not fuull width. o Urban street lighting included without ornamental or supplemental pedestrian lighting. o Noise abatement to include noise walls or earthen berms. o Increased traffic control required. o Relocations are assumed to be included in the right of way costs identified below. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UANTIT COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 4 $5.00 $20 New Paving (8"Asphalt) Ton 1.2 $40.00 $48 Earthwork CY 8 $6.50 $52 Curb and Gutter LF 2 $15.00 $30 Sidewalk SY 1.3 $20.00 $26 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $176 Signing and Striping 3.00% of A $14 Drainage 10.00% of A $48 • Utilities 3.00% of CBI $14 Lighting 2.00% of A $10 Urban Design/Landscaping 3.00% of A $14 Noise/Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 3.00% of A $14 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 8.00% of A $38 Mobilization 5.00% of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (CBI) $362 Engineering Design 8.00% of Cl $28 Construction Management 10.00% of Cl $35 Contingencies 20.00% of CBI $70 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF (CI) $486 Right of Way SF 12 $6.00 $72 • TOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $668 CONSTRUCTION COST PER MILE $2,900,000 59 NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROJECT Collector Section -On New ROW Assumes: • o New construction through undeveloped land. o Replacement to Ft. Collins Collector Section o Does not include grade separations or interchanges o Drainage system costs inflated to deal with unknown ground water issues. o Full right of way purchase required at 72' o Urban street lighting included without ornamental or supplemental pedestrian lighting. o Noise abatement to include noise walls or earthen berms. o Minimal construction traffic control. o Relocations are assumed to be included in the right of way costs identified below. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST TOTAL Removal of Existing Pavement SY 0 $5.00 $0 New Paving (8"Asphalt) Ton 1.2 $40.00 $48 Earthwork CY 10 $6.50 $65 Curb and Gutter LF 2 $15.00 $30 Sidewalk SY 1.3 $20.00 $26 TOTAL OF BID ITEMS PER LF (A) $169 Signing and Striping 3.00% of $14 Drainage 10.00% of A $48 • Utilities 3.00% of CBI $14 Lighting 2.00% of $10 Urban Design/Landscaping 3.00% of A $14 Noise/ Environmental Abatement/Mitigation 3.00% of A $14 Construction Signing and Traffic Control 5.00% of A $24 Mobilization 5.00% of A $24 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BID ITEMS PER LF (CBI) $331 Engineering Design 8.00% of Cl $26 Construction Management 10.00% of Cl $33 Contingencies 20.00% of CBI $66 TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION ITEMS PER LF (CI) $457 • Right of Way SF 72 $6.00 $432 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER LF $889 CONSTRUCTION COST PER MILE $4,700,000 � b .................................................... • W O Ln j m ' P%YfZ.. YU ................... .... g a `izm a ............... ....... ..............Z. �.. .........t _ N 7 • *w a mJ . W YQ m .......J...~......... q....................... ...... Pon W Q i..................... ........ 3 z Q C W v a Q m o O co ........J............... ........ J - r F .............. WW � w .. � YZ N mg _ ........................... w ��z ix W Z a v J Q ....... ........... ......................... _ J 3 ..... ......... . N O J * ........................... =tea a............................ s • W O N LL m ..................................... 61 • Modified Vine Plan Year Horizon: Four or Six Lanes One of the major questions that has been raised abound the proposed Modified Vine Alignment is whether the proposed route can accommodate existing and future traffic. The Master Transportation Plan is based on 2020 buildout projections for Mountain Vista Sub Area, Fort Collins and the region. This time horizon is consistent with the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and State of Colorado 2020 planning. The twenty year planning horizon has and continues to be a planning standard for development of master transportation plans. The 2020 traffic forecasts for Vine Drive as State Highway 14 with a truck route designation is estimated at 25,000 daily trips. The acceptable Level of Service "D" daily capacity for this facility is estimated at approximately 32,000 to 35,000 vehicles. Based on a post 2020 conservative growth rate, the proposed Modified Vine alternative will operate with acceptable levels of service until 2025 to 2030. It should further be noted that the proposed highway standard with limited and controlled access could ultimately be widened to a six lane cross section. With a six lane section, this facility could accommodate up to 50,000 daily trips with acceptable levels of service. This would equate to a potential time horizon of 2040 to 2050. It should further be noted that with buildout of the Mountain Vista Subarea, traffic growth would dramatically drop. Therefore the Modified Vine alignment as proposed would likely serve Northeast Fort Collins well beyond the 2050 horizon. • Therefore, the argument that the proposed plan will only address the short term needs is false. Rather the proposed enhanced arterial standard for the modified Vine alternative would accommodate traffics well beyond the 2020 horizon and likely beyond 2050. It is staff and consultants opinion that the proposed right-of-way and median design be of sufficient width to accommodate a six lane extension. This does not mean that a six lane facility would ever be needed, but prudent planning would allow the widening if ultimately necessary. A future City Council would need to make that determination at that time. V • Proposed Northeast Fort Collins Highway and Truck Route Design and Impact on Separating Neighborhoods As part of the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee meetings, there were extensive discussions regarding the potential impacts a major east-west highway might have on separating north south neighborhoods from one another. The example of an east-west highway most referred to as a separator is Harmony Road. Similarities between Harmony Road and the Modified Vine include the fact that they are both enhanced highways with four travel lanes and a rural depressed median. Both facilities will have interchanges at 1-25 and will connect with College Avenue. There are some notable differences. These are: 1. Forecast Traffic Volumes: The 2020 forecast daily traffic volumes for Harmony is projected to be between 60,000 and 70,000. The 2020 forecasts for the Modified Vine are only 25,000. 2. Access: Because the proposed Modified Vine would be designed as an enhanced arterial with contemporary design standards, and this design was integrated with the development Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan, the proposed Modified Vine will have a very limited number of controlled accesses. Non-controlled accesses would likely be limited to right-in right-out and left-in only. The Modified Vine Alternative was also designed to accommodate on street bicycles and an extensive off-street five mile east-west hike/bike connector. The Harmony Road design, • however, has responded to a development pattern that has evolved overtime and has resulted in numerous non-standard access decisions. 3. Existing Vine North South Separators: The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BSNF) Railroad currently extends from nearly 1-25 to College along the south edge of Vine. This railroad already separates the north from the south except at three key intersections; Timberline, Lemay and College. Similarly the Fort Collins Airport and adjacent industrial development separate north-south neighborhood connections. 4. Alta Vista/Andersonville Separation: As part of the development of alternatives, there was an obvious separator, the existing Vine Street that separates the Alta Vista neighborhood from the Andersonville neighborhood. In review of the alternatives, it was the collective position of the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee members, that it would be preferred to relocate Vine to the north of the Alta Vista neighborhood and preserve the connection with the Andersonville neighborhood, rather than bisect the two communities. 5. System of East-West to North-South Connections: As part of the Modified Vine alternative, there was a conscious effort to enhance east-west bicycle and pedestrian opportunities for the corridor that would strategically interface with north-south connections. In addition to College, 1-25, Timberline and Lemay, the proposed plan adds a Redwood/Linden connection to Old Town. In conclusion, like Harmony, any highway will result in some neighborhood separation. Keeping Vine at a Major Arterial designation would also separate neighborhoods. However, the integration • of the proposed Modified Vine alternative, the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and sketch plan levels connections between the Alta Vista, Andersonville and other neighborhood connections (O3 • suggest that there is a strategic advantage for making the modification of Vine as proposed and integrating alternative mode connections into existing and future neighborhoods along the corridor. Whereas the Master Transportation Planning effort would permit this integrated design at this time, continued development proposals in this area will further limit options in the future. • • �Oy i •' auilaagwLL 00o ati a E Oo cz .� O DIN%: ,, 0001ie .. Ewan 000,11k 00L'£L L 008'£L sC g•- W r,_ CD cz 5! L h ' 000 9e "" )nuany a alloy W 008'9L � ®g C'W Z� W I • ® ®, 0001ti 0001V � o CD 8 r 3 N ..,.. Ncm tr 00'Z£ � 000`bti 3�000 39 ,O0 0 070, s tea, 7 o p C }.. O o m 000 L L 0001 11 oCm , y = O o TC' 000`9£ > enuenya6aloJ 00019E = a a"a pJ �e ��� eu14a4w1 s y O 3 0 _ 9 pop s OpO 3g000 = 41,000 -a c o "000'lti w o O m c Y00001 L 1 M 000 l o " 000I enua+tl J ` 00019E _ aMiantl aBaIIOJ = 9£ _ ram. • C C �b _ 4060 Elati Street '- Denver, Colorado 1 Phone (303) 433-34-3411 • WESTERN HIGHWAY INSTITUTE Email (303) 433-9780 aill whidenver@aol.com To: Mr. Ray Moe, Director of Transportation Ballofett &Associates From: Patricia Olsgard, Manager Western Highway Institute Date: January 21, 1999 Re: Truck Traffic in the Fort Collins Corridor The purpose of this memo is to discuss the volume of truck traffic through the Fort Collins Truck Route Study corridor (Hwys 14 and 287). Based on past traffic surveys conducted by the Colorado Department of Transportation, as well as current industry surveys conducted for this project, commercial vehicle traffic through the Fort Collins Corridor can be roughly divided into three categories. The first category is LOCAL TRAFFIC. This accounts for roughly 33% of all commercial vehicle traffic through the Fort Collins Corridor. The trucks that fall into this group are those which provide local pick-up and delivery services to city homes and businesses. The trucks in this group cannot be diverted to alternative routes outside of the study area due to the nature of •local pick-up and delivery service. These trucks supply retail stores, deliver mail, pick-up local goods, and so forth. The second broad category is REGIONAL TRAFFIC. According to a recent trucking industry survey, roughly 50% of total commercial vehicle traffic through the Fort Collins Corridor is regional in nature. For the purposes of this study, "regional' is defined as the area encompassed by Larimer, Weld, Boulder, and Grand Counties in Colorado, and Laramie and Albany Counties in Wyoming. The trucks that fall into this group are those which provide service within this particular geographic region. For the most part, these trucks will utilize state highways rather than Interstate Highways. The overriding reason behind this, is the weight limit on Interstate Highways. In the state of Colorado, trucks can legally carry 85,000 pounds on most state and US highways, whereas the limit on Interstate Highways is 80,000 pounds. Truck operators will carry the maximum allowed weight in order to decrease the operational costs of additional trucks, trips, drivers, fuel and time. These positive operational considerations far outweigh the negative factors tied to state highways (lower speed limits, narrower roads, towns, etc.). Regional truck traffic can utilize any of the identified alternative routes without negatively impacting their businesses, and should not protest a new route as long as access through Fort Collins is guaranteed. The last category can be titled THROUGH TRAFFIC. Results from a recent industry survey shows through traffic accounts for only 17% of all commercial vehicle traffic through the Fort Collins Corridor. For the purposes of this study, "through traffic" is defined as those trips that both originate and end outside of the region described above. For example, a trip from Denver �o Salt Lake City would be a "through" trip. Trucks that fall into this category will most often carry a maximum of 80,000 pounds in order to comply with the federal weight limits for Interstate Highways. These trucks will run on Interstate Highways to maximize the associated time efficiencies. Truck operators will deviate from Interstate Highways only when the operational / 4060 Elati Street - Denver, Colorado 80216 Phone (303) 433-3411 Fax (303) 433-9780 • WESTERN HIGHWAY INSTITUTE Email whidenver@aol.com efficiencies of state highways outweigh those of Interstate Highways. In the case of Fort Collins, the vast majority of truck operators have recognized the Fort Collins Corridor is no longer the cost- and timesaving route it once was. With increased congestion on the corridor and increased efficiencies along the 1-25/1-80 route, truck operators now run the interstate route more often. According to a recent industry survey, many of those operators who currently utilize the Fort Collins Corridor for through trips are willing to move to the interstate system once the automatic port-of-entry bypass system is in place. Increased efficiencies along the interstate system in both Colorado and Wyoming will attract additional drivers to the interstate system. The port bypass program for the Fort Collins area is currently scheduled for the first half of 1999. Therefore, the number of"through" trips should begin to decrease. • b� • MEMORANDUM January 21, 1999 To: Ray Moe From: Jean Townsend Regarding: POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS-NORTHEAST FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE ALTERNATIVES This memorandum addresses potential impacts on residential properties from four Northeast Fort Collins truck route alternatives. Within this memorandum, potential impacts include residential properties which might be taken or partially taken,properties that might be impacted by noise, traffic or visual change, and impacts on neighborhoods. It is presented in two parts: (a) an overview which discusses the relationship between highway and residential properties and (b) a discussion of impacts in Fort Collins due the proposed truck route alternatives. OVERVIEW: HIGHWAYS AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES. There are four types of • residential properties that may be impacted by a new or widened highway. These are land currently zoned for rural or agricultural use but slated for future residential development, land that is zoned or subdivided for residential development,individual homes and residential neighborhoods. TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED VACANT PROPERTY IMPROVED PROPERTY - Rural, zoned agriculture -Individual homes - Zoned or planned for residential - Residential neighborhoods Counterbalancing Impacts. The introduction of a new road through residential area may have counterbalancing effects: a positive impact by increasing accessibility and a negative impact from highway-related nuisances. Existing homes may be impacted differently from vacant land which is zoned or slated for residential development. Total or partial acquisition has a direct impact on the property to be taken and may have an indirect impact on the properties remaining. Homes and Homeowners. When evaluating impacts on residential property values, there may be a difference between the homeowner's point of view and the home's market value. The homeowner may have selected their location because of the absence of a major road, adjacency to privately held vacant land,and/or the presence of a peaceful rural environment If a road is built,the reasons that the current • homeowner selected the location may decrease or disappear. The homeowner may want the project stopped because it has a personal negative impact The homeowner may also perceive that their home will decrease in value because it has lost value to them. Page -1- Q • Consumer Preferences and Secondary Research. Proximity to a new road does not automatically mean that housing values decrease. Some may attribute less value to the house due to a new road; others may want to purchase the house because of ease of access and future appreciation because it is near the path of growth. There are a few published research projects which have measured the property value impact of highway improvements on residential properties. We have been able to review findings from twelve studies. Among these,six addressed the impact on residential land and six addressed the impact on single family homes. Most studies compared the property value impact in an area with a highway improvement with property values in a control area without a highway improvement. HIGHWAY IMPACTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES PUBLISHED SECONDARY RESEARCH SUBJECT OF RESEARCH POSITIVE NEUTRAL OR NEGATIVE ORLESS INCONCLUSIVE POSITIVE THAN CONTROL Residential Land 4 1 1 Single-Family Homes 2 1 3 See bibliography for report references. • - Among the studies that focused on residential land, four concluded that there was a positive correlation between property values and the highway improvement,one concluded no measurable relationship, and one concluded there was a negative correlation. - Among the studies that focused on single-family homes,results are mixed. Some studies focused on interstate scale projects, such as I-405 and I-495; others focused on major highways. Two included that there was a positive correlation between property values and the highway improvement;one reached no measurable conclusion, and three found that housing values in the highway corridor increased less rapidly than in the control area. The two studies that show a positive correlation concluded that homes appreciated more rapidly in the highway corridor than in the control area. Two of the studies that showed less positive property value increases focused on homes with relatively high noise levels (63 to 80 DB(a) or L,�. In addition to these studies,Coley/Forrest prepared case studies of seven road improvement projects in Boulder,Broomfield,Longmont and Boulder County for another municipal client. The intent was to answer the question: Do housing values decrease due to a major road widening or road extension? Sold statistics were collected for a sampling of houses which abut each selected road segment and a sampling of houses in the same subdivisions which were a lot away or a block away from the road segment. All sold statistics were converted to a sales-per-square-foot basis for comparison. • While housing values have increased relatively consistently in Boulder County over the last 20 years, there were periods where values were stalled and a period in the mid-1980s where values in some areas deceased. The analysis found that housing prices within each road corridor experienced remarkably Page -2- 7 • similar patterns of change,regardless of whether or when a road project was constructed. It appears that the factors that influence changes in housing prices, such as inflation and mortgage rates, were stronger than the influence of the road improvement project. If values were rising, they continued to rise before and after the road project;if values were declining prior to road construction,they continued to decline briefly after road construction before increasing above prior year levels. Specific attention was focused on situations where the same house with abutted the road improvement project sold prior to and subsequent to the road widening or extension. In about 90 percent of these situations, the house sold for more after the road project. The data does not suggest that the road project caused the house to increase in value and does not imply that the road project caused values to increase more or less rapidly than if the road project had not been constructed. POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS IN NORTHEAST FORT COLLINS. The remainder of this memorandum focuses on potential residential impacts in Northeast Fort Collins, due to the truck route alternatives. TYPES OF POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS DUE TO THE NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROPERTY APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES Vacant land Alternatives using East Vine Drive would require Alternatives I, III and • the acquisition of primarily vacant land, most of IV would require some which is in agricultural use. land acquisition. The Fort Collins Master Street Plan calls for widening East Vine Drive to four lanes (major arterial) which requires a 117 foot right of way. The truck route alternatives would add an interchange at I-25. If the"enhanced" arterial alternative is selected, the truck route alternatives would also require widening the needed right of way to approximately 151 feet to add landscape and berm improvements. Full and partial East Vine Drive-East Portion. There are about 14 Alternatives I and IV take of homes rural residential properties on East Vine between impact all properties. Lemay and I-25 that may be subject to a full or Alternative III impacts partial take. Most of these may not require some properties since it acquisition of the house but would require extends only between acquisition of a portion of the front yard. 9E (Timberline) and Lemay. Alternative II impacts no properties since it does not use East Vine Drive. • Page -3- -7 I • TYPES OF POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS DUE TO THE NE FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE PROPERTY APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES East Vine- West Portion. There are two single-family Altemative IV impacts homes on East Vine near North College. No right- these properties but of-way would be taken and so there would be no requires no right-of- full or partial takes. way. Timberline. Immediately south of East Vine Drive, Alternatives I, III and there is one single-family house and a mobile home IV do not require park on the east side. additional right of way or improvements above Timberline (9E)is proposed to be widened in the improvements called Fort Collins Street Master Plan to 6 lanes. The truck for in the Fort Co1k'ns route alternatives would not require additional Street Master Plan. improvements. Potential Some residents in the Rosewood Meadows and Alternatives I, II and reduction in Lindenmeyer neighborhoods, and some residents in III have more impact values due to (a) the northern edge of Alta Vista have expressed than Alternative IV due proximity to the concern that the proposed a truck route may to proximity to these road or (b) impact their homes due to the proximity of the neighborhoods. • decrease in rural alignment. atmosphere. In Alternatives I,II and III, the roadway may come within 300 to 450 feet of Redwood and 2,000 feet of Lindenmeyer. In Alternative IV, the roadway may come within 1,500 feet of Redwood and 3,000 feet of Lindenmeyer. Potential Concern has been expressed regarding the Alternatives I, II,and separation of separation of Alta Vista and Andersonville III circumvent both neighborhoods neighborhoods if East Vine Drive becomes a more neighborhoods, leaving substantial roadway. East Vine Drive as more of a local road. • Page -4- • POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TYPE ISSUES&CONCERNS POTENTIAL MITIGATION PROGRAMS Full Take - When acquisition decisions - Identify real estate to be taken quickly after are made project decision is made. - When land would be - Fund portion of project so acquisition can purchased occur quickly,if owner desires. - Amount of money that - Offer quick purchase and interim lease back, owner would receive where appropriate. - Relocation allowances - Describe relocation allowances quickly after - Owner's rights if agreement decision is made. on price cannot be achieved - Visit individual owners of property to be - Distress associated with taken and describe owner's rights. uncertainty regarding - Communicate with owners whose property outcome will not be taken. Partial Take - (Partial Take)Where possible, offer full gr partial take at the owner's choice. In some rural cases, a house might be acquired but the remaining land not taken. In some cases where a portion of the front yard is needed, some owners might want their house taken and others might want to retain their house. • Noise easements may be appropriate. - (Partial Take)Consider a relatively liberal package of site-specific noise, dust and access solutions. Potential - Road-related noise - Fund design that includes berths and reduction in - Safety landscaping which reduce visual and noise property values - Visual appearance impacts. due to - Minimize overpass and above grade proximity to situations to reduce visual and noise impacts. project. - Use relatively liberal guidelines in constructing noise walls, not just forecasted noise levels. - Be alert to case examples where proximity to a project decreased property values. Make adjustments to acquisition plans,where appropriate. Potential New road would reduce - Proposed alignments have mitigated this separation of ease of access within a potential problem neighborhood neighborhood • Page -5- �3 • POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TYPE ISSUES&CONCERNS POTENTIAL MITIGATION PROGRAMS Potential - New road would stimulate - Provide information about anticipated decrease in additional development. increases in noise levels at various distances rural - New road would decrease from project. environment. rural serenity. - Affirm land use zoning and master plan decisions regarding allowable future development. Future If years pass between the - Provide clear information regarding project Development decision to build and actual to anyone inquiring about developing in the Impacts construction,many individual corridor. development decisions in the - Send mailing to all vacant land property corridor will be made. The owners in corridor. issue is to broadcast correct - Make presentations to real estate brokers, information and xumunize the chamber of commerce,neighborhood dissemination of inaccurate and civic groups, etc.. information so decisions can - Publish a simplified brochure with incorporate the new route. plans, alignment, cross-section, etc. • • Page -6- �/ • BIBLIOGRAPHY-PUBLISHED SECONDARY RESEARCH RESIDENTIAL LAND: Adkins,William G. 1957. Effects of the Dallas Central Expressway on Land Values and Land Use:A study of the Influence of an Urban Expressway on Land Prices, Tax Valuations of Beal Proper!),,Land Use and Attitudes of Businessmen and Residents, Texas Transportation Institute Bulletin, No. 6., College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute. Brown, Fred A., and Harold L. Michael. 1973. The Impact on Land Value of a Major Higbway Interchange Near a Metropolitan Area:An Interim Report. Joint Highway Research Project (Ind.) Report No. 34,West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. Buffington,Jesse L. 1964. Restudy of Changes in Land Value,Land Use and Business Activity Along a Section oflnterstate 35,Austin, Texas. Texas Transportation Institute Research Report No. 26,College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute. Buffington,Jesse L. and Hugo G. Meuth, 1964. Restudy of Changes in Land Value, Land Use and Business Activity Along a Section oflnterstate 35 in Temple, Texas Texas Transportation Research Institute Report No. 27, College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute. Cribbins,Paul D.,et al. 1962. The Economic Impact of Selected Sections of Interstate Routes on Land Value and Land Use. Raleigh,NC: Engineering Research Department,NC State College. • RESIDENTIAL HOUSING: Allen, Gary R. 1981 "Highway Noise, Noise Mitigation and Residential Property Values." Transportation Research Record 812:21. Langley, C. John, Jr. 1981. "Highways and Property Values: The Washington Beltway Revisited." Transportation Research Record: 812:16. Palmquist,Raymond B. 1982. "Impact of Highway Improvements on Property Values in Washington State." Transportation Research Record: 887:12. Tomasik,Jack. 1987. Socioeconomic and Land Value Impacts of Urban Freeways in Ari.Zona. Phoenix, AS: Arizona Department of Transportation. • Page -7- • Memorandum January 20, 1999 To Ray Moe From: Jean Townsend Re: POTENTIAL BUSINESS IMPACT: NORTHEAST FORT COLLINS TRUCK ROUTE ALTERNATIVES This memorandum focuses on the impact from four Northeast Fort Collins truck route alternatives on businesses which are located along the existing and proposed corridor alignments. Within this memorandum,potential impact is a condition where either: (a) existing businesses are on the CO-14 route and the proposed alignment might exclude the CO- 14 designation (Mulberry, Riverside and North College) or; (b) existing businesses are not on the CO-14 alignment and the proposed alignment uses the road segment (East Vine). The analysis is subdivided into three geographic areas: the Mulberry, the Riverside / North College • and the East Vine corridors. Within these three corridors there are 188 businesses: 110 are in the Mulberry corridor, 68 are in the Riverside / North College corridor, and 10 are in the East Vine corridor. The nature of most businesses differ within each corridor because the roads have a different function from a business perspective. Thus,the potential business impact is different in each corridor. The text that follows provides summary information about each corridor and proposes mitigation solutions,where appropriate. The attached tables provide a list of businesses within each corridor. MULBERRY CORRIDOR: There are 110 businesses in the Mulberry Corridor: Businesses in the Mulberry Corridor 55 businesses are between I-25 and Timberline and 55 businesses are between Timberline and Riverside. WL0dgi.nQ/Re$Mumnt Businesses along the eastern segment ofu o-ReateA 2z Mulberry (I-25 to Timberline) would be impacted by Alternatives I and IV. Businesses along the western segment of Mulberry (Timberline to LeMay)would be impacted by Alternatives I, III and omen za Business Services 23 IV. Alternative II does not impact the Mulberry corridor businesses because it uses Mulberry for the CO-14 designation,but for a short segment • between LeMay and Riverside which contains no businesses. Page-1- �� Along this corridor,businesses are one of three general types as they relate to Mulberry. • - Those who selected their location specifically because of traffic and potential business from travelers and traveling truckers. These include the eight motels. - Those who selected their location because of generally high traffic counts and visibility. These include fast and quick food restaurants,gas stations, a car and truck wash and convenience retailers. - Those who benefit from an easy-to-find location but do not cater to the tourist, traveler or traveling trucker markets. These businesses include distributors, destination oriented retail and service providers. A summary count of businesses by type is presented in the table below and listed by name in the attached Table #1. SUMMARY OF MULBERRY CORRIDOR BUSINESSES BY TYPE TYPE I-25 TO TIMBERLINE TO TOTAL POTENTIAL TIMBERLINE RIVERSIDE IMPACT Lodging 8 1 9 9 Restaurant 4 1 5 5 Distribution/Warehouse/Wholesale 7 4 11 • Manufactured Housing 5 2 7 Auto-Related 5 17 22 4 Business Services 7 16 23 Retailers 8 9 17 2 Agricultural Products / Services 4 3 7 Animal Products&Services 5 0 5 Other 2 2 4 Total 55 55 110 20 Source:See Table#1. There are 20 businesses that might be negatively impacted by a decrease in business activity along the corridor. These include all (nine) motels, all (five) restaurants and fast food outlets, all (four) gas stations and two convenience retailers (liquor stores). It is likely that 90 businesses will not be negatively impacted because they are destination locations and do not derive business from traveling truckers, tourists, business and personal travelers or casual drive-by traffic. • Potential Mitigation Solutions. If the CO-14 designation is moved from Mulberry to East Vine Street, there are several programs that could help mitigate potential negative business impacts on the motels, restaurants, gas stations and convenience retailers. Page -2- 77 1. Designating a CO-14 business route that follows the current alignment would provide a • signal to travelers that services are available on Mulberry and might not be available on the new CO-14 alignment. Designating the East Vine alignment as a limited access route would further underscore this message. 2. Providing adequate highway signage on I-25 that would signal the availability of lodging, food and motor vehicle service on Mulberry would also help direct travelers who need service. Most businesses with the most potential impact are generally located quite close to I-25. 3. Businesses at the I-25 / CO-14 interchange is the largest cluster of travel-oriented businesses for a number of miles to the north and south. Travel-related businesses tend to group together because they benefit from "cross-shopping." The most significant erosion to existing business activity would be competition from potential new development at the proposed interchange. Committing to no commercial development at the proposed I-25 / East Vine interchange and no commercial development along the eastern portion of East Vine may be the strongest tool available to retain business activity along Mulberry. 4. Continuing to allow trucks of all size to use the Mulberry / Riverside alignment would assure individual businesses that truckers that access will remain available to them. • RIVERSIDE / NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR:There are Businesses in the Riverside/ N. College Corridor an estimated 68 businesses along the Riverside / North College Corridor from Mulberry to Conifer. ALodgingfRestaurant auto-Related 29 These have been further divided into two segments: from Mulberry to East Vine and from East Vine to Conifer. Businesses that front the southern segment from Mulberry to East other2oVine are potentially impacted by all alternatives since no alternative uses this road segment as the CO- 14 route. Businesses that front the northern segment, from East Vine to Conifer,would be impacted by Alternatives I, II, and II. Alternative IV would use this segment as the CO-14 designation. This corridor is a long-established travel route that is more urban in nature than the Mulberry • corridor. As such, the business mix is quite different from the Mulberry corridor. Forty-three percent are auto related services, twenty four percent are retailers;thirteen percent are business service providers, such as architects; the remaining twenty percent are a mixed collection of other uses, such as personal services and entertainment. Page -3- -7 8 SUMMARY OF RIVERSIDE AND NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESSES BY TYPE • TYPE MULBERRY TO EAST VINE TOTAL POTENTIAL EAST VINE I I IMPACT Lodging 0 1 1 1 Restaurant 2 0 2 2 Distribution/Warehouse/Wholesale 4 1 5 Manufactured Housing 0 0 0 Auto-Related 21 8 29 5 Business Services 5 1 6 Retailers 14 2 16 Agricultural Products / Services 0 0 0 Animal Products&Services 0 0 0 Other 5 4 9 Total 51 17 68 $ Source: See Table#2. Eight businesses are potentially impacted by the loss of the CO-14 designation. There is one established independent motel,which caters to travelers. There are two restaurants: one is a fast food restaurant which relies on its visibility and traffic counts (Taco John's); one is a specialty • restaurant which caters to a variety of patrons which include tourists (Sports Bar Station). There are five gas stations. Potential Mitigation Solutions. All potentially impacted businesses would benefit from designating CO-14 as the business route. The restaurants and gas stations attract business from a variety of sources; tourists and travelers are likely a minor source of business activity. More local travelers who would be unaffected by the CO-14 designation likely comprise the major source of business activity. Continuing to allow trucks of all size to use this more urban corridor would further help the businesses who rely on truckers as a part of their revenues. The independent motel may be the most impacted. Under Alternatives I, II and III, this motel may also be impacted by acquisition. It has historically generated businesses from repeat travelers and word-of-mouth,rather than impulse, drive-by tourists. As an independent,it does not have a national reservation system and advertising program on which to rely. If the motel is not acquired, the City might consider undertaking a special effort to feature the special characteristics of this motel in tourist publications. • Page-4- 79 EAST VINE STREET CORRIDOR: • There are approximately ten businesses Businesses in the East Vine Street Corridor that front East Vine Street. These businesses are clustered at the wester \ end of the corridor and extend for several blocks east of North College. Auto-Re atea 2 Among these, one is a wholesaler, two provide auto-related services, and seven provide a variety of business services. Business Services In addition,Latimer County has its .t.butlon/V ,Il le 1 maintenance operation on East Vine. Potential business impacts are measured differently along this corridor. East Vine is currently a two-lane road that is not part of the CO-14 designation. The potential business impact is correlated with the corridor becoming part of the CO-14 designation. Only Alternative III uses the segment of East Vine that contains businesses. SUMMARY OF EAST VINE BUSINESSES BY TYPE TYPE TOTAL POTENTIAL IMPACT • Distribution/Warehouse/Wholesale 1 Auto-Related 2 Business Services 7 Total 10 0 Source: See Table#3. Under Alternative III, the wester segment East Vine would become an improved two lane road but it is possible that no additional right of way would be needed. From a business perspective,none of the businesses along East Vine rely on dtive-by traffic. There are either destination businesses or businesses that do not serve their customers or clients from their location on East Vine. Any positive benefit from additional traffic would be zero or minimal. Property values may increase because the roadway would be improved from a rural road with no drainage or shoulders to an improved road. • Page -5- TABLE#1: BUSINESSES IN THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-25 AND LEMAY • INCLUDING BUSINESS PARRS NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-25/CO 14 INTERCHANGE North/ 1-25 A PomoN of BUSINESS FROM: Local or Name of Business South of Visibility or Regional Mulberry Signage Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By PART A: MULBERRY CORRIDOR-BETWEEN I-25 AND TIMBERLINE: LODGING: Mulberry Inn* south visible yes yes Motel 6 * north 1 visible yes yes Holiday Inn * north sign yes yes Sleep Inn* north yes yes Plaza Inn* south yes yes Days Inn* south yes yes Super 8 Motel* north yes yes National 9 Motel* north yes yes • RESTAURANTS: Waffle House* north yes yes yes Denny's * north yes yes yes Burger King* north yes yes yes Sundance Steak House* north yes yes yes DISTRIBUTION/WAREHOUSING/WHOLESALE: Hydra Trucking&Warehsng Co. north yes AMICK(North Amer.Moving) north yes Federal Express north yes Ryder Transportation Services north visible yes Fort Collins Truss north visible yes Colorado Machinery north visible yes Independent U-Cart Concrete north yes MANUFACTURING HOUSING: • Alpine Homes s y AAA Homes,Inc. south j yes D&E Sales south yes Page -6- 8 TABLE##1: BUSINESSES IN THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-25 AND LEMAY • INCLUDING BUSINESS PARKS NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-25/CO 14 INTERCHANGE North/ I-25 A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: Local or Name of Business South of Visibility or —{ Regional Mulberry Signage rTmZkte� ra Tourists/ Impulse, Destination ! Travelers Drive-By American Home Star Center south visible yes New Home Welcome Center north yes GAS STATION,AUTOMOTIVE AND TRUCK SERVICE&REPAIR: Conoco* south sign yes yes yes Phillips 66* south yes yes yes Poudre Valley Automotive(3020) north yes Auto Sales (at Timberline) north yes Budget Car&Truck Rental(3636) north yes BUSINESS SERVICES: Kleary Building Corporation north yes I Safe's Liberty&Nat.Security south yes • Decorating Dimensions south yes U-Stuff-It Storage south yes A Team of Bldg.Profes. (2832) north yes Sinnett's Builders,Inc. north yes Traffic Masters Safety Prod. (2832) north yes RETAILERS: Ace Hardware north visible yes American Furniture Warehouse south visible yes Kenny's Marine south visible yes Denver Mattress Company south visible yes Bedroom Expressions south visible yes Markley Office Furniture south visible yes Nursery&Landscaping(3524) north yes Hamblin Sales(Guns) south yes • AGRICULTURAL: Poudre Valley Coop north visible yes Q� Page -7- V TABLE##1: BUSINESSES IN THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-25 AND LEMAY • INCLUDING BUSINESS PARKS NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-25/CO 14 INTERCHANGE North/ 1-25 A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: Local or Name of Business South of Visibility or Regional Mulberry Signage Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By Centennial Livestock Auction north visible yes Case Farm Equipment south visible yes John Deere Farm Equipment north visible yes ANIMAL.CARE: Vedine north yes Mountain Vet Supply north visible yes Front Range Vet Clinic north yes Andeies Pet Motel north yes i Andelt's Pet Grooming north yes OTHER: Roselawn Cemetery north ! yes • Kaire Lagoon south yes PART B: MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN TIMBERLINE&RIVERSIDE: LODGING: Best Western Kiva Inn* north yes RESTAURANTS: Charco Broiler Restaurant* north yes yes DISTRIBUTION/WAREHOUSING/WAREHOUSE: Connective Systems&Supply South j yes Custom Tabs&Specialty south yes Colorado Iron&Metal north ! yes Pepsi-Cola Distribution Center south yes • MANUFACTURED HOUSING: Mobile World south yes Z Page-8- v J TABLE#1: BUSINESSES IN THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-25 AND LEMAY • INCLUDING BUSINESS PARKS NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-25/CO 14 INTERCHANGE North/ I-25 AP RnoN OF BUSINESS FROM: Local or Name of Business South of Visibility ox Regional Mulberry Signage Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By 77- Front Range Housing south yes GAS STATION,AUTOMOTIVE&TRUCK SALES&REPAIR: Cabot Covers south yes Maxey Truck&Trailor Equip. north yes All American Rudy's Star Service south yes Auto Repair(no name) yes Texaco * north yes yes John's RV&Boat Service, north yes Rocky Mtn.Ins.Pool Auto Sales north yes EZ Auto Sales north yes • Family Trucks&Vans north yes Penske Truck Rental north yes Collision Repair Center north yes Sixth Rock Auto Sales north yes Specialty Auto Body(1331) north yes Steve's Cars �i, north yes Collins Yamaha&Sasuki south yes Choice of Towing south yes Soapy's Truck&Car Wash* south yes yes BUSINESS SERVICES: RNR Water Supply&Service south i yes Greenline Power south yes Auctions Real Estate south yes i Fit it Is south ! yes • BOSS Associates(business forms) north yes Community 1"Nat.Bank north yes Page -9- / TABLE#1: BUSINESSES IN THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-25 AND LEMAY • INCLUDING BUSINESS PARKS NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-25/CO 14 INTERCHANGE North/ I-25 A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: j Local or Name of Business South of Visibility or Regional Mulberry Signage Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By Colonial Self Storage north I yes Center Rental Sales&Service north yes F&M Land Company south yes Schotchy's Cleaners south yes Speedy Printing south yes Konica Authorized Dealer south yes Western Business Machines south yes First Light Publishing south yes CO Ground Water Service south yes Mulberry Water Reclam.Facility south yes RETAILERS: Scratch&Post Candies south Kelly Supply Company(tools) south Wolfgang's Music north Young's Liquor* north yes yes Supermarket Liquors* north yes yes Music&Sound south Intemest Home Med.Equipment north Fort Collins Nursery south Wheelchair House Sales&Rentals south AGRICULTURAL: LTD (Sells tractors) south yes Cat-The Rental Store ! north '! yes C&S Equipment south yes I • ANIMAL CARE: None Page -10- V TABLE#1: BUSINESSES IN THE MULBERRY CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-25 AND LEMAY • INCLUDING BUSINESS PARKS NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-25/CO 14 INTERCHANGE North/ I-25 A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: Local or Name of Business South of Visibility or Regional Mulberry Signage Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By OTHER: Moose Lodge#275 north yes Putt Putt Golf&Games south yes 7t Potential Negative Impact • Page-11- �� TABLE#2: BUSINESSES ALONG THE RIVERSIDE /NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR • East or A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: Local oI Name of Business West Side Regional Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By PART A:RIVERSIDE&NORTH COLLEGE:MULBERRY TO EAST VINE LODGING:None RESTAURANTS: Sports Bar Station* east yes yes Taco John's* west yes yes DISTRIBUTION/WAREHOUSING/WHOLESALE: Black's Glass east yes Hawthome Maintenance Supply east yes Screenprint Wholesale Printing east yes CO.Custom Machines west yes • MANUFACTURED HOUSING:NONE GAS STATION,AUTOMOTIVE,AND TRUCK SERVICE&REPAIR: Gas Station at comer* west yes yes Trailways Depot west yes European Motor Cats(505) west f yes Conoco* west yes yes Import Auto Body(407) west yes Texaco* west yes yes Riverside Car Body west yes Phillips 66 * i east yes yes Penzold Rapid Lube east yes Big A Auto Parts east yes Western Engine&Trans.Exch. west yes Fort Collins 4 x 4 Performance west yes • Spight Auto Sales west yes Car Quest Auto Parts west yes Auto Repair-Wrench or Shine west yes Page-12- TABLE#2: BUSINESSES ALONG THE RIVERSIDE /NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR • East oI A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: local or Name of Business West Side Regional Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By J&M Precision Auto west yes BF Goodrich west yes Bridgestone west yes JWB Tires&Alignment west yes Marlin's Tire Align.&Shocks west yes i Old Town Import Repair west yes BUSINESS SERVICES: John Beckett Insurance west yes MTA Architects west yes Glaser Associates Architects west yes Terrafirma Design west yes I Fort Collins Radiator west yes • RETAILERS: Indian Jewelry Sales west yes Riverside Liquors* west yes yes Diamond Rouble Paint Center west Hidden Treasurer east yes The Family Thrift Store east yes A Classic Touch east yes Just Office Furniture east yes A-1 Quality Fum.&Flea Mkt. west yes Leon Music&Videos west yes Guns&Antiques west yes Carpet Works west yes Brothers Boards west yes Colorado Costume Company west yes is St.Luke's Thrift Shop west I yes AGRICULTURAL:None Page -13- v TABLE#2: BUSINESSES ALONG THE RIVERSIDE /NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR • East or A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: Local or Name of Business West Side Regional Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By ANIMAL CARE: None OTHER: Rocky Mtn.Diaper Service east yes CSU Energy Conversion Lab. east yes Open Door Mission east yes Supreme Hair Cuts west yes Millenium Tattoo west ! yes PART B: NORTH COLLEGE:VINE TO CONIFER LODGING: El Palomino* east yes • DISTRIBUTION/WAREHOUSING/WHOLESALE: Screenprint Wholesale Printing east yes GAS STATION,AUTOMOTIVE AND TRUCK SALES,SERVICE&REPAIR: Rocky Mountain Automotive easti yes Fort Collins Track Sales east yes Import A&C Auto Sales east I yes EZ Auto Sales east yes Triangle Motor Sales east yes Friesen Motor Sales east yes Auto Zone Discount Parts east yes Ken's Alignment,Brakes,etc. west ! yes BUSINESS SERVICES: Time Rentals east yes • RETAIL: N. College Discount Liquors* east yes yes (� Page -14- 9 9 TABLE#3: BUSINESSES IN THE EAST VINE CORRIDOR BETWEEN N. COLLEGE&I-25 • North or A PORTION OF BUSINESS FROM: Local oI Name of Business South Side I Regional Traveling Tourists/ Impulse, Destination Truckers Travelers Drive-By GAS STATION,AUTOMOTIVE AND TRUCK SALES,SERVICE&REPAIR: Informal Truck Parking north yes Flash Welding south yes DISTRIBUTION/WAREHOUSE/WHOLESALE: Hardwood Storage south yes BUSINESS&PERSONAL SERVICES: Inverness Stock Farm north yes W.M.Enterprises no yes OTHER: Hersh north yes • Bellaire Filter Sales south yes Waste Management Company north yes Welding Fabrication south yes i W.M.Waste Management of N.CO. no yes Latimer. County Maintenance north yes *Potential Negative Impact • Page -15- / O • MEMORANDUM E BALLOFFET & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ray A.Moe To: Fort Collins City Council and Larimer County Director of Transportation Commissioners Balloffet and Associates, Inc. 131 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Subject: Response to "The Council For A True Bypass" Letters Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: January 19, 1999 Phone: 970 221-3600 Fax: 970 221-9933 E-mail: raym@balloffet.net Over the past few months, there have been a number of comments and issues raised by an organization referring to themselves as 'The Council for a True Bypass". It should be noted that both staff and consultant have met with representatives of this organization on a number of occasions and have provided them with complete copies of the materials provided the Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Transportation Board. To my understanding, we have responded to each and every response in a thorough and timely manner. In spite of these meetings and in depth discussions on the project issues, two letters have been sent to City Council. These letters raise issues against the selection of the four preferred alternatives and favor a northerly route, near Owl Canyon that was previously dropped from consideration. One fundamental difference, is that the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Study has been with the objective of developing revisions to the Northeast Fort Collins Master Street Plan including the designation for a truck route. The Council for a True Bypass wants to bypass the City entirely. On face value it would be easy to support the supposition of their argument, that if key leaders from the Federal, State, County and City governments could get together, than we could achieve a True Bypass. The fact is that for almost one year, capable and responsible representatives from the Federal Highway Administration,the Colorado Department of Transportation, the County of Larimer and the City of Fort Council have been meeting monthly as members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). These members have critiqued and evaluated the data as to best practices in transportation planningfengineering and universally agree with the four selected alternatives and that a northerly by pass is 1, not affordable and 2, would not be effective in achieving an alternative truck route. Because of the two letters sent to City Council regarding this issue, I have prepared the following response to each point raised. LETTER DATED JANAURY 8, 1999 FROM THE COUNCIL FOR A TRUE BYPASS TO MR. MASON 1. The City has cited negative noise, visual and environmental impacts as reasons to move the truck route from downtown commercial streets to a large area of northeastern residential • neighborhoods. Over 1500 signers for the petitions filed with the City Clerk in December have state that to them this makes no sense. ql • As presented on August 25, 1998 to City Council and October 8, 1998 to the Larimer County Commissioners, there were five compelling reasons stated on why the current SH14 along Riverside and Jefferson between Mulberry and College should be relocated. These reasons included: 1. The current route has existing design deficiencies that result in congestion and safety concerns. The problems along this corridor will be exasperated with increased traffic growth and could not be mitigated without major building and right-of-way impacts to Fort Collins historic area. 2. Fort Collins City Plan establishes goals and policies to link City's Old Town area with the Cache La Poudre River. As long as Rivers ide/Jefferson remains SH14, and the Colorado Department of Transportation requires a highway for serving regional traffic, it will not be possible to integrate the local pedestrian and activity linkages defined by City Plan with a regional highway. 3. The current route of SH14 along Jefferson and Riverside is adversely impacted by railroad crossings at Mulberry/Riverside and College/Jefferson. 4. Truck traffic has a negative noise, visual and environmental impact on the Fort Collins Old Town area which can not be mitigated through street design or barriers. 5. Limited right-of-way along Riverside and Jefferson coupled with a relatively high volume of automobiles and trucks raises bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns for those traveling • along and crossing the corridor. The City Council and County Commissioners agreed with these conclusions and requested identification of a preferred route, as this issue has been addressed for decades without resolution, and candidate routes are being eliminated with ongoing development. 2. The present recommendation of the Transportation Board have a disproportionate negative effect on historic Hispanic neighborhoods and also on low income families. If one reads the Regular Meeting Minutes of the Transportation Board, December 16, 1998, 1 would argue the exact opposite; the Transportation Board was very sensitive to the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods. In spite of the fact that the Modified Vine and Mulberry/Timberline/Modified Vine alternative had a much higher cost than the current Master Street Plan, the Transportation Board voted 10 to 0 in favor of these two alternatives. They also voted 10 to 0 against the Vine alternative that would widen Vine through the Alta Vista neighborhood and bisect the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods. 3. These truck routes would negatively impact one of the major affordable housing areas of the City. The supposition is that 1) the area along Vine is proposed to be developed for affordable housing and 2) this housing would be impacted by the truck route. It should first be noted that one of the major objectives of this work effort was to develop a land use and transportation • plan for Northeast Fort Collins. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan does define residential along this corridor but does not imply that this residential development would be for affordable • housing. It should also be noted that there are a number of striking differences between the current set of alternatives and those alternatives presented in past studies. As an example Lemay and Timberline are proposed as under-crossings, not over-crossings, significantly reducing impacts to adjacent developments. Also the enhanced arterial design for additional setbacks and noise berms has also been incorporated in the design to benefit all residential units in the area. In fact, the Modified Vine alternative and the Mulberry/Timberline/Vine alternative relocates the future route of Vine away from the existing neighborhoods and will result in a unique opportunity improve on the neighborhood building of Alta Vista and Andersonvi I le. 4. The proposals permanently locate on low ground the Poudre River valley a growing source of air pollution. The proposed alternatives have been presented to the Air Quality Management Board and the Natural Resources Board. Neither board had any concerns with the proposed alternatives. 5. Negative noise impacts would reach northeast neighborhoods up to one mile for the source. The source for this assumption is not cited and therefore a direct response is not possible. However, it should be noted that with buildout of northeast Fort Collins, traffic along all routes will significantly increase and with that increase will be increased ambient noise consistent with urbanizing and urbanized areas. As an example traffic is projected to increase from • 13,700 daily traffic volumes to 32,000 on Lemay north of Vine, and Vine traffic will increase from 4,600 to 22,000 (25,000 with a highway). It should also be noted that Conifer will be extended east of Lemay and County Road 11 will be extended south to Vine. Whereas the accumulation of the traffic increases will raise ambient noise levels above what they are today, the proposed truck route with mitigation (undercrossings and bermining) will result in no perceptible differences to base line conditions. 6. Primary cost figures and other investigations by our committee suggest that the Transportation Board may have voted to eliminate a northern route based on incomplete information. The reference made regarding a northerly bypass cost estimate as included in the Transportation Board Meeting Minutes addressed one measure, right-of-way costs. As stated, even with a reduced right-of-way cost, a Northerly bypass would range in magnitude from between $70 and $100 million dollars. As further evidenced by the Transportation Board meeting minutes, the Transportation Board was very much aware that the northerly bypass was significantly more expensive than the incremental costs associated with the four proposed alternatives which range from $4 to $10 million dollars. 7. In an in-depth consultation with our committee, Dr. Ray Chamberlain, former CDOT Director has informed us that funds can be obtained if we reach agreement on a northerly route. Although it may be theoretically possible for a region to take all of its funding and invest in one • improvement such as a Northerly Bypass, this alternative would never pass the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council evaluation and selection methodology for 1 • a number of reasons. First, only roads on the state system would be eligible for funding. A northerly bypass would never replace Colorado 14 because CDOT will not permit any additional miles of roadways to their system that the Northerly bypass would require. Second, with the current list of regional improvements already exceeding available funding, this improvement would have a very low priority. Third, the northerly bypass does not address how trucks on SH14 with a gross vehicle weight get to the northerly bypass. 8. Our committee has scheduled meetings with state highway personnel and county officials this month. We are also in the process of receiving further cost information from Mr. Moe and the consulting engineers. We have provided the Council for a True Bypass updated cost estimates which continue to confirm the northerly bypass is not cost effective as compared to the incremental costs of the preferred alternatives. We want to help the City. This problem has been discussed for forty years. Bisecting the city with a six lane permanent truck route could one day be viewed as a significant error and would alter the very character of our city. First, the recommended alternative is for a four lane (not six lanes) enhanced arterial with additional right-of-way and noise mitigation berming to minimize impacts to existing and future developments along the corridor. The overall plan has been to integrate land use and transportation for northeast Fort Collins. The plan does not bisect the City, but instead builds • on an already east-west railroad structuring element with integration of north-south connections such as Timberline, Lemay, Redwood and College. Many comments we have received were in regards to the error of spending the last forty years in study and not finding a solution. RESPONSE TO OPEN LETTER TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM THE COUNCIL FOR A TRUE BYPASS JANAURY 19, 1999 The attached letter raised a number of issues that are summarized as follows. In addition, I have prepared the following response to each of these issues. • Cost estimates have been based on "ballpark"figures and more precise cost information should be developed for making decisions for a Northeast Truck Bypass. As presented in the past to City Council and County Commissioners, the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Project has been based on a series of more and more detailed evaluations as the total population of alternatives was reduced. As an example, the pass/fail Tier 2 question was "Is the Alternative Affordable"? The specific question was not what is the total cost of a truck route alternative but rather, what would be the additional cost over the current City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan to accommodate the Truck Route. The importance for the question clarity is that the Master Street Plan will need to be constructed regardless of where the truck route goes. • Based on discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Transportation Board, a threshold incremental cost estimate of$30 million R �/ . was selected as the maximum reasonable estimate which could be funded without major impacts and changes to the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council transportation priority list. Based on planning level unit cost estimates per linear mile of road construction, bridge and right-of-way, the initial Northern Bypass cost estimate was between $90 and $120 million that significantly exceeded the $30 million threshold. Subsequent to reducing the alternatives project list from 18 to the final four, conceptual designs were prepared for each of the four alternatives from which more refined cost estimates were developed. This process of general to specific cost estimating is appropriate. Even if the Northerly Bypass were $50 million, this alternative would still exceed the $30 million threshold established as part of the Tier 2 analysis. • The Transportation Board made their decisions based on an excessive northern bypass route cost estimate. At the Transportation Board Meeting on December 16, 1998, Dr Maurice L. Albertson, Ph.D. P.E. raised the comment that the Owl Canyon right-of-way cost estimates were to high. Even if the right-of-way cost estimates were $0, the high and low cost estimate would range from $65 to $95 million and exceed the acceptable Tier 2 threshold. It should further be pointed our that subsequent to the Tier 2 analysis was conducted, the issue of providing routes for $85,000 Gross Vehicle Weight trucks from current SH 14 to the Northerly bypass would likely add another $25 to $30 million dollars in frontage roads to make that route a viable alternative. • The Vine street alternatives cost estimates are underestimated because additional • environmental mitigations will be required. The Truck Route Study alternative analysis was presented to the Natural Resources Board and they had no issues with the four final alternatives. As has been presented, the preferred Modified Vine alternative does include additional costs to avoid impacts to the Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods and an enhanced arterial cross section with raised berming to offset noise impacts to Master Street Plan levels. • Our preliminary estimate of the actual cost for the Vine Street Alternative is$40 to $60 million. We agree. Our best estimate based on conceptual level engineering is approximately $52 million, $55 million if the cost estimates include part of the Timberline undercrossing. However, the total incremental cost estimate over the Master Street Plan is approximatley $9.4 million. In fact, it could be argued, that if it is the City's desire to replace the current Master Transportation Plan with the modified Vine alternative, then the total cost to improve this revised Master Street Plan to accommodate trucks is approximatley $4 million. These truck route related costs would be for minor construction cost enhancements and the construction of a $85,000 GVW frontage road from SH14 to Vine. • The northern truck bypass will be less than $50 million. If cost is the only objection, then the northern bypass should be reconsidered. Based on the analysis, there are four fatal flaws in addition to costs on why the Northerly • Bypass alternative is not viable. These are: J • 1. Many Trucks Will Not Be Able to Access or Use a Northerly By-pass: Trucks can carry 85,006 lbs. (GVW) on state and federal highways, but only 80,000 lbs. (GVW) on interstate highways. Trucks carrying 85,000 lbs. GVW would not be able to get to the northerly bypass from 1-25. If a northern bypass were considered, their would be major impacts to existing county roads or an extended frontage road from Mulberry to Owl Canyon would need to be constructed adjacent to 1-25. 2. Building a northern by-pass will not solve the problem of trucks traveling through Fort Collins. Of the 1200 trucks traveling through Fort Collins along SH14, approximatley one- third or 400 of the trucks have destinations within the City and would not use the northerly bypass. Of the remaining two-thirds traveling through the City, approximately one-half of the two-thirds or 400 trucks have regional destinations in Larimer and Weld Counties, many with truck loads over 80,000 GVW and would not use the northerly by pass. If the northerly by pass captured all 400 long haul trips at a lower end Northerly Bypass cost of $80,000,000, then the cost per trip would be $200,000 per trip. As a comparison, if the preferred modified Vine alternative with an incremental cost estimate of $9.4 million and the route captured 1,000 of the 1,200 total truck trips; the average cost per truck trip would be $9,400. 3. There are environmental concerns with a route north of the city. Owl canyon and other areas north of the city are environmentally sensitive which will require significant mitigation of the impacts of a new highway. 4. CDOT does not permit adding new miles to the state highway system. Building a • northern by-pass would add 10 to 25 miles of new road to the state highway system and would be unacceptable to the Colorado Department of Transportation. • We are very concerned that no one knows for certain how may trucks will be removed from "Old Town"and placed on residential streets. Professional"origin and destination"studies; truck weight studies and truck type studies would give the City Council a much more accurate picture of traffic. First of all, no trucks will be placed on residential streets. Second, we do know the number of trucks per day, the number of trucks per hour, the number of trucks which have a destination in the City of Fort Collins and the number of trucks which have both destinations outside the City. We also know that almost all long haul trips have 80,OOOIb GVW, as they would utilize the freeway system elsewhere to get to and from their destinations. We also know that the majority of regional trips are 85,OOOIb GVW in order to maximize loads and minimize trips. We do not precisely know the regional and long haul truck trips origins and destinations, nor do we believe the origin/destination data is critical to know all four alternatives are superior to the northern bypass alternative. As an example, if 100 percent of all long haul and regional trips or 800 trucks used a northern bypass, the cost per truck trip would be $100,000 instead of the modified Vine cost per trip at $9,400 per truck. • The Council for a True Bypass fully supports the development of Vine Street but oppose Vine as an eighteen-wheeler truck bypass and request a no build truck route through the City and work with County, State, and Federal leaders for a regional solution. • The buildout of Vine, Lemay, Timberline, Conifer, County Road 11 and all of the other roads in Northeast Fort Collins will have a significant impact on existing development. New homes will 11 • be built; these homes will generate trips that will need the new infrastructure. The primary objective of the overall work effort was to develop a revised Master Street Plan which minimized impacts on existing and future development in Northeast Fort Collins. We believe that the Modified Vine alternative is a significant improvement over the current Master Street Plan and we thank the Council for a True Bypass for their support on these changes. The one difference is the provision of trucks along Vine complemented with and enhanced cross section and berming to offset any impacts associated with the addition of trucks. After almost a one year work effort, support by the Technical Advisory Committee which included responsible representatives of the Federal, State, County and City, the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Transportation Board, we have gathered enough data and have conducted enough analysis to make a decision which is not at the expense of residential neighborhoods and families. • • The Council For a True Bypass • 1"National Tower, 215 W. Oak Street, #601C P lrt Collins, CO 80521, Phone/Fax (970) 224-2201) January 8, 1999 Dear Mr. Mason, We write to request that the City Council delay a decision during its March 12, 1999, meeting on the Northeast Truck Route until it has further information on other possibilities, specifically a true bypass around Fort Collins. Our concerns are: l. The city has cited negative noise, visual and environmental impact as reasons to move the truck route from downtown commercial streets to a large area of northeastern residential neighborhoods. Over 1500 signers of the petitions filed with the City Clerk in December have stated that to them this makes no seise. 2. The present recommendations of the Transportation Board have a disproportionate negative effect on historic I Iispanic neighborhoods and also on low income families. • 3. These truck routes would negatively impact one of the major affordable housing areas of the city, 4. The proposals permanently locate on low ground in the Poudre River valley a growing source of air pollution_ 5. Negative noise impacts would reach northeast neighborhoods up to one mile from the source. 6. Primary cost figures and other investigations by our committee suggest that the Transportation Board may have voted to eliminate a northern route based on incomplete information. 7. In an in-depth consultation with our committee, Dr- Ray Chamberlain. former CDOT Director, has informed us that funds can be obtained if we reach agreement on a northern route. S. Our committee has scheduled meetings with state highway personnel and county officials this month. We are also in the process of receiving further cost information from Mr. Moe and the consultiutt engineers. We.want to help the city. This problem has been discussed for forty years. Bisecting the city with a six lane permanent truck route could one day be viewed as a significant error and • would alter the very character of our city. Move Trucks, Nat Families n • This Council has the opportunity to create a solution that benefits all our citizens for our long future together. Please give us time to gather the information from federal, state and county authorities to document and recommend a true bypass for your consideration. 17 Ice L. Albertson, Ph.D. P.E. R. H. "(S^wede""Anderson. D. Min. Richard Dunn, Archiwct metes �Mo�ndra V Representing Andersonville, Alta Vistu and Buckingham • • 11 The Council For a True Bypass • I"National Tower, 215 W Oak Street. #601 C, Fort Collins, CO 80521, Phone/Fax (970) 224-2269 Open Letter to the Mayor and City Council f�� From: The Council For a True Bypass Date: January 19, 1999 In our letter to you dated January 8, 1999, The Council For a True Bypass listed eight concerns which we believe need to be addressed. Since that date we have assembled additional information. Although our gathering of data and analysis is far from complete, we are sending this letter as a progress report. We received our cost data from the CDOT office in Greeley. .At the various presentations, the City staff has qualified their cost estimates as being developed with "ballpark"figures. Important decisions and recommendations on this issue have been made by City advisory Boards on the basis of questionable "ballpark" costing. We urge the City Council to gather more precise cost information as a basis for making your decision for a Northeast Truck Bypass. For example, on December 16, 1998,the Transportation Advisory Board eliminated a northern bypass route on the basis of staff advice emphasizing excessive cost. These estimates included such costs as $5 per square foot for right-of-way acquisition($225,000 per acre for • prairie land 12 miles north of Fort Collins when it should have been closer to$12,000 per acre). City staff construction cost estimates ranged from $3.3 million to $5 million per mile for two lane state highway construction. In our meeting with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),we were told they use a cost estimate range of$1.5 to $2.0 million for a similar type route. This cost information is available from the State of Colorado upon request. At the same time, the Vine Street alternatives seem to be underestimated. The Coloradoan reported these alternatives as ranging from $5.9 million to $9.1 million. The City staff included$5.0 million for environmental mitigation on the northern route but Zero on the Vine alternatives even though the Vine routes involve vehicle emission pollution affecting the Poudre River Basin, noise pollution,wildlife patterns,wetlands and impact on low-income housing- There is no question that environmental studies will require mitigation work similar to the$5.0 million required for the northern route. After adding $5 million for environmental mitigation: $4 million to $6 million per mile for the proposed 4 lane (with separations), $2 to $3 million per overpass (major streets and railroad), $1 million per mile for noise mitigation, $4 to $6 million for right-of-way acquisition, plus intersection work at the State Highways,plus landscaping, plus engineering,plus contingency,the costs far exceed the City budget numbers. It is worth noting that the City reported to the!Coloradoan and to the public that extending Vine Street to Interstate 25 would cost $8,751,200. In reality, the cost of just a new interchange at Vine and I-25 would exceed $15 million. Our preliminary estimate of the actual cost range for the Vine Street alternatives is $40 • to $60 million: Move Trucks, Not Families DO • Our preliminary estimate for the northern truck bypass (1-25, 281 Exit interchange [existing] —County Road 70 —connecting Highway 287 through Colorado Lien just east of Livermore) will be less than S50 million. City staff had earlier determined that the northern route met all criteria save one,extreme cost. If cost is the only objection, then the Exit 281- Livermore route should be reconsidered. We are also very concerned that the entire study presented at the December 161h meeting was completed!without an actual professional truck traffic study on Jefferson Street. No one knows for certain how many trucks will be removed from"Old Town"and placed on residential streets. Professional"origin and destination" studies, truck weight studies and truck type studies would give the City Council a much more accurate picture of truck traffic in our city and an informed basis upon which to make a decision. The Council For a True Bypass fully supports the development of Vine Street as a part of the Master Street Plan,but we are opposed to making Vine an eighteen-wheeler truck bypass, especially when a true northern bypass is available at the I-25, Exit 281 interchange. Therefore, we request thaY.the City Council choose to not build a truck route through the city, but rather work with County, State and Federal leaders on a regional solution_ We will continue to gather data and make analyses which we will be happy to share with • the City. We are confident that can achieve a true long-range truck bypass which is not at the expense of residential neighborhoods and families! Maunc L. e rtson. Ph.D. P.E. R. H. "Swede"Anderson, D. Min. Richard Dunn,Architect James Mondragon�enti • AndersonviIle, Alta Vista and Buckingham 1o1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 1999 TO: Ron Phillips,Director of Transportation Services FROM: John Daggett, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Presidential Executive Order 12898 Presidential Order 12898 is a direction to all federal agencies requiring them to establish policies and procedures to ensure"environmental justice" (non-discrimination) for minority and low- income populations due to the effects of federal policies, actions, or programs. In and of itself, • Executive Order 12898 only directs federal agencies to establish those policies and procedures. As such, the Executive Order 12898 is not what is significant here with respect to the NE Truck Route Project. Rather, it is the policies and procedures established by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. I have attached copies of 1)the Executive Order 12898,2) U.S. DOT"Order To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations", and 3)the FHWA policy titled "FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." I direct you to the FHWA policy because it governs the building of roads. The essence of the policy is two-fold: 1) to prevent discrimination in the planning and the public process associated with building a highway and 2)to prevent disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. In our particular situation this applies to the planning, design, and building of Vine Drive as State Highway 14. On the first point,the City has gone to great lengths to ensure the involvement of minority and low-income populations in the planning and preliminary design process. Members of the potentially affected neighborhoods were on the Citizen Advisory Committee for the project and a number of neighborhood and public meetings have been held to ensure an opportunity for participation for all members of those neighborhoods. • On the second point, it is clear that mitigation measures have been planned in the highway's design to ensure that the effects of the road do not violate federal standards and do not 1a �. • disproportionately impact these neighborhoods. The fact of the matter is that Alta Vista, Andersonville, and Buckingham are affected no differently than any of the other developments (or neighborhoods) that exist or will be built adjacent to the highway. In fact, some of the new (non-minority/non-low-income) neighborhoods that are being built today (Waterfield and Waterglen) will be closer to and more impacted by the new highway. The fact that the City is actually realigning both Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive to avoid any direct impacts on those minority and low-income populations speaks volumes about the City's effort to deal fairly with these neighborhoods. It is acknowledged that the FHWA policy titled"FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" will apply when federal funding is sought. However, the City has met and exceeded the intent of that policy and will continue to do so in the future. Encl.: (03) • • /0 3 • CHARLES C. ROBINSON, PE 319 S. Grant Avenue; Fort Collins, CO 80521 493-0178 October 3, 1989 An Engineering Opinion prepared for: Downtown Development Authority 01 Old Town Square, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Subject: Negative effects of highway traffic on the historic buildings of the 200 block of Jefferson Street. A row of classic brick commercial buildings stand on the southwest side of Colorado highway 14 on its angled route through Fort Collins. Built in the 1880's these structures are a portion of historic Old Town that are subjected to the effects of heavy traffic. The centerline of the four-lane thoroughfare is 40 feet from the front of the buildings and the nearest traffic lane is within 20 feet. A 12 foot wide sidewalk fronts the buildings. Built before modern portland cement, the foundations under the two-story brick walls are large sandstone blocks, probably set with minimum excavation on the undisturbed sail. Over the decades the elevation of the street and sidewalk has been raised by improvements as the traffic increased in numbers, weight, and • speed. These foundation blocks have experienced some differential settling but appear to be on stable soil. The brick walls are generally soft brick with lime-base mortar. Front walls are predominantly columns on the first floor with lintels over the openings supporting the full brick wall of the second floor. The cornice is corbelled out with considerable masonry decor on some of the buildings. Sidewalls, perpendicular to the street, generally support the floors and roofs that span across the nominal 25 foot width of the buildings. The brick front wall is supported laterally at the second floor and at the roof by additional bracing and structure that have been added over the ensuing years to stabilize the front wall. Considerable repair work has been done on cracks in the sidewalls, especially at their junction with the front wall. , Although much of the cracking, loose mortar, and separation can be attributed to aging, moisture, and natural ground settlement; the proximity of heavy traffic has contributed significantly to the deterioration. And increasingly heavier traffic in the future will contribute to further deterioration in several ways. 1. Mechanical vibration is transmitted to the soil as the paving deflects under loads, and produces vibrations in the foundation blocks. Any movement in the brick walls fragments the lime mortar resulting in growth of wall cracks. These vibrations, or cyclic soil pressures, are of magnitude that can be felt in the building walls when heavy vechicles pass on the street. 2. Airborne pollutants from vehicles chemically break down the lime it • the mortar, causing weakening of the mortar bond. It is well documente that sandstone, limestone, marble, and even stained glass are affected local pollutant sources such as vehicular emissions. • 3. Chemicals used for snow removal have a deteriorating effect on masonry and especially the soft porous brick and lime-base mortar. This is probably of minor significance but its long-term effects are not well documented. 4. Traffic noise is a source of low-level energy that has little or no effect on the structure itself. However, noise is a major factor that detracts from the commercial viability of the property along with parking hazard, vehicle odors and debris, and contaminant effects on plantings. The future impact on the buildings can be reduced by slowing the traffic, reducing weights of vechicles, and reducing vehicle count. The continued use of Jefferson Street as a route for highway 14 appears incompatible with these abatement options. The traffic on Jefferson Street, especially heavy vehicles, and the pollutants generated by all traffic have added to the deterioration of these buildings and will continue to affect them due to their close proximity. Charles C. Robinson Professional Engineer 319 S. Grant Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • Community Planning and Environmental Services Community Development Block Grant Program City of Fort Collins May 21, 1993 Jefferson Street Coalition 242 Pine Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Jefferson Street Truck Traffic The Landmark Preservation Commission supports your efforts to urge the Fort Collins City Council and the Colorado State Highway Department to pursue another route other than Jefferson Street for through truck traffic around Fort Collins. The Landmark Preservation Commission is charged by the Landmark Ordinance of 1968 to "preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate landmark structures and districts in Fort Collins . " The heart of this charge is the Historic Old Town Local and National Register District. Through truck traffic on Jefferson Street is a prover_ detriment to the oldest of the Old Town buildings which are on this street. The constant vibration and dirt are slowly deteriorating these magnificent facades. This traffic is also a barrier to the City' s established urban design plans to link Old Town to the Poudre River National Heritage Area. In summary, we strongly urge all responsible parties to pursue another route as expeditiously as possible before this valuable block of 110 year old buildings is irreversibly damaged. Thank you for your concern regarding this deplorable situation. Sincerely,- w �7eT=Ifer Carpenter, Chairman Landmark Preservation Commission • :. ue Avenue P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 22] 6,-58 STRUCTURRL DVNRMICS " RND ` UIBRRTION CONSULTANTS LI 11 ^17sat's the was we've always Cons it." KENNETH MEDERRIS RSSOCIRTES This esaase bas always DR. KENNETH MEDERRIS TELECOPT TRRNSMITTRL SHEET been the primary (SENT FROM 303-484-3553) impediment to positive change. DELIVER TO URS CONSULTANTS , INC. SENT FROM Ii>Zu= MEDEARTS NO. OF PRGES INCLUDING COUER SHEET 16 ORTE SENT 16 August 1994 BE: Jefferson St.-200 Block-Vibration Studies -- Corridor Stud of U.S. 87 an Co orado 14 , Ft. Co ins, co • The purpose of this letter report is to summarize vibration and structural dynamics studies results that were obtained in conjunction with the above-cited pro- ject. Specifically, vibration measurements and record- ings were taken on July 27 & 28, 1994 . Three different vibration-monitoring systems were utilized, relevant displacements, velocities, and accelerations being monit- ored. The motion levels were too low to be measured by the velocity system so pertinent values were computed using the displacement and acceleration magnitudes. This was quite feasible since all of the measurements were found to be quite consistent for ambient, traffic, and railroad excitations. The latter were found to be min- imal. The nearby railroad tracks are primarily used for switching efforts, thus train velocities are quite low. Typical vibration recording trace segments are given in Figures 1 through 4. Selected recordings that were recently taken on a new micro-electronics floor system are included for comparison purposes. It should be noted that such systems are designed to have extremely low, micro-inch level vibratory motions. Finally, typical Jefferson Street displacement measurement magnitudes are • summarized in Table 1 , which follows. ENUE • FORT COLLINS, COLORRDO 80524 NE & FAH • 303 — 484 — 3553 STRUCTURRL BYNAMICS RND ' UIBRRTIDN CONSULTRNTS I KENNETH MEDEARIS RSSOCIRTES -2- 08. KENNETH MEDEARIS TABLE 1 . LOCATION DIRECTION & EXCITATION PEAK-TO-PEAK (PTP) JEFFERSON STREET MOTION,MICRO-INCHES Ground( Sidewalk) Horizontal-Ambient,Truck, 6 - 12 Railroad Ground(Sidewalk) Vertical-Ambient, Truck, 6 - 12 Railroad Wall( 2nd Floor Horiz .-Ambient, Truck, 10 - 20 • Window) Railroad Wall( 2nd Floor Vert.-Ambient, Truck, 10 - 20 Window) Railroad Wall( 2nd Floor) Horiz.-Hand Push to 40 2nd Floor Vert.-Ambient, Truck, 10 - 20 Railroad 2nd Floor Vert.-130 Pound Person to 40 Walking ~15' Away 2nd Floor Vert.-Heel Impulse to 1000 ***Mia - •1 Vert.-5 Nearby Air Handlers 6 - 20 F oor System ***Micro-Electronics_ Vert.-Heel Impulse to 80 F oor Sys em ***T ical New Minimal Vert.-Heel Impulse to 2000 Cost O ice Building _ Floor System KMA Office, 2nd Floor Horiz.-Ambient, Truck, 8 - 16 Railroad • KMA Office, 2nd Floor Vert.-Ambient, Truck, 10 - 20 Railroad KMA Office, 2nd Floor Vert.-Heel Impulse to 1200 _ULLEGE RUENUE ' FORT COLLINS, COLORRDO 00524 �G TELEPHONE S FRH ' 303 - 484 - 3553 - ::W:: ____-_______- :r::: :: MEMO ----------- • i a r u e .i�7,i�i�i�i�_9_=s.,,;=a'r �_i.�_•.v s:al3-�a_::::c:::�:�__:3::e: ...........'.�•�:::'. L '. +�7: �1 �:' '�. .�N:L.A,`.."""C�.-�-7^:. �::.. ------------- ....... ? ._._.._....m:._.:��o mac:::.-�_�—:--�:•:::�:.-::r.�:=r.::�.1' F.2i:e��, • : a • u _,. ee a= -�-- — ._... .....�......._... ._.......... ...._ _ _ — ._..... . — .° :.:ci::�-:weer''eie- ::::.� .;,z7.R:IcSir�e:73'r.:9� :::�°-ii -�`•: F.i:r��i: ::I6 --IC- - - - - -- _ - STRUCTURRL DYNAMICS ' RND • DIRRRTION CONSULTRNTS I KENNETH MEDERRIS RSSOCIRTES -7- OR. KENNETH MEDERRIS Comparative considerations of the recording trace segments and vibration magnitudes given in Table 1 in- dicate. the overall Jefferson Street motions are quite low magnitude. Several records were subsequently com- puter-analyzed to evaluate the dominant frequencies of the motions . Typical results are given in Figures 5 and 6. It may be seen therein that pertinent frequencies are in the . 15 - 25 Hz(cycles/second) range, which is not untypical. Using that range in conjunction with the dis- placement and acceleration magnitudes, the computed vel- ocity values are e.0.002 - 0.05 inches/second. Those were subsequently plotted on Figures 7 and 8. The former is • an accepted building damage criteria representation; the latter a typical rotating machinery operational vibrat- ion guideline that is included for comparison purposes. It may be noted the plotted points indicate the motion magnitudes are well within the acceptable ranges. Figure 9 depicts measured response results for 50 relatively new facilities subjected to impulse(heel drop) excitation. The relevant Jefferson Street Table 1 value of-1000 micro-inches is seen to be just acceptable for human vibration considerations (but not for micro-elect- ronics manufacturing where people are walking around) . It should be. noted the 1000 micro-inch value is, as indicated, for footfall excitation, not vehicle or rail- road passage. The latter are typically much less as in- dicated by the KMA ratings given in Figure 10. Note that trains (fast-moving) are given only a 2 rating, while freeway or highway excitation gets a 1 . Our experience indicates that exceptions to this are almost non-existant. Walking excitations are almost always dominant,although unbalanced rotating machinery that has not been dynamically analyzed can become a major player in the vibration scenario. • 1413 S. COLLEGE RUENUE • FORT COLLINS, COLORR00 80524 TELEPHONE & FRH ' 303 - 484 - 3553 / 2 • U>:'mew ST. 2oo BLOCK-WAN MOTIONS--FfEQlEMY RESPMSE SPECTRU1--f - 1994 FFEQ.CHZ) PSRV RESPONSE . 100E+01 .347E-01X + . 130E+01 .373E-01X + .200E+01 .338E-01X • .230E+01 .340E-01X + .300E+01 .322E-01X • .330E+0t .393E-01X • .400E+01 .343E-01X • .430E+01 .492E-01X • .300E+01 .361E-01X + .330E+01 .707E-01X • .600E+01 .848E-01X • .635E+01 .862E-01X • 700E+01 657E-01X • FIGURE 5. Typical Frequency Response .730E+01 .424E-01X + Spectrum--Jefferson Street .800E+01 ,387E-01X • Ground Motions. .830E+01 .539E-OIX • .900E+0t .743E-01X + .960E+01 .836E-OIX + 100E+02 .881E-01X • iWE+02 .824E-01X + 110E+02 .677E-OiX • . 113E+02 .754E-01X • . 120E+02 .734E-01X • . 12.3E+02 .732E-01X • . 130E+02 .770E-01X • . 133E+0Z .707E-01X • . 145E+0z SM-OIXtip\ . 143E+02 . 117E+0OX .130E+02 . 172E+0OX + . 133E+02 .221E+000( 165E+02 .216E+01X 163E+02 . 137E+0OX /• .170E+02 . 122E+11X . 173E+02 . 119E+0OX .180E+02 .180E+0OX •� .183E+02 .241E+0OX . 190E+02 .223E+00X /• . 193E+02 . 186E+00X •'• .200E+02 .113E+00X .203E+02 . 104E+0OX .210E+02 .111E+00X .213E+02 .141E+00X .220E+02 . 116E+0DX .223E+02 . 124E+00X .235E+02 . 130E+01X .233E+02 . 133E+0DX 7240E+02 .168E+OOX •� 43E+02 . ISBE+OGX 230E+02 . 174E+00X .233E+02 . 132E+00X •� , . . ... .. -9- • JWFEASOM ST. 2D0 BLOOC--FALL WTIOMB--FFEQUEHCV FESPOMSE 9PECTH1E1---AW. 1294 Fi1EQ.(MZ) PSW FFSPOMBE . 100E+01 .111E+OOX + 150E+01 . 137E+00X + .200E+01 . 187E+00X + .230E+01 .203E+00X + .300E+01 . 168E+00X + .370E+01 . 148E+00X + .400E+01 . 122E+00X .450E+01 . 111E+00X + .500E+01 . 109E+00X + .770E+01 . 107E+00X .600E+01 . 100E+00X .650E+01 .910E-01X .700E+01 . 136E+00)C + .750E+01 . 150E+0QX * FIGURE 6. Typical Frequency ResponsE .800E+01 . 129E+00X + Spectrum--Jefferson Street .850E+01 . 128E+00X + Building Wall Motions. .900E+0t . 173E+00X + .950E+0t . 105E+0CIX . 100E+0Z . 118E+0GX + .107E+02 .952E-0iX + .110E+02 .895E-01X + •115E+02 . 103E+00X 0120E+02 . 131E+00X .125E+02 . 180E+00X .130E+02 .244E+00X .133E+02 .291E+00)C +\ . 140E+0Z .376E+00X .145E+02 .426E+OWC . 150E+02 .378E+00X .155HOZ .288E+OOX .160E+02 .231E+0[IX +` .165E+02 .257E+0OX .170E+02 .361E+0WC +�* .175E+02 .434E+00X 180E+0Z .468E+OWC +02 .433E+00X 190E+02 .459E+00X 193E+02 .367E+OOX .200E+02 .303E+0OX .203E+02 .312E+OOX t .210E+02 .314E+00X .215E+02 .346E+00X .220E+02 .366E+0WC .225E+02 .355E+0WC .230E+02 .362E+00X .235E+02 .439E+0WC .240E+02 .435E+0WC .245E+02 .421E+00X 250E+02 .500E+0DX j* .255E+02 .430E+0GX +OZ .331E+0WC +�+ ----------- Al -10- N .-I •i I O O O I E 6� U S E C � m H is A m O � O G " O rm � � O 4.) ^ v I O rq O 0 0 d C O I b q Cw O O • Y � N m N LL EO L '� LI 7 FI O !` O l O O N N $ O . to y Cs y H x w -1 M I W 11r C N V �G o h o a z a ow ED 0 h O Ill O N p LL'f i� -11 - • VELOCITY — IN/SEC (PEAK) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 10.0 8.0 6.0 a. O \ i E— 4.0 — Y v I a 3.0 2.0 \- U Cl) 0.8 -- -4 - - J Jefferson Street \ g 0.6 -- — — -4- —4 y ' 0.5 - - 4- -+ 4 - - 0.4 — — — — --} ( --� — 0.3 6 9 12 18 36 FAN SPEED X 100 RPM • FIGURE s.VIBRATION LEVEL GUIDE (Reference 3) 5 W ^ C � M 4 8 MLn a min U � 9p � ro tn to N N u y N ' rn oo iEG�1 -t 4J N a G a v 2+ N.4 a z U ..�i i o • 8 O L4G7]7 w = o T a 8 CHG! C vfn � q 8 sa ' g g g OW 8 � or- �, � �, qr g u M yy C y Op O pyN� W p s t W W •O.4 f�1 .O-1 LL C7 M ai ci c 8 rn a� J O H m (y W a -� J� CD x! -13- STRUCTURRL OYNRMICS • RND * IIIBRRTION CONSULTANTS W "nays the wag we rye KENNETH MEDERRIS RSSOCIRTES 'sAL CDM sw-%-rays done XN OR. KENNETH MEDERRIS (Saar ETCM 303-a4-3S53) This excuse has always been the primary DFs.>vFzt zo impediment to positive 3= FIS M XMM"=H MEMARTS age. NMAAER OF PAGe'S nc=n G com sam" DA= Sc'1T Re: VZBPa=aa Sow SUMMU;W VISRATIaN SCEMQ RATING (1 - S; 5 = Most Severe) • Footfall S Facility Machinery 4 machinery(Directly Cutside) 3 Machinery(Distant) 1 Railroacs(200' - 3001) 2 Nearby Freeways 1 Machinery(Adjacent Buildings) 1 Fab Air-Flow 2 Duct Notion—Air-Flow SndLced 2 FIGURE 10 . Vibration Source Rating Summary. (Reference 4) • 1413 S. COLLEGE RUENUE * FORT COLLINS, COLORROO 80524 M FPHONF Pr FAR * An't - 424 - iSSlq LIU STRUCTIIRRL OVNRMICS • RND • UIBRRTION CONSULTRNTS KENNETH MEDERRIS RSSOCIRTES -14- DR. KENNETH MEDERRIS Another consideration is that associated with possible fatigue effects on the structures due to the large number of vehicles traversing Jefferson Street. There have apparently been no relevant fat- igue studies for similar-type buildings at the low stress levels (additional) that would be associated with the Table 1 motions. It has been found, however, that the S-N (Stress - Number of Cycles for Fracture) diagrams for most materials are similar in appear- ance to those given in Figure 11 . Note in that Figure there is a stress level that the material • can apparently withstand indefinitely. That stress is given by the horizontal part of the curve, and is called the endurance limit. The allowable structural design stress would be considerably less 'than the en- durance limit. Therefore, fatigue would only be a major consideration if the stresses associated with vibratory motions were of considerable magnitude. This cannot be the case - the motions are simply far too small. The contents of this report detail the rationale for reaching the conclusion that vibration due to vehicle and railroad passage is not a major player in anv possible Jefferson Street building deterior- ation. The associated scientific bases all indicate this conclusion is accurate. There is, in my opinion, no need to really belabor the situation. Should you have any questions, please call. • 1413 S. COLLEGE RUENUE * FORT COLLINS, COLORROO 60524 TELEPHONE & FAH • 303 - 484 - 3553 • 140,000 120,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Troostitic r 80,000 L C O y 60,000 0 o Sorbitii c 40,000 0 E00 0 0 oAnnea/ed • 0.9Jper cent cxsrbon st�e/ 20,000 1 104 105 106 107 108 Number of,cycles for fracfure 120,000 Cr 100,000 Sor I is 80,000 L h t Mc 60,000 � o 0 0 Norma/lied c Z 20 per cent carbon steel " 40,000 104 1 F 105 106 107 105 Number of cycles for fracfure URE 11 . S-N diagrams obtained from fatigue tests. (Typical) - �yl STRUCTURRL DYNAMICS ' RND • UIBRRTION CONSULTRNTS KENNETH MEDERRIS RSSOCIRTES -16- DR. KENNETH MEDERRIS REFERENCES 1 . K. Medearis. A RATIONAL METHOD FOR PREDICTING DAMAGE TO HISTORICAL STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO BLASTING VIBRATIONS, Proceedings, International Society of Explosives Engineers, San Diego, 1993 . 2. K. Medearis. RATIONAL DAMAGE CRITERIA FOR LOW- RISE STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO BLASTING VIBRATIONS, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1978. • 3. K. Medearis . FAN FOUNDATION SYSTEMS - ANALYSIS AND DESIGute,N GUIDELINES, Electric Power Research Instit Palo Alto, 1986. 4. K. Medearis. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS ADEQUACY OF HIGH-TECH FACILITIES: RATIONAL EVALUATING METHODS, NTU Course Notes, 1993 . 1413 S. CDLLEbE RUENUE ' FORT COLLINS, COLORRDO 88524 r � TELEPHONE & FRH ' 303 - 484 - 3553 • Developer & Street Oversizing Contributions To Modified Vine Alternative Route The cost of the improvements required to build an arterial street on the Modified Vine alignment is projected to be $45.4 million. Of that amount, the City can reasonably expect to receive $19.8 million from the Street Oversizing Fund and $5.1 million in Local Street Portion contributions by development on the north side of the street ($24.9 million total). The remainder, or$20.5 million, would be the responsibility of the City. The cost of the improvements required to build an enhanced major arterial street for the purpose of relocating Colorado Highway 14 on the Modified Vine alignment is projected to be $51.3 million. As a highway the project has the potential of receiving up to 80% from federal and state sources or $41 million. Both Street Oversizing fees and Local Street Portion contributions would still apply and could be applied to the City's local share of the cost of the highway. • • l23 P.2/2 jUN 08 •g9 10-.09W R4 SOUTH PROD DEVELOP SECTION STATE OF QQLQ8AQ0 . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Oreeloy,Colorado 80631 June 8, 1999 Mr. Ron Phillips Director of Transportation City of Ft Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80622 Dear Mr. Phillips: The Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) will begin work this summer on the environmental studies for the widening of US 287 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from SH 1 to the LaPorte Bypass. We have selected J. F. Sato and Associates to assist us in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment(EA) with completion expected in the Fail of 2000. Design funds are available in FY 2001 and 2002 with construction funding for construction scheduled in FY 2003, This project will have federal dollars so the Federal Highway Administration will be reviewing and approving the EA. • In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Highway Administration Policies and Procedures, our studies will include a valuation of the alternatives to the widening of the existing highway, including new alignments, TOM, and the No Action. New alignment alternatives will basically be in the area south and west of the existing highway with the tie-in to US 287 in the vicinity of the Conifer Street intersection with US 287. One alignment that will be evaluated is the void" middle segment of the Fort Collins Expressway that was proposed many years ago. This alignment runs southeast from the LaPorte Bypass and crosses Shields Street at about.Willox lane then continues southeast to connect with existing US 287 near Conifer Street. COOT will have many opportunities for the public to comment through workshops and meetings with land-owners and citizen groups. A Public Hearing will be held before a final decision is reached. We will hold regular meetings with the City of Fort Collins and Lar)mer County throughout the study. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you should need additional information. Thank you. Sincerely John . Crier r Planning/Environmental Manager JKC/cm Cc: D. Martinez/Loveland • File via Ploegstra JL4 MEMORANDUM Date: January 26, 1999 To: Fort Collins City Council Members and Latimer County Commissioners From: John Daggett, Senior Transportation Planner RE: List of Project Contacts The following is a list of the groups that project staff has met with over the course of the project. City Council County Commissioners Federal highway Administration Colorado Department of Revenue Colorado Department of Transportation Latimer County Planning Department • North College Business Association Downtown Business Association Downtown Development Authority Alta Vista,Andersonville,Buckingham Neighborhoods Redwood Meadows Neighborhood General Public Council for a True Bypass Transportation Board Air Quality Board Natural Resources Advisory Board Planning&Zoning Board Chamber of Commerce—Legislative Affairs Committee Chamber of Commerce—Transportation Committee Chamber of Commerce—River Corridor Task Force Property Owners—Vine Corridor Property Owners—Mountain Vista Study Area Area Meetings— NE Fort Collins North Poudre Area North College Jefferson/Riverside East Mulberry Mountain Vista Citizen Advisory Committee Mountain Vista Technical Advisory Committee Council Growth Management Committee • Il5 • RESOLUTION 99-77 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE MASTER STREET PLAN SO AS TO ESTABLISH A NEW DESIGNATION OF "ENHANCED MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET" FOR THE POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF COLORADO HIGHWAY 14 AND IDENTIFYING A FUTURE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ALONG A PORTION OF EAST VINE DRIVE WHEREAS, Colorado Highway 14 presently runs through downtown Fort Collins and diverts a considerable amount of interstate traffic through a portion of the downtown area which contains numerous historic buildings; and WHEREAS, the traffic utilizing Colorado Highway 14 includes a considerable number of heavy trucks, and such truck traffic through the downtown area causes congestion and substantial wear and tear on City streets, significantly contributes to the deterioration of air quality in the City, and creates a barrier to the redevelopment of the Old Town area in conjunction with the Poudre River Corridor; and WHEREAS,for the foregoing reasons,the City Council has,for a number of years,tried to identify an alternative route for Colorado Highway 14 that would alleviate the foregoing problems; and . WHEREAS, in 1997, the voters of the City approved Ordinance No. 31, 1997, which provided sales and use tax revenues to fund a number of capital projects, including the planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and/or other project costs associated with road improvements for an alternative truck route in the northeast quadrant of the City; and WHEREAS,City staff has undertaken,pursuant to previous appropriations,planning and an access control plan for an alternative truck route; and WHEREAS, funds have also been appropriated by the City Council to conduct additional planning, an environmental assessment, preliminary design, survey work and right-of-way acquisition for such route and for the possible relocation of Colorado Highway 14; and WHEREAS,studies regarding such an alternative route for Colorado Highway 14 have been provided to the City. City staff has conducted numerous public outreach meetings regarding the results and recommendations of the said studies, and the City Council has considered options for such an alternative route in several study sessions since the fall of 1998; and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the City Council, the most feasible alternative route for Colorado Highway 14 identified to date is the "Modified Vine Alternative", as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS,considerable uncertainty remains as to the desirability and advisability of using the Modified Vine Alternative to relocate the existing Colorado Highway 14; and WHEREAS, whether or not Colorado Highway 14 is relocated in that fashion, the City Council believes that the Modified Vine Alternative should at least be reserved for a future major arterial to accommodate other traffic that will be generated by new development in the northeast quadrant of the City; and WHEREAS,the City's Land Use Code requires that all new development in the City must provide for or accommodate the streets and transportation facilities identified on the City's Master Street Plan that are associated with the development plan; and WHEREAS, new development in the unincorporated areas of Larimer County could be required to accommodate the streets and transportation facilities identified on the City's Master Street Plan through an intergovernmental agreement between Larimer County and the City; and WHEREAS,the Master Street Plan presently identifies only collector streets,arterials, and major arterials; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way needed for an alternative route for Colorado Highway 14 would be considerably wider than the right of way needed for a major arterial; and WHEREAS,amending the Master Street Plan to add a category of"enhanced major arterial street," with a designated width sufficient to accommodate a state highway, and further amending the Master Street Plan to designate the Modified Vine Alternative as such an enhanced major arterial street would preserve such route for utilization as either a major arterial or as an alternative route for Colorado Highway 14, pending subsequent decisions as to which kind of route would be most appropriate at this location. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Master Street Plan is hereby amended so as to include a category of streets known as"enhanced major arterial streets,"with aright-of-way width requirement up to two hundred fifty one(251)feet,as more particularly described on Exhibit"B"which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That said Master Street Plan is further hereby amended so as to show the proposed Modified Vine Alternative as a future enhanced major arterial street in order to accommodate the possible relocation of Colorado Highway 14. Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby directed to negotiate with Larimer County a proposed intergovernmental agreement between the County and the City which would require new development in the County to accommodate the streets and transportation facilities shown on the Master Street Plan,and to submit such proposed agreement to the City Council for its consideration. Section4. That the City Manager is further hereby directed to continue planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and other work to allow the construction of an alternative truck route and/or the relocation of Colorado Highway 14 along the Modified Vine Alternative route,to the extent that funding for such activities is appropriated by the City Council. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 15th day of June,A.D. 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF FORT COLLINS PROPOSED MASTER STREET PLAN Exhibit A I f•m�. 10) , T I tl ,�A ig If r T I I x(, s — j • r Ii{ ,f,��� � '�•I.lii=y. -i' a � �. � � � tea.=„% f j� ' a ��_ _._"___ Sri, i 21 rs t � 1 I , 8 Note:Other collector and localFr•...._--- -� - streets not shown will be developed �- in accordance with adopted subarea, corridor,and neighborhood plans of the city, r, 7- - LEGEND OInterchange ® Overpass a >� Enhanced Major Arterial 4Lanes -----_"--- Major Arterial6 Lanes Major Arterial Lanes Beyond 2015 ADOPTED BY COUNCIL:MARCH 17,7981 Arterial Lanes APROVED REVISIONS :SEPTEMBER 7982 Minor Arterial Lanes :IULY 7989 ® One-Way Arterial :DECEMBER 1992 Collector 2 Lanes :AUGUST 1996 ------- City Limits APRIL 1997 UGA Boundary Not To Scale :SEPTEMBER 1997 IAIrt1 ® New Urban Street System :MARCH 1998 w_I L f `~ ® BNRR Transportation Corridor Printed:June 08, 1999 :MARCH 1999 —VIIIAIV� City of Fit Cblliry MAY 1$1999 S Geefrephla Intormtlov 8e.vica• :IUNE72%1999 Exhibit B ENHANCED MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET 251 ' ROW ■ ■ 50' 10' 10' —�,--� 10' 10' 50' ■ BA ER R a MULTI a PKWY 1 11 ' ROADWAY ® PKWY���I-�" BUFFER ® � USE ■ (MIN) 3E a (MIN) USE a a �PED/BIKE■ ° ■PED/BIKE■ ■ PATH 12' 12' a s PATH ■ a ■ ,. ;E j, E 3■ ■ ■ a a ■ ID 1 2, ■ TRAVEL . TRAVEL 1 2 ■ ■■ ■ ■ E ■ fl 8' TRAVEL TRAVEL ■ $' ; ■ ■ ■ ■ BIKE ■ ■ a ■ BIKE ■ LANE LANE SHOULDER ■ MEDIAN SHOULDER ROADWAY WIDTH::151' SPEED LIMIT: VARIES RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 251' ACCESS:ACCESS WILL BE LIMITED. POINTS OF ACCESS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY TRAVEL LANES: 4 LANES 12' WIDE FENCES: FENCES SHALL BE SET BACKA MINIMUM OF 10' FROM THE LEFT TURN LANE: 12' WIDE EDGE OF BERM BIKE LANES: TWO LANES 8' WIDE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING: PARKWAYS SHALL BE LANDSCAPED IN GRASS AND INCORPORATE XERISCAPE PARKING: NONE PRINCIPALS WHENEVER APPROPRIATE. PARKWAY: 10' (MIN) WIDE. ADDITIONAL WIDTH OPTIONAL MEDIAN LANDSCAPING: MEDIANS SHALL BE LANDSCAPED IN GRASS. MULTI USE PATH: 10' (MIN) BERM LANDSCAPING: LANDSCAPING SHALL INCLUDE TREES SHRUBS, GROUND COVER, MULCH. AND IRRIGATION AND MEDIAN: 43' WIDE LANDSCAPED (HIGHWAY DESIGN) 31' IN LEFT TURN LANE AREAS SHOULD INCORPORATE NATIVE PLANTS AND XERISCAPE PRINCIPALS WHENEVER WHERE USED: ALL ENHANCED MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS SHOWN ON THE APPROPRIATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER STREET PLAN REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY FORESTER . RESOLUTION 99-78 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AND THE MOUNTAIN VISTA AREA SUB AREA PLAN REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ENHANCED MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET ALONG THE PORTION OF EAST VINE DRIVE WHEREAS, on June 15, 1999, the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted Resolution 99-77 amending the Master Street Plan so as to establish a new designation of"enhanced major arterial street" and identifying such a future enhanced major arterial along a portion of East Vine Drive; and WHEREAS,by reason of the adoption of Resolution 99-77,Council has determined that the City Structure Plan Map and the Mountain Vista Area Sub Area Plan should also be amended to correspond to the Master Street Plan as amended pursuant to said Resolution 99-77; and WHEREAS,on the 3rd day of June, 1999,the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the Council that the Structure Plan Map and the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan be amended to correspond to the said changes to the Master Street Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the Structure Plan Map and Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan be so amended. • NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Structure Plan Map of the City be, and hereby is,amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan Framework Plan Map be,and hereby is,amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit'B,"attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. That the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan Master Street Plan Map, be, and hereby is,amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit"C,"attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. That the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan Proposed Structure Plan Map be, and hereby is,amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit"D",attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. That Section 5.3.1 of the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan be amended by the addition of a new subparagraph to read as shown on Exhibit "E," attached hereto and incorporated . herein by this reference. Section 6. That the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan be amended by the addition of a new Policy MV-T-1.4 to read as shown on Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 15th day of June,A.D. 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ir uuuo IId � OVA\ coma._■.■.. S� / Opa c •I. •. •non. ^�. <-.--: Il�jl�. �. r�.q■■T iiiiii�nll r �1�II11011 ��+ _ 11l111 1— jai±;..��::� qr O/ \, Ili llui ao����•.=:�yi It ' �Illdar'�iT1lJ �aiu:il��►r��«���{j� " US ►! ow M Ea tAlt MAdo Wall Item UP �. t± 1_-j V'"T�.-�i.^/I„r� E � iir< ��RP�gq1 r �new ;.K��k�l s ; LTIRE ON 4 Al b ilia • -- tiTF.� �t� --'�z^.�C � gd • • • 1 1 1 11■1� ..�q� nr�._,__I/�■■■ram: ♦��Vj•���G�/A•�\ � e 4yyy i ♦Ij♦II v�1_ V�� i,11 ® ! r, r b• ♦ R �•• 41••'r lent .,.��. %\♦ ��� �.�j•e:�S �,,,-ti r VITEMIS v efkiv°a,'.A Rn�'+-1rY`,°'•,�►►�'i.^'��'��,��•� � � „aG"�„ axY�C � � il� .a / I n gpgy at Natural Area 000 Plan Boundary ma Insfitutio.allfthool Arterial Park I Open Land Minor Arterial City Limits Colle�odconrlelvtor 1-ulo Waterways v e MILL N6 —.� Mill Iu•::iii � jd � i • .• in��® I s.A•lsell "Ma 1�lnooi-MZA ,� Ill IIIIIIp1111C.�\I.�� ��_ ® I 1 MME man -__ �r• 'G P ^ s • '- - .111 1•, :�� �I .Er •� � ® Ili o:o�el�i:i.•r►i� .� l uN ` rn��r : , ME ' • Exhibit E Vine Drive is programmed by the City to be expanded to four lanes over the long term as a current Master Street Plan element. Vine Drive's alignment is recommended to be altered. At a point approximately one-third mile east of the current intersection of Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue, the road's alignment will travel to the northwest. • i Exhibit F Policy MV-T-1.4: If East Vine Drive is designated as a State Highway, as is recommended by the Northeast Fort Collins Truck Route Project at the time of this writing, then the number of access points will be limited. The local street network will then be designed to direct traffic toward the relatively few access points located along this major transportation,corridor. Draft minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at its May 19, 1999 meeting. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD City of Fort Collins -City Hall (C1C Room) April 21, 1999 5:30 p.m. FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Tim Johnson......416-0821 Staff Liaison: Randy Hensley...416-2058 Administrative Support: Cynthia Scoff......224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Mark Egeland Alan Beatty Sara Frazier Ray Moe Dan Gould Chris Ricord Steve Hanna Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Eric Bracke Bob Felsburg Tom Cook Chris ? Gary Diede Corinne Peck Susanne Edminster Vicky McLane Randy Hensley Mary Warring Mark Jackson Cam McNair • Ron Phillips DRAFT Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 1999 Page 2 Kathleen Reavis Cynthia Scott Peter Wray Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT (on regular agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENTS Chair Johnson announced the opening of the Public Hearing on the proposed Master Street Plan amendments. Mark Jackson, City Transportation Planner, spoke of the ten proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan and where applicable, revisions to the Fossil Creek Area Plan. The first proposed amendment concerns the Mail Creek/Roma Valley Drive Connection. The Master Street Plan (MSP) currently depicts a connection of Highcastle Drive due south over Mail Creek where it connects to Fossil Creek Parkway (Reference change#1 on "existing" map). Staff recommends that in lieu of this extension over Mail Creek, a connection be made between Mail Creek Drive and Roma Valley Drive (reference change#1 on "proposed' map). Mr. Jackson stated that the rationale for this change is: • The primary purpose for this connection is to provide a street connection for the Miramont neighborhood to get to the front (west side) of Werner Elementary School. In addition, there are other multiple destinations (shopping, health club, churches, private school, two public parks, three senior housing projects) that necessitate an internal connecting street network. • It has long been a City policy to connect neighborhoods with an internal network of streets so that arterials do not have to be impacted when making internal neighborhood trips. • There already exists a bridge/culvert crossing of Mail Creek on Mail Creek Lane, thus saving an additional bridge crossing of a riparian zone and saving as much open space as possible. Mr. Jackson added that this change was presented to the Planning & Zoning Board on April 1, 1999. They recommended approval to the City Council by a vote of 5 - 0. Of the three neighborhoods involved, (Miramont, Huntington Hills, and Fossil Creek Meadows), the strongest opposition is from the Miramont area. They have safety concerns for their children going to/from school. Miramont residents also believe that a connection would create more traffic through their neighborhood because motorists would find it convenient to cut through to get to the shopping areas. DRAFT Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April21, 1999 Page 3 For the Public Record, Mr. Jackson presented the Secretary of the Board with a letter he received from Sandra Winters who is opposed to the amendment. Also, submitted for the record was a facsimile from a number of neighborhood residents who are proponents of connecting the Miramont neighborhood with Huntington Hills and Fossil Creek Meadows area. They feel a connection is in the best interest of that region. Chair Johnson opened the floor to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Brian Schumm 813 Fossil Creek Parkway Stated that he lives south of the proposed crossing of Fossil Creek on the Lemay side. Mr. Schumm said that he supports the Huntington Hills Apartments. As part of this, these Master traffic issues have to be addressed. He said that this Board missed out on all the discussion that Planning &Zoning Board had about how this connection was proposed. The benefits in terms of saving crossing at Mail Creek, the benefit of gaining additional open space where the Natural Resources Department can tie that in with a future trail system and also the 100 acre community park site. He added that the Huntington Hills Apartments is a wonderful project. He heard at Planning & Zoning that it's taking 14 months to get to this point, which seems to be very excessive if you look at the negotiations and discussions that are going on and the quality of this project. Mr. Schumm said that he not only supports the project, but said that this is the last piece of Huntington Hills that kind of takes care of those issues that have not been resolved. He asked that at the bridge across Fossil Creek, there be a "sharing" of the traffic if you will. He feels that that can only be done if there is a connection made with Miramont. The major objection from Miramont is safety. All neighborhoods should be concerned about the safety of children, but as it was pointed out by staff, there are benefits that will be added by implementing the proposed amendment. Enforcement should be a focus at the school drop-off site. In conclusion, he stated that this is a very good project and there really isn't much need for debate on this. It eliminates the bridge, preserves natural areas, and makes a more logical connection from Fossil Creek Parkway to Miramont. Sandy Winters Stated she is opposed to the connection from Roma Valley Drive to Mail Creek Lane. She lives in the Miramont subdivision and has two children that attend Werner Elementary. This school is DRAFT'Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 1999 Page 4 overpopulated by 200 children and parking is a major safety issue. She said that sidewalks are non-existent on Mail Creek Lane and in this proposal, no one is taking the responsibility for building sidewalks. Also, parents are the ones that have to volunteer to assist with school crossings. She added that dropping kids off at the back of the school is safer than at the front because of all the buses lined up and traffic. Trish Allot Miramont resident Stated she has three children and walks them to school along Highcastle down the hill around the blind curve and it is not a good situation for cars going up and down the road. What's happening on Mail Creek is that it is not designed to handle all of those cars and there is no exit to the north of the school. Stated she feels trampled by the process and hopes that citizen input does some good. Asked that the Board consider it carefully. There are a lot of people who think there is a better way to do it. David Osborne Huntington Hills Homeowner's Association Stated he is a representative of the Huntington Hills Homeowner's Association. For the record, the P &Z held a four-hour meeting at which they debated and then approved the amendment, and stated that no appeals have been filed against their decision so that matter is nearly complete. Secondly, as part of the overall process of the park development site, the developer made two previous provisions with the City, one of which was to give the City 20 acres to enhance the natural areas. The developer also agreed to extend the sidewalk clear up to Werner Elementary School. There is strong support of the Planning &Zoning Board, strong support of the City Staff, and the Huntington Hills Association. Looking at this overall, it achieves neighborhood connectivity, and an east/west corridor, which is much needed. There being no other comments from the public, Chair Johnson asked for Board Member's comments/questions. BOARD QUESTIONS/COMMENTS: Hanna: What's wrong with the current Master Street Plan? Doesn't it provide connectivity to the school? DRAFT Meeting Minutes • Transportation Board April 21, 1999 Page 5 Bracke: In staffs opinion, the amendment provides better connectivity and saves the natural area. Reavis: I would like to clarify a couple of things. Regarding the sidewalk that was mentioned along Mail Creek, the developer has agreed that there will be a 10' sidewalk, not just regular sized. There will also be a raised crosswalk on Fossil Creek Parkway. 25 mph school zone will be put on Fossil Creek Pkwy at the intersection of Mail Creek. There are many improvements associated with these connections that are related to the school. At the back of the school, the City will be providing crosswalks across Highcastle to Milan Terrace going to South Ridge Greens Blvd. and a ramp on the bike lane where the students arrive into the back of the school. From the City's perspective, we do want to maintain the opening in the back of the school. We just want to make sure it's operated in a safe manner. The comment made earlier about enforcement is important. There is a driver behavior issue along there. Thordarson: Would the completion of these improvements reduce the requirement for the amount of buses needed for the school? Reavis: Yes . Thordarson: Any idea of the number of children that are impacted by that? There are about seven buses now. Johnson: If you built the connection, people would use it, which would decrease traffic in some ways and increase it in others. Perhaps this would cancel each other out? Bracke: With the connection, traffic is going to increase. However, there are some benefits, for example, if you live in Oakridge and your kids go to this school, and for whatever reason, you need to drop them off at the front of the school, you would be forced to go to College and Harmony to get there. They used to cut through Fairway Estates, but that has been barricaded off. The connection does give more people options to balance the traffic flows. Egeiand: From a safety perspective, what is the difference between the current and the new? Reavis: The traffic along the back of the school along Highcastle will remain the same, regardless if the connection is made via Roma Valley or if it is a more direct shot to Highcastle down to Fossil Creek Parkway. That's why, from the City's Safe Route To School Program, we are looking at improvements to the back of the school. Those improvements will go in with either one and the impact traffic wise will be about the same, but the proposed alignment is less direct, therefore it will discourage non-neighborhood cut-through traffic. • DRAFT'Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 1999 Page 6 Thordarson: Is there any possibility of using traffic calming measures? Reavis: The elements that were mentioned are the types that made sense: crosswalks, school zones, improved signage and striping in the area are planned. Egeland: What about a school crossing in the back of the school? Reavis: As far as a flashing zone is concerned, that hasn't been considered at this time, but staff will continue to monitor that. There is a flashing school zone on Boardwalk. The current speed limit behind the school is 25 mph (all the time). Chair Johnson asked Board Members for their final comments/questions. Egeland: Didn't really have time to read Ms. Winters' letter, but it seems to me that this is primarily a safety issue and the two choices are a wash from a safety standpoint. I don't have an objection to the proposed change. Thordarson: I think the proposed amendment is preferred especially in terms of keeping traffic speeds down. It would be good to monitor closely what kind of safety features are incorporated into that and make sure that it becomes an acceptable situation. Trentham: I think that the current Master Street Plan looks like a more direct route and forcing a connection with Roma Valley, seems like you're forcing all these jogs and turns into what's supposed to be a collector. It doesn't make sense to me. I think the Master Street Plan should remain the way it is now. Gould: I think it's really a wash in terms of dealing with problems at the school. The other benefits that have to do with this site development probably add, for me, that extra value and I support the change. Henderson: I agree that from a safety perspective the two alternatives seem to be a wash. In either event, we should try to work with the school to build a better access on the eastside. I support the change primarily because I like the idea of not having this major connector that close to Fossil Creek Park area. Hanna: I think this area is way too mature to be changing the Master Street Plan now. People go and check the Master Street Plan and make decisions about buying houses, etc. and I think it's really unfair. I think for that reason we should stick with the current plan. That way when people look at it, they know what's going to happen when they make decisions for their future. I don't see the proposed connection as doing any good. . DRAFT Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 1999 Page 7 Frazier: I agree that either alternative has its problems with safety. It seems the school could come up with better plans for picking up/dropping off the children. I would concur to leave the plan the way it is. Johnson: I am in favor of making the change. Chair Johnson called for a motion. Egeland moved to accept the proposed changes to the Master Street Plan. There was a second by Gould. Vote: The motion carried 5 - 2. 1 abstaining Mr. Jackson resumed the floor and said that the next nine revisions were all related to the Fossil Creek Area Road Network. He provided the following background information: The Fossil Creek Area Plan was adopted by the City Council and the Larimer County Planning Commission in March of 1998. In the year since its adoption, staff has taken a more detailed look at the planned road network in this area. . This second look has allowed staff to incorporate better knowledge of the existing conditions in the southeast portion of the city. As a result, staff has recommended a series of amendments That will allow the southeast area road network to operate better as a whole. These changes Are relatively minor in scope, consisting of reclassification and realignment of selected roadways below arterial level. Mr. Jackson then went over revisions 2-10. A brief question/answer period ensued in order to understand specifics of the revisions. Chair Johnson then asked if there was any public comment on the proposed revisions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Erin Richmond Stated that she has a question regarding Trilby/CR 9. Ms. Richmond asked if staff took into consideration the proposed elementary school, assuming there will be reduced speed limits along Timberline in that area, which would create more traffic going on other streets because people aren't going to want to drive through the 20 mph school zone on their way to work. She asked if those considerations were taken into account when calculating the traffic volumes on that intersection. i DRAFT Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 1999 Page 8 Bracke: The school will be taking the access off the main collector road. I haven't seen the site plan yet, but it is certainly something to consider. Reavis: As developers come in, they are required to meet alternative mode improvements. Chair Johnson called for final Board Member comments/questions. Frazier: I like quite a few of the changes, but I have a concern with the growth of the city. Hanna: I am in favor of the amendments (2-10). Henderson: I am in favor of amendments 2-10. Gould: All these make sense. I think we should prepare for the worst-- Level of Service to decrease. Be more conservative. Trantham: I think the proposed Master Street Plan changes look good. I hope the model has correct numbers. Thordarson: I agree with a lot of the member's comments. I like most of the changes I see here. It provides some very good alternatives for people to choose to use another mode of transportation. 1 am concerned about the Trilby extension. It looks inviting in the future for people coming out of HP. I would also like to voice some objection to the off-set on #10. Perhaps something to the north of CR 36? Johnson: I too favor the changes except for that off-set. Chair Johnson asked for a motion that would support all the changes except for the off-set in #10 and to have staff come back to the Board with a plan that may deal with that. Henderson made a motion to approve the changes with the exception of the off-set between Trilby and the extension, #10, and have staff come back with some alternatives. Vote: 8-0 motion carried unanimously