HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/04/2012 - RESOLUTION 2012-113 ADOPTING THE 2012 UPDATE TO THDATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Amy Lewin
Mark Jackson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-113 Adopting the 2012 Update to the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, Appendix F of the
City of Fort Collins 2011 Transportation Master Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an inventory of all multi-modal transportation needs throughout
the City and is an appendix to Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The focus of the 2012 update was to ensure that
the CIP is accurate, up-to-date, and more user-friendly. The update also supports the action steps specified in the
2011 TMP/CIP. This is an administrative update to the CIP. Adoption of a revised version requires City Council
approval because the CIP is an appendix to the Transportation Master Plan.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an inventory of all multi-modal transportation needs throughout
the City as identified primarily in Master Plans, Strategic Plans, and Subarea Plan efforts. The 2011 CIP was adopted
as an appendix to Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and includes prioritized groupings of projects to support the multi-
modal transportation system vision laid out in the TMP. Projects were allocated into three tiers:
• Tier 1: existing or immediate need;
• Tier 2: medium term future need or necessary only in conjunction with significant land development; and
• Tier 3: long term planning or forecasted need.
Funding sources vary from sales tax revenue packages (e.g., Building on Basics) to federal grants (e.g., Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)). The CIP is an important tool used by City staff to help determine the priority
projects for which funding should be requested.
The CIP represents the collective efforts of the City’s entire Planning, Development & Transportation (“PDT”) service
area and includes a number of different transportation categories: Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS),
Bicycle, Bridge, Intersection, Parking, Pedestrian, Railroad, Roadway/Complete Streets, and Transit. In most
categories, smaller projects are grouped together into packages, with a detailed list of the projects in a separate
section. High-level cost estimates are presented for each category with a comparison of anticipated costs versus
expected revenues. Maps are also included with project locations.
The project team reviewed and updated the CIP to reflect latest project needs with the goal of increasing user-
friendliness and accuracy. New projects were added, and project details were refined. In addition, cross-references
were added for projects in separate categories that coincide and should be coordinated (e.g., adding bike lanes on
Carpenter Road and upgrading the roadway to standards), and project groupings were revisited for consistency. In
collaboration with City Parks Planners, a new Trails category was added for bicycle- and pedestrian-related off-street
and grade-separated projects. The updates are detailed in the sections below.
Completed Projects
Projects that have completed construction since the 2011 CIP have been removed from the CIP list and are listed
below in Table 1. Projects constructed that are part of larger ongoing programs are also shown.
Note: The CIP focuses on capital projects (as opposed to maintenance projects). Capital projects are typically larger
projects, such as widening a roadway or bringing it up to standards. Maintenance projects make up a substantial
number of the roadway-related improvements seen throughout the city. These projects are not tracked in the CIP;
however, Transportation Planning, Engineering/Capital Projects, and Streets staff coordinate capital and maintenance
project construction whenever possible.
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 17
Table 1. Completed Projects and Program Progress To-Date
Category Project
ATMS (Advanced
Traffic Management
System)
- Video Detection Intersections Program: Low/Medium/High Priority (55 intersections
expected to be completed by end of 2012)
- Transportation Operations Center (upgrade in progress; completion expected by end of
2012)
Bicycle - B3: Laporte (Overland to College) – Add Bicycle Lanes; bicycle lanes added on
Laporte from Howes to Meldrum with “Road Diet” project Spring 2011
- B7: Mason Trail/Troutman – Add Underpass of BNSF (construction completion
expected December 2012)
- B9: Mountain (Howes to Riverside) – Add Shared Lane Markings
- B12: Conifer (College to Lemay) – Resurface Bike Lanes
- NEW: Shields/Plum – Add Bike Box (new in 2012)
Bridge - Bridge Replacement Program (progress to-date)
N NEW: Whitcomb/Laporte – Structurally Deficient (new in 2012)
Intersections - Arterial Intersection Prioritization Program (progress to-date)
N I5: Drake/Lemay – Add SB right turn lane
Pedestrian - PD1: Lincoln (Riverside to Lemay) – Discontinuous/Non Existent; interim condition
constructed
- PD2: Linden (Jefferson to Poudre River Trail) – Discontinuous sidewalk; added as a
part of R8 (see below)
- PD80: Fossil Creek Trail/CO Rd 38E – Add Grade Separated Crossing
Railroad - Tier 1 Annual RR Crossing Improvement Program (progress to-date):
N UPRR-Prospect
N UPRR-Horsetooth
N UPRR -Drake
Roadway/ Complete
Streets
- R8: Linden (Jefferson to Poudre River) – Upgrade to collector (Downtown River
District) standards
- R119: College (Vine to Conifer) – Upgrade to 4L arterial (North College) standards
(construction completion expected October 2012)
- R121: Harmony (Boardwalk to Timberline) – Upgrade to 6L arterial standards
(completion expected early 2013 pending railroad permits; will need separate project to
complete median, curb, & gutter); includes bike lanes and intersection improvements at
Harmony/Lemay, Harmony/Timberline
Category-Specific Updates
In addition to the updates completed across all categories (e.g., related to completed projects, etc.), some of the
category-specific highlights are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Category-Specific Updates
Category Update
Bicycle - Moved some projects to Trails category
- Reorganized groupings
- Re-categorized some projects into Tier 1
- Added projects that fill gap in network
Bridge - Adjusted to accommodate bridges in multiple categories
Intersection - Replaced 2011 CIP data with Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study results
Parking - None, pending adoption of Parking Plan Update
December 4, 2012 -3- ITEM 17
Category Update
Pedestrian - Moved some projects to Trails category
- Refined project list to remove those projects that would not be constructed independent of
a larger roadway project that is already captured in the Roadway/Complete Streets
section
- Re-categorized some projects into Tier 1
- Added Safe Routes to School (SRTS)-related projects
Railroad - Reorganized quiet zone listings based on Quiet Zone Study
Roadway/ Complete
Streets
- Added Jefferson Street project from Alternatives Analysis
- Added projects to support Master Street Plan
N Elizabeth
N Greenfields
N Taft Hill
Trails
NEW
- Added category to track bicycle- and pedestrian-related off-street and grade-separation
projects
Transit - Added detailed listing of transit stop improvements
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no direct financial/economic impacts associated with this update. The CIP itself is the full inventory of
project needs identified through a variety of sources (e.g., plans, staff, City Council, the public, etc.) and is often one
of the first steps towards design and construction of the project. To better track transportation projects, a Fiscally
Constrained Project List is being developed that lists projects that have received some level of funding to move to
design and/or construction, but is not part of this update being considered for action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its October 17, 2012 meeting, the Transportation Board voted unanimously voted to recommend approval of
Resolution, 2012, updating the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan Appendix F of the City of Fort Collins 2011
Transportation Master Plan. A letter of support is included as Attachment 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The process to update the CIP document included public outreach extending over the past year including:
• Creating a multi-interdepartmental staff team meeting regularly throughout the process
• Conducting a public open house meeting (May 30, 2012)
• Meeting with the Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC) of the Chamber of Commerce (June 29, 2012)
• Providing updates to the Transportation Board (August 15, 2012; October 17, 2012)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Updated Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (Appendix F of the 2011 Transportation Master Plan)
2. LLAC Meeting Minutes (excerpt)
3. Transportation Board Meeting minutes, August 15, 2012
4. Transportation Board Draft Meeting minutes, October 17, 2012
5. Transportation Board Letter of Support
Appendix F
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation
Updated December 2012
ATTACHMENT 1
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation i
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation
Table of Contents
What is the CIP? .................................................................................................. 1
How to Use the CIP ............................................................................................... 1
2012 CIP Update .................................................................................................. 1
How Are the CIP Criteria Linked to the TMP? ................................................................ 2
How Is The Matrix Used? ........................................................................................ 3
CIP Ranking Process .............................................................................................. 3
Project Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................... 4
Project Grouping ................................................................................................. 5
Project Costs and Revenue Summary ......................................................................... 6
CIP List Legend ................................................................................................... 8
CIP Lists ............................................................................................................ 9
Grouped Project Details ....................................................................................... 36
Maps .............................................................................................................. 50
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
What is the CIP?
The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) presents a list of transportation projects that are needed to
achieve the vision of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The projects represent all modes of transportation,
and range from projects that address existing basic deficiencies to those necessary in the future to achieve the
high standards of a world class city. The CIP is also a tool that facilitates the allocation of resources based on
project and system level prioritization reflecting the TMP visions and community needs.
How to Use the CIP
The CIP list and spreadsheet tool are dynamic, and can reflect changes in City vision, transportation needs, and
resource availability over time. Updates to the CIP are expected every two years and can be related to new
opportunities, partnerships, and funding strategies. The CIP update process includes the following steps:
Update the project lists;
Reassess project cost and benefits for adherence to the vision, principles, and policies;
Reassess the relative weight of each scoring category to reflect City priorities;
Re-sort project lists based on revised input;
Identify high priority projects within each category;
Identify funding resource needs and gaps; and
Use the prioritized list as information for selecting projects during the bi-annual budgeting and strategic
planning efforts
The updated CIP includes the specific projects needed through 2035 for the various categories to achieve our
community’s long-term goals. It is important to note that additional projects may be added to the City’s CIP lists
over time based upon the outcome of the master plans for each of the remaining Enhanced Travel Corridors as
well as other changes resulting from updates to future sub-areas plans. In addition, the City may pursue inter-
agency partnerships to construct regional infrastructure projects such as interchanges along I-25, regional transit
improvements, and/or multi-use trails as opportunities for collaboration come forward in the future.
2012 CIP Update
The focus of the 2012 CIP update was to ensure that the CIP is accurate, up-to-date, and more user-friendly. The
update also supports the next steps laid out in the 2011 CIP:
Refining project rankings;
Better identifying a fiscally constrained list; and
Assisting with the project selection process for funding and grant applications.
Specific updates include:
Removing projects that have been constructed;
Adding projects from recently completed plans, based on public input, and based on a review of the
Master Street Plan;
Reorganizing project groupings for consistency and understandability;
Refining project details, with a particular focus on the highest need, highest priority projects;
Adding cross-references for projects in separate categories that coincide and should be coordinated; and
Adding Trails category to eliminate duplication of projects in both Bicycle and Pedestrian categories and
to coordinate with Park Planning efforts.
Ongoing efforts include:
Developing a fiscally constrained CIP project list; and
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 2
Incorporating transportation CIP data into the citywide CIP online tool.
How Are the CIP Criteria Linked to the TMP?
A new matrix format illustrates the linkages between the TMP vision, principles, and policies, and the CIP Criteria
and Measures that inform project decisions and reporting on progress.
Vision, Principles, Policies, and Measures Matrix
The TMP Vision, Principles, Policies, and Measures (VPPM) matrix represents a significant effort to reorganize
and consolidate the previous planning direction statements without changing their intent. The information has
been reorganized to better convey the intent of the vision by directly relating it to the relevant principles and
policies and show the alignment among the vision, principles, policies, and measures.
Note that two basic types of measures are needed. One type is needed to assess how well individual projects,
strategies, or programs help the City achieve its vision. These are used as CIP Criteria to determine an individual
project’s priority in the CIP list. Another type of measure would be used to assess how well the City has achieved
its vision and what level of progress is being made through implementation. These are termed Progress
Measures, and they are defined and incorporated into the measuring progress section of the TMP.
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 3
How Is The Matrix Used?
The matrix helps illustrate how the vision is connected to the principles, the principles to the policies, and the
policies to measures and criteria. The nearly direct connection from measures to visions is easy to observe and
facilitates a better understanding of how the measures are applied. The matrix was used to consolidate the
information in the TMP, making the TMP easier to comprehend.
It also forms the basis for the revised CIP tool. The CIP has a much more direct connection to the overall TMP.
Project prioritization is based largely on maximizing the overall attainment of the transportation vision as
determined by each individual project’s ability to address the vision, principles and policies.
CIP Ranking Process
The figure below illustrates the process being used to prioritize projects. It includes an initial assessment of the
immediacy of need based on three tiers:
Tier 1. Existing or immediate need
Tier 2. Medium term future need or necessary only in conjunction with significant land development
Tier 3. Long-term planning or forecasted need
Next, projects are evaluated at the vision level for an initial sorting. That is, projects are assessed based on how
well they help the City achieve each of its five vision areas (Integrated Land Use & Transportation, Mobility
Options, Traffic Flow, Quality Travel Infrastructure, and Increase Awareness). They are scored qualitatively,
taking into account the general vision statement and the underlying principles of the vision. Scores were
generally arrived at in a group setting with input from key participants of the staff sub-team. Based on the initial
scores projects are sorted as either high, medium, or low priority.
In addition, project costs including operations and maintenance were assessed on an order magnitude basis to
categorize projects into one of the following six cost categories:
1. < $250,000
2. $250,000 - $1,000,000
3. $1,000,000 - $5,000,000
4. $5,000,000 - $10,000,000
5. $10,000,000 - $20,000,000
6. > $20,000,000
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 4
A combination of cost and vision level scoring was used in the prioritization process, which resulted in a cost
adjusted vision score. This adjustment allowed for large projects with a high impact on the City’s vision to be
compared with smaller projects which do not have as much of an impact on the City’s vision.
Project Evaluation Criteria
Within project categories and programs, projects were evaluated using criteria specific to the project types. The
following factors were evaluated in each project category and are consistent with the intent of the vision
statements, principles, and policies in the Transportation Master Plan. Order of magnitude capital costs as well
as operating and maintenance costs were factored into the scoring.
ATMS
Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) projects were scored and ranked based on traffic engineering
criteria related to safety and traffic flow that also take into account traffic operations. These projects were
categorized as high priority video detection intersections, serial radio intersections, signalized intersections,
countdown pedestrian heads, pushbutton accessibility, pedestrian signal locations, traffic operations center,
medium priority video detection, low priority video detection intersections, or traffic operations.
Bicycle
Projects were ranked individually on the following criteria from the 2008 Bicycle Plan: connectivity,
convenience, priority bicycle routes, completing existing gaps in the network, and safety. Then, projects were
grouped into programs for the CIP list and designated as Tier 1, 2, or 3 projects.
Bridge
Projects were scored and ranked based on engineering criteria related to safety and quality infrastructure that
also take into account structural ratings. The inspections of major bridges are performed under the National
Bridge Inspection Standard (NBIS) developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The NBIS
also determines the rating criteria. For Colorado, this is administered through the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT). The City’s bridge inspection consultant uses the same NBIS criteria for our minor
bridge inspections.
Intersection
The recent intersection priority study was used as the basis for intersection evaluation. Projects were ranked
based on the following indicators:
Crashes
Design
Cost
Cost/Benefit
Project Leveraging
Implementation
Congestion
Buffering
Noise
Consistency with Adjacent Land Uses
Adverse Impacts
Ability to Accommodate All Users
Pedestrian/Bicycle Crashes
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Minimizes Emissions
Environmental Impacts
Movement of Goods, Services and Freight
Advances Adequate Public Facilities
Project Funding
Supports Development Objectives
Parking
Each of the items in the parking list was scored relative to the vision categories. This list will be updated as a
result of the 2012 Parking Plan Update.
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 5
Pedestrian
Projects were ranked individually on the following criteria:
Needs Assessment
Partnership Opportunity
Pedestrian Volume
ROW needed
ADA Concern
Economic Development Opportunity
Proximity to Pedestrian Destinations
Pedestrian Accidents
Street Classification
Pedestrian Corridor/Activity Center
Transit Connector
Directness
Continuity
Street Crossings
Visual Interest and Amenity
Security
Projects were then grouped into programs for the CIP list and designated as Tier 1, 2, or 3 projects.
Railroad
Projects were scored and ranked based on engineering criteria related to safety and quality infrastructure and
take into account traffic volumes and pavement condition.
Roadway
Projects were scored and ranked based on relationship to all five vision categories by an interdisciplinary
panel including personnel from Engineering, Traffic Operations, Transit, Street Maintenance, Land Use
Planning, Transportation Planning, Utilities, and Natural Resources. Each project was scored on how well
they supported the following:
Integrated Land Use and Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel Infrastructure
Increase Awareness
Within each vision category, supporting principles were considered in determining the vision score as well as
supporting measures and criteria such as multimodal Level of Service, safety, and pavement condition. The
vision scores for each project were adjusted to include order of magnitude cost estimates.
Trails
The new Trail CIP list contains projects related to paved trails (i.e., multi-use paths) and grade-separated
crossings (i.e., underpasses and overpasses), including trail projects identified by Park Planning and those in
the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan. Projects were grouped and scored relative to the vision categories.
Transit
Projects represent the phasing recommendations from the 2009 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. The
phases were designated as Tier 1, 2, or 3 projects. Four program phases consisting of existing service, TSP
Phase I, TSP Phase II, and TSP Phase III were scored on how well they contribute towards the City’s visions.
Project Grouping
A very large undertaking, the list of projects exceeded 700 at one point. To facilitate a more efficient review
process many projects were grouped into ‘programs’ which were then evaluated on their aggregated ability to
achieve the City’s vision. For instance, railroad grade crossing improvements were grouped in this list into
several upgrade programs, rather than list each individual grade crossing that is planned for upgrades. This was
done for the following:
ATMS projects
Bicycle projects
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 6
Bridge projects
Intersection improvements
Parking
Pedestrian projects
Railroad grade crossing upgrades
Trail projects
Transit projects
Roadway projects were all scored individually.
Project Costs and Revenue Summary
The following summarizes the estimated project costs and revenue forecasts for the short-term and long-term
horizons. The lists of projects in the CIP and the resulting costs reflect the continued commitment to a multimodal
transportation system. Of the capital costs, automobile related transportation needs represent approximately 55%
of near-term needs and 77% of long-term needs. Bicycle and pedestrian related costs reflect approximately 13%
of near-term needs and approximately 9% of long-term needs, and transit capital costs are approximately 32% of
near-term needs and 15% of long-term needs. The summary table on the next page includes transit capital costs,
but it should be noted that a large amount of transit costs also goes towards operations and maintenance (O&M).
The Transfort Strategic Operating Plan estimates annual O&M costs for Phases I - III respectively as follows:
$11.5M, $18.8M and $25.9M.
Short-term project costs are the sum of costs for all those projects identified as having Tier 1 needs, i.e.,
immediate or existing needs. Short-term funding sources are based on funding that has been allocated
specifically to bicycle, pedestrian, and intersection improvements from the remaining Building on Basics (BOB)
funds, from other sources specified in the 2013-14 biennial budget, along with the anticipated six year revenue
stream from the other transportation portion of 2B and the Street Oversizing Fund and state and federal grants
that have been secured. The six-year funding shortfall is expected to be over $157 million. The short-term project
funding needs are clearly and dramatically in excess of the anticipated available revenue.
The long-term funding shortfall is expected to exceed $986 million, including the short-term funding gap. The
long-term project funding needs are also dramatically in excess of the anticipated available revenue. Long-term
project costs are the sum of costs for all those projects identified in the CIP list and encompass existing needs,
midterm needs, and long-term or planned project needs.
While the City is appreciative of local support for existing and new transportation funding initiatives, the short-term
and long-term funding gaps represent an annual gap of $26 to $41 million per year from now through 2035. It
also signifies that less than 25% percent of the needed capital project funding revenue has been secured in the
long term.
Allocated revenue in the table shows known funding for each category in each term and also shows known capital
funding from other sources such as 2B and the Street Oversizing Fund.
The resulting gap in needed funding to complete all of the projects identified on the CIP category lists ($986.7
million) is slightly more than the $936.2 million funding gap in the 2011 TMP, largely because of the inclusion of
Transit needs in the 2012 table. The funding gap is substantial and underscores the need for the Transportation
Master Plan principle and policies related to responsible stewardship of transportation resources. To continue
making progress on the CIP, the City will need to seek and secure long-term sustainable funding for capital,
operating, and maintenance needs, as well as continue to exercise fiscal responsibility with available resources
and pursue new and innovative funding strategies and partnerships.
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 7
CIP Summary Table (2013 ‐ 2035) (All Values are $1,000,000s)
Capital Project
Category
Short-Term (2013-2018) Long-Term (through 2035)
Cost
Allocated
Revenue Gap Cost
Allocated
Revenue Gap
ATMS $ 1.5 $ 0.3 $ (1.2) $ 11.5 $ 0.3 $ (11.2)
Bicycle $ 17.3 $ 0.6 $ (16.7) $ 58.2 $ 0.6 $ (57.6)
Bridge $ 35.0 $ 3.4 $ (31.6) $ 35.0 $ 3.4 $ (31.6)
Intersections $ 27.0 $ 9.3 $ (17.7) $ 27.0 $ 10.7 $ (17.7)
Parking $ 8.5 $ - $ (8.5) $ 53.0 $ - $ (53.0)
Pedestrian $ 7.1 $ 0.9 $ (6.2) $ 9.9 $ 0.9 $ (9.0)
Railroad $ 11.5 $ 0.2 $ (11.3) $ 29.5 $ 0.2 $ (29.3)
Roadway $ 87.0 $ 7.8 $ (79.2) $ 812.0 $ 7.8 $ (804.2)
Trails* $ 14.3 $ 11.6 $ (2.7) $ 42.1 $ 24.0 $ (18.1)
Transit** $ 100.2 $ 90.1 $ (10.1) $ 186.7 $ 90.1 $ (96.6)
CIP Revenue Sources
Unallocated
Revenue
Unallocated
Revenue
2B – Keep Fort Collins
Great*** $ 2.3 $ 3.8
Street Oversizing Fund -
291 $ 25.4 $ 137.8
Total Cost
Total
Revenue
Total
Gap Total Cost Total Revenue
Total
Gap
Total $ 309.4 $ 151.9 $ (157.5) $ 1,264.9 $ 278.2 $ (986.7)
*Trails are largely funded through Conservation Trust Funds.
** In addition to capital costs included in the table a large amount of transit costs go towards operations and maintenance (O&M). The
Transfort Strategic Operating Plan estimates annual O&M costs for Phase I - III respectively as follows: $11.5M, $18.8M and $25.9M.
*** Assumes $1 million per year 2015 through 2022 towards capital projects based on 2011-2014 funding. The actual funding amount
could vary in future years.
Next Steps
The process of ranking projects on vision level scoring has created high level classifications of projects, but there
are still further steps which will be taken to refine the ranking, better identify a fiscally constrained list, and assist
with the project selection process:
Continue to update the CIP every two years to reflect projects that are identified in corridor master plans
and the results of other studies;
Develop fiscally constrained project list; and
Continue incorporating transportation CIP data into the city-wide Capital Improvement Plan online
database.
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 8
CIP List Legend
Using the CIP tool developed as part of the 2011 TMP, all individual projects and grouped projects (programs)
were ranked against other projects of the same category. The CIP tables show a prioritized list for each of the
project categories with summary attributes of the scoring process. The CIP tool is flexible in this process and
could be used to rank all project types against each other, but this would require careful calibration.
The first four columns of most tables have descriptor attributes of the project including Location/Program, From,
To, and Description. For some project types, the Location/Program field describes the program of projects, and
for other project types it describes the street or intersection of the project. The From and To fields are used as
descriptors for the start and end of some projects. The Description field gives additional information for many of
the projects.
The Tier column of each table is an initial assessment of the immediacy of need based on three categories:
1. Existing or immediate need
2. Midterm future need or necessary only in conjunction with significant land development
3. Long-term planning or forecasted need
There may be projects shown with a different Tier number on separate lists. For example, a roadway project with
a bridge or railroad crossing component may be shown as a Tier 3 project on the roadway list, but the bridge or
railroad crossing may be shown as a Tier 1 or 2 due to the unique evaluation criteria for each category.
In the Cost Magnitude column, project costs including operations and maintenance were assessed on an order
magnitude basis to categorize projects into one of the following six cost categories:
1. < $250,000
2. $250,000 - $1,000,000
3. $1,000,000 - $5,000,000
4. $5,000,000 - $10,000,000
5. $10,000,000 - $20,000,000
6. > $20,000,000
The Cost Adjusted Vision Score column was calculated based on how well the project scored in each of the five
vision areas, and the score was adjusted by a factor that reflects the cost magnitude of the project.
The Cost Adjusted Category column indicates a priority level of High, Medium, or Low, based on the Cost
Adjusted Vision Score. The break point for this classification is different for each project category to allow for
differences in the ranking process between categories.
The Cumulative Cost column displays a running total of projects in the category rounded to the nearest $500,000.
This column is limited by the accuracy of cost estimation of some projects, but it provides an indication of which
projects can be funded as well as the total funding needs for each category.
Each of the nine project categories are sorted in separate tables based on type and then sorted by tier and Cost
Adjusted Vision Score. Only projects of the same tier were ranked against each other. These high level scores
do not imply the level of granularity that they may suggest, and a more detailed cost analysis as well as finer-
leveled principle-level scoring on projects near the top of the list could result in a more precise ranking.
Summary tables (“CIP Lists”) are presented first, and more detailed tables are provided in the Grouped Project
Details section. Maps showing the locations of the various projects are provided at the end of the document.
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 9
CIP Lists
Traffic Signal System (ATMS) CIP List
Traffic signal system projects, otherwise known as Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS), were divided into a combination of grouped
intersections and other specific individual projects. Grouped projects, or programs, were ranked on their cumulative impact and cost magnitude, and a
specific ranking process was used to prioritize the projects within each program. Tier one programs are considered immediate needs and tier three
programs are longer term projects.
Traffic Signal System (ATMS) CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- 17 High Priority Video
Detection Intersections
Install video detection to
replace inductive loops 1 2 0 3 3 4 0 16.0 High $ 0.5
- 23 Serial Radio
Intersections
Replacement of Serial
Radios with Ethernet
Radios
1 1 0 1 2 4 0 12.0 Medium $ 0.5
- 3 Signalized
Intersections
Convert from NEMA to
2070 Signal
Controller/Cabinet
1 1 0 1 2 4 0 12.0 Medium $ 0.5
- Countdown Pedestrian
Heads
Install Countdown
Pedestrian Signal Heads
at 131 signalized
intersections
1 2 0 3 1 4 0 12.0 Medium $ 1.0
- Pushbutton Accessibility
Project
Minor Concrete Work to
provide access to
pedestrian pushbuttons on
100 signalized intersection
corners
1 2 0 3 0 2 0 8.0 Low $ 1.0
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 10
Traffic Signal System (ATMS) CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- 32 Pedestrian Signal
Locations
Convert from NEMA to
2070 Signal
Controller/Cabinet
1 2 0 2 0 4 0 8.0 Low $ 1.5
- Traffic Operations
Center Replace Video Wall 3 1 0 2 3 4 0 16.8 High $ 1.5
-
50 Medium Priority
Video Detection
Intersections
Install video detection to
replace inductive loops 3 3 0 2 3 4 0 12.0 Medium $ 2.5
- 63 Low Priority Video
Detection Intersections
Install video detection to
replace inductive loops 3 3 0 1 3 4 0 10.3 Low $ 4.0
-
Traffic Operations
Management Center
Expansion
Traffic Operations
Management Center
Expansion
3 4 0 0 2 4 0 6.0 Low $ 11.5
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 11
Bicycle CIP List
Bicycle projects were grouped into five programs. Immediate needs projects were categorized as street or intersection programs, while longer term
needs were categorized into the same two types of programs, if applicable. The Forecasted Need (Tier 3) projects also included a program for bicycle
parking/stations. Programs were scored according to the cumulative impacts towards the City’s visions. Projects contained within the tiers will be
further prioritized in a separate process using more detailed criteria in conjunction with the update of the city’s Bicycle Plan in 2013. Tables
containing the individual bicycle projects within each grouping are located in the Grouped Project Details section.
Note that installation of video detection at intersections is covered in the ATMS category.
Bicycle CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- 2 Existing Need
Intersection Projects
Existing needs for
bicycle-related
intersection
improvements
1 3 3 4 2 3 3 17.1 Medium $ 3.8
- 27 Existing Need
Street Projects
Existing needs for
bicycle lanes, shared
lane markings or
other bicycle
infrastructure
1 5 4 5 2 4 3 16.2 Medium $ 17.3
-
3 Development-
Driven Street
Projects
Development-driven
needs for bicycle
lanes, shared lane
markings or other
bicycle infrastructure
2 4 3 4 2 3 3 15.0 Medium $ 25.1
-
2 Forecasted Need
Parking/Station
Projects
Forecasted needs for
bike parking/stations
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 12
Bicycle CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- 26 Forecasted Need
Street Projects
Forecasted needs for
bicycle lanes, shared
lane markings or
other bicycle
infrastructure
3 6 4 5 2 4 3 14.6 Medium $ 58.2
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 13
Bridge CIP List
A bridge project list was created which consists of bringing all deficient bridges located throughout the City up to acceptable standards. Individual cost
estimates were not available for all projects, so an estimate of $1 million per project was assumed. For the purposes of this plan, the collective cost of
all 35 bridge projects puts the bridge program into the top cost magnitude category (more than $20,000,000). The calculated score reflects the
cumulative benefit of building all bridges in the category. Tables containing the individual bridge projects are located in the Grouped Project Details
section.
Bridge CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- Bridge Program
Program to bring all
deficient bridges
located throughout the
City up to acceptable
standards
1 6 4 3 5 4 0 15.2 High $ 35.0
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 14
Intersection CIP List
Intersections were grouped into programs and prioritized through the 2012 Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study with a focus on improving
operations and safety. Cost and vision scores were calculated considering the cumulative benefit of all intersection improvements contained within the
program. Tables containing individual intersections within the intersection improvement programs are located in the Grouped Project Details section.
Intersections CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
-
Intersection
Improvements
Program, Priority 1 (8
projects)
Priority 1 group of
arterial intersection
improvements from
Arterial Intersection
Priority Study
1 5 2 3 5 4 0 15.1 High $ 10.7
-
Intersection
Improvements
Program, Priority 2 (19
projects)
Priority 2 group of
arterial intersection
improvements from
Arterial Intersection
Priority Study
1 5 1 2 4 3 0 10.9 Low $ 27.0
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 15
Parking CIP List
Parking projects were prioritized using parking improvement categories consisting of individual projects grouped according to project need. This list
will be updated with the results of the ongoing Parking Plan Update (2012).
Parking CIP Projects
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
PK1 Downtown Parking
improvements 1 4 5 2 3 3 1 15.0 Medium $ 8.5
PK2 Downtown Parking
improvements 2 4 5 2 3 3 1 15.0 Medium $ 17.0
PK3 Harmony/I-25 Additional park and
ride parking spaces 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 15.7 High $ 18.0
PK4 Downtown Parking
improvements 3 4 5 2 3 3 1 15.0 Medium $ 26.5
PK5 Downtown Parking
improvements 3 4 5 2 3 3 1 15.0 Medium $ 35.0
PK6 Downtown Parking
improvements 3 4 5 2 3 3 1 15.0 Medium $ 43.5
PK7 Downtown Parking
improvements 3 4 5 2 3 3 1 15.0 Medium $ 52.0
PK8 Mulberry/I-25 New park and ride
facility 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 14.6 Medium $ 53.0
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 16
Pedestrian CIP List
Pedestrian projects were grouped into five programs. Immediate needs projects were categorized as sidewalk or intersection programs, while longer
term needs were categorized into the same two types of programs, as applicable. Programs were scored according to the cumulative impacts towards
the City’s visions. A table containing a listing of individual projects within each program is located in this appendix. Note that Transit-related sidewalk
connections (to transit stops) are now listed in the Transit category, and off-street paths and underpasses/overpasses are now listed in the Trails
category. In addition, projects in the 2011 CIP were reviewed and those projects that would not be constructed independent of a larger roadway
project were removed from this list.
The ongoing Pedestrian Needs Assessment (2012) will be a citywide comprehensive reassessment of pedestrian-related needs that will likely add a
number of projects to the CIP list in future revisions. Tables containing the individual pedestrian projects within each grouping are located in the
Grouped Project Details section.
Pedestrian CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- 28 Existing Need
Sidewalk Projects
Existing needs to build
missing sidewalks and
upgrade to standards
1 4 4 4 0 2 1 11.8 High $6.1
- 4 Existing Need
Intersection Projects
Existing needs to build
intersection, ADA
ramp, and crossing
improvements
1 3 1 3 0 1 1 7.4 Low $7.1
- 2 Development-Driven
Sidewalk Projects
Development driven
needs to build missing
sidewalks and upgrade
to standards
2 2 3 4 0 1 1 13.3 High $7.6
- 6 Forecasted Need
Sidewalk Projects
Forecasted needs to
build missing sidewalks
and upgrade to
standards
3 3 3 4 0 2 1 12.3 High $9.1
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 17
Pedestrian CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- 2 Forecasted Need
Intersection Projects
Forecasted needs to
make intersection, ADA
ramp, and crossing
improvements
3 2 1 3 0 1 1 8.7 Low $9.9
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 18
Railroad CIP List
Railroad projects were categorized into three programs which each contain several projects. Additionally, a few other crossings and grade separation
projects were also scored individually. To avoid double counting cost for railroad projects, grade separated projects are not included in this list if they
are part of a bicycle, pedestrian, or roadway CIP project. Examples of this include bicycle and pedestrian grade separated crossings at CSU Vet
Campus, Keenland Drive, Harmony, Horsetooth, and Fairway Lane as well as grade-separated crossings at Drake/BNSF, Vine/Lemay,
Vine/Timberline, Trilby/UPRR, Trilby/BNSF, and Carpenter.
Railroad CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
-
Tier 1 Annual
RR Crossing
Improvement
Program
At Grade
Crossing
Upgrades
1 3 0 1 2 4 0 8.6 High $ 1.5
RR14 UPRR Railroad
Crossings Lincoln Linden
Railroad
Quiet Zone
Crossing
Improvements
1 2 0 1 1 2 1 6.3 Medium $ 2.5
RR15 BNSF Railroad
Crossings Laurel Trilby
Railroad
Quiet Zone
Crossing
Improvements
1 3 0 1 1 2 1 5.4 Low $ 6.5
RR16 BNSF Railroad
Crossings Linden Laurel
Railroad
Quiet Zone
Crossing
Improvements
1 4 0 1 1 2 1 4.8 Low $ 11.5
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 19
Railroad CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
RR19 Sharpe Point
Drive GNRR RR crossing 3 4 0 0 2 1 0 3.8 Low $ 22.0
RR20 Greenfield Ct. RR
spur
RR grade
separation 3 4 0 0 2 1 0 3.8 Low $ 29.5
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 20
Roadway/Complete Street CIP List
Examples of roadway projects include construction of new roadways, roadway widening, and upgrading roadways to standards. Roadway projects
were scored individually on how well they contribute to the City’s visions and on cost magnitude estimates. Projects include the necessary
improvements to build out the Master Street Plan (MSP) network. Projects were prioritized with other projects in the same tier.
New projects that have been added since the 2011 CIP are noted as NEW in the Project ID column. These projects include the Jefferson Street
project (from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis completed in June 2012) and other projects needed to build out the MSP that were missing
from the 2011 list.
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R1
Realigned
Vine
College Lemay
build new 4L
arterial
1 5 4 5 3 3 0 16.2 High $19.0
R3 Lincoln Riverside Lemay
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 4 4 4 2 3 0 15.3 High PD42 $27.5
R121 Harmony Boardwalk Timberline
upgrade to 6L
arterial
standards
1 4 3 3 3 3 0 14.3 High $33.0
R4 Harmony College Boardwalk
upgrade to 6L
arterial
standards
1 4 3 3 3 3 0 14.3 High $42.5
R2 College Willox Conifer
upgrade to 4L
arterial
standards
1 5 4 4 2 3 0 13.6 High $53.5
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 21
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R9 Willow College Lincoln
upgrade to
collector
(Downtown
River District)
standards
1 3 5 4 -1 3 0 13.4 High $55.5
R125
NEW
(AA)
Jefferson College
Lincoln/
Mountain
upgrade to 3L
section with
Jefferson/
Riverside/
Lincoln/
Mountain
intersection
improvements
1 4 5 4 0 3 0 13.3 High $63.0
R5 LaPorte Impala Taft Hill
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 3 2 3 2 2 1 12.9 High $65.0
R117 Linden Vine Poudre River
upgrade to
collector
standards
1 3 4 3 0 3 0 12.3 High $67.0
R10
Lemay and
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 22
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R11 Elizabeth Overland Taft Hill
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 4 3 3 1 2 0 10.5 Medium $112.0
R6 LaPorte GMA Impala
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
1 5 2 3 2 2 1 10.0 Medium $122.0
R12 LaPorte Taft Hill Shields
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 5 2 3 2 2 0 9.8 Medium $137.0
R13 Buckingham Linden Lemay
upgrade to
collector
standards
1 3 3 3 0 1 0 9.4 Medium $139.0
R14 Prospect College Lemay
upgrade to 4L
arterial
standards
1 4 -2 4 2 3 0 9.3 Medium $147.0
R15 Vine Taft Hill Shields
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 3 1 3 1 1 0 8.9 Medium $151.0
R16 Trilby College Lemay
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
1 3 0 3 1 1 0 7.7 Low $155.0
R17 Shields Vine LaPorte
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 23
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R20 Country Club Lemay Turnberry
upgrade to
collector
standards
1 4 1 2 0 1 0 4.8 Low $166.0
R21 Drake Harvard Stover
upgrade to 4L
arterial
standards
1 3 -1 2 0 0 0 2.3 Low $168.0
R22 Timberline Trilby Carpenter
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 4 0 1 0 0 0 1.5 Low $175.5
R23 LaPorte Shields Wood
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 3 -2 1 0 0 0 -0.6 Low $177.5
R24
Realigned
Vine
Lemay Timberline
build new 4L
arterial
2 4 5 4 5 4 0 21.5 High $183.5
R25
Timberline
Realignment
Realigned
Vine
Giddings
build 4L arterial
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 24
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R31 Lemay
Realigned
Vine
Lincoln
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
with intersection
re-alignment
and RR grade
separation
2 6 4 5 4 2 0 15.2 High
PD26
PD42
$226.5
R122
Mountain
Vista
Bar Harbor
Timberline
Realignment
build new 2L
arterial
2 3 3 2 3 2 0 13.7 High $228.0
R32
Mountain
Vista
Turnberry Bar Harbor
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
2 3 3 2 3 2 0 13.7 High $231.0
R33 Sharp Point Midpoint Mileshouse
build new
collector
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 25
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R38 Horsetooth Ziegler Strauss Cabin
upgrade from
CR to collector
2 3 1 3 2 3 0 12.3 High $254.0
R39 Strauss Cabin Harmony Kechter
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
2 3 3 3 1 2 0 12.0 Medium $257.0
R40 Timberline Kechter Trilby
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
2 5 2 3 3 3 1 12.0 Medium R40 $272.0
R41
Conifer
Extension
Lemay Timberline
build new 2L
arterial
2 5 4 3 2 2 0 11.6 Medium $287.0
R42 Snow Mesa Timberwood Ridge Creek
build new
collector
2 2 3 2 1 1 0 11.0 Medium $287.5
R43 International Bannock Timberline
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
2 3 2 2 2 2 0 10.9 Medium $290.5
R44 International Timberline Greenfields
build new 2L
arterial
2 3 2 2 2 2 0 10.9 Medium $291.5
R45 Prospect I-25 GMA
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 26
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R49 Nancy Gray
Bucking
Horse
Mileshouse
build new
collector
2 2 2 2 1 1 0 9.7 Medium $336.5
R50
Mountain
Vista and
BNSF
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
2 6 3 2 3 2 0 9.6 Medium $356.5
R51 Lemay Conifer
Realigned
Vine
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
2 4 2 2 2 2 0 9.5 Medium PD43 $364.0
R52 Kechter Timberline Ziegler
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
2 3 3 2 1 1 0 9.4 Medium $366.5
R54 William Neal Chase Ziegler
build new
collector
2 3 3 2 1 1 0 9.4 Medium $368.0
R55 Bar Harbor
Mountain
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 27
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R61 International Lincoln Bannock
build new 2L
arterial
2 6 2 2 2 2 0 7.6 Low $402.5
R124
NEW
(MSP)
Greenfields Vine Mulberry
build new 2L
arterial
2 6 2 2 2 2 0 7.6 Low $427.5
R62 Kechter Strauss Cabin I-25
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
2 3 1 2 1 1 0 7.1 Low $429.5
R63 Douglas
County Road
13
Turnberry
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
2 3 2 1 1 1 0 6.6 Low $432.5
R64 Hickory
Soft Gold
Park
Trailhead
College
upgrade to
collector
standards
2 3 2 1 1 1 0 6.6 Low PD60 $435.5
R65 Timberwood Timberline Snow Mesa
build new
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 28
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R72 Timberline
Realigned
Vine
Vine
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial -
includes
realignment and
grade-separated
RR crossing
3 5 3 5 3 1 0 14.0 High $458.5
R120 Timberline Drake Horsetooth
upgrade to 6L
Arterial
standards
3 4 3 2 4 2 0 13.5 High $465.0
R73 Timberline Horsetooth Harmony
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
3 4 3 2 4 2 0 13.5 High $471.5
R74 Mulberry Timberline Summit View
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
3 3 2 2 3 2 0 12.6 High $473.5
R75 College Harmony Fossil Creek
upgrade from 4L
arterial to 6L
arterial
3 4 2 3 3 2 0 12.5 High $482.0
R76 Timberline Prospect Drake
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
3 5 3 2 4 2 0 12.0 Medium $492.5
R77 Timberline Vine Mulberry
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 29
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R81 Carpenter Timberline
County Road
9
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 1 2 3 2 0 11.4 Medium $523.5
R82 Willox Shields College
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 3 2 2 1 0 11.1 Medium $527.0
R83 Lemay Country Club Conifer
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 4 2 3 2 2 0 11.0 Medium PD43 $533.0
R84 Riverside Lincoln Mulberry
upgrade to 4L
arterial
standards
3 4 2 2 3 2 0 11.0 Medium $539.0
R85 Horsetooth Taft Hill Shields
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 2 2 2 1 0 10.0 Medium $543.0
R86 Shields Trilby Carpenter
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 2 2 2 1 0 10.0 Medium $547.0
R87 Shields Fossil Creek Trilby
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 2 2 2 1 0 10.0 Medium $551.0
R88 Carpenter College Lemay
upgrade from 2L
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 30
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R91 Taft Hill Horsetooth Harmony
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 1 2 2 2 0 9.7 Medium PD73 $589.0
R92 Taft Hill GMA Vine
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
3 3 1 2 2 2 0 9.7 Medium $593.0
R93
Drake and
BNSF
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
3 6 1 3 3 2 0 9.2 Medium $613.0
R94 Shields Harmony Fossil Creek
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 4 2 2 2 1 0 8.8 Medium $619.5
R95 Taft Hill Harmony GMA
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 4 1 2 2 2 0 8.5 Medium $627.5
R96 Vine Overland Trail Taft Hill
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 2 2 1 1 0 8.3 Medium $630.5
R97 Vine I-25 GMA
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards,
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 31
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R99
Trilby and
UPRR
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
3 6 1 3 2 1 0 7.4 Low $665.0
R100 Vine Timberline I-25
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards with
connection to
realigned Vine
3 4 2 2 1 1 0 7.3 Low $673.0
R101 Overland Trail Vine Elizabeth
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 1 2 1 1 0 7.1 Low $675.0
R102 Overland Trail Michaud Vine
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 1 2 1 1 0 7.1 Low $679.0
R104 US 287 GMA
State Highway
1
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 5 1 2 2 1 0 6.9 Low $694.0
R18 Taft Hill Vine LaPorte
upgrade from 2L
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 32
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R106
Carpenter and
UPRR
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
3 6 0 1 3 2 0 6.0 Low
RR
Tier 2
$729.0
R107 Mulberry Overland Trail Tyler
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 0 2 1 1 0 6.0 Low $733.0
R108 Timberline Mulberry Prospect
upgrade from 2L
arterial to 4L
arterial
3 5 -1 2 2 2 0 5.8 Low $749.0
R103 Overland Trail Elizabeth Drake
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 5 1 2 1 1 0 5.6 Low $759.0
R109 Shields Douglas Vine
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
3 5 1 2 1 1 0 5.6 Low $769.0
R110 Gregory
State Highway
1
Country Club
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 33
Roadway CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
From
To
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cross-Reference
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
R114
Trilby and
BNSF
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
3 6 1 1 2 1 0 5.0 Low
RR
Tier 1
$800.0
R126
NEW
(MSP)
Taft Hill Laporte Prospect
upgrade to 4L
arterial
standards
3 5 -2 2 1 3 0 4.2 Low $812.0
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 34
Trail CIP List
The new Trail CIP list contains projects related to paved trails (i.e., multi-use paths) and grade-separated crossings (i.e., underpasses and
overpasses). The list combines trail projects identified by Park Planning and those in the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan to avoid double-counting.
Tables containing the individual trail projects within each grouping are located in the Grouped Project Details section.
Trail CIP List
Project ID
Location/
Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
-
3 Existing Need Trail
Projects
Existing needs to build
new trails
1 3 3 4 0 2 1 12.3 High $ 3.2
-
7 Existing Need Grade-
Separated Crossing
Projects
Existing needs to build
new grade-separated
crossings
1 5 2 3 0 1 0 6.4 Low $ 14.3
-
6 Development-Driven
Trail Projects
Development-driven
new trails
2 4 3 4 0 2 1 10.8 High $ 23.5
-
7 Development-Driven
Grade-Separated
Crossing Projects
Development-driven
new grade-separated
crossings
2 4 2 3 0 1 0 7.3 Low $ 32.5
-
5 Future Need Trail
Projects
Future need new trails 3 4 3 4 0 2 1 10.8 High $ 37.9
-
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 35
Transit CIP List
The capital costs associated with Transit are summarized in the table below according to the four program phases laid out in the Transfort Strategic
Operating Plan (existing service, TSP Phase I, TSP Phase II, and TSP Phase III). Each program was scored on how well it contribute towards the
City’s visions. The summary included here focuses on transit capital costs, but it should also be noted that a large amount of transit costs go towards
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). The Transfort Strategic Operating Plan estimates annual O&M costs for Phases I - III respectively as follows:
$11.5M, $18.8M and $25.9M. The map at the end of the CIP shows the current inventory of planned transit stop improvements. A new detailed transit
stop inventory is scheduled to begin by the end of 2012 and any updates from that inventory will be incorporated into future revisions of the CIP.
Transit CIP List
Project ID
Location/Program
Description
Tier
Cost Magnitude
Integrated Land
Use and
Transportation
Mobility Options
Traffic Flow
Quality Travel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness
Cost Adjusted
Vision Score
Cost Adjusted
Category
Cumulative Cost
(in millions)
- Existing Service and
TSP Phase I
Vehicle Replacement,
New Vehicles, and
Capital Improvements
(includes Mason BRT,
South Transit Center)
1 6 5 5 3 4 4 16.8 High $ 100.2
- TSP Phase II
Vehicle Replacement,
New Vehicles, and
Capital Improvements
3 5 4 3 0 2 2 9.3 Low $ 119.8
- TSP Phase III
Vehicle Replacement,
New Vehicles, and
Capital Improvements
(includes Elizabeth
BRT)
3 6 0 4 0 0 3 5.4 Low $ 186.7
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 36
Grouped Project Details
The following tables show the detail of grouped projects from the CIP lists in the previous section for the various categories.
Bicycle Project Detail
Bicycle projects were categorized as existing street projects, existing intersection projects, development-driven street projects, forecasted street
projects, and forecasted parking/station projects. New projects that have been added since the 2011 CIP to complete the bicycle network are noted as
NEW in the Project ID column. This project list will be updated in future revisions of the CIP based on the 2013 Bicycle Plan.
Note that signal-related improvements (e.g., video detection) are included under ATMS. Trail projects, including grade-separated crossings (i.e.,
underpasses and overpasses), are included in the new Trails category.
Tier 1 – Existing Need Intersection (2 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Bicycle Projects
Project ID Tier Location Description
Cross-
Reference
B25 1 College & Laurel Make Intersection Improvements
B67 1 Prospect & Whitcomb Make Intersection Improvements PD22
Tier 1 – Existing Need Street (27 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Bicycle Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
B100
NEW
1 Bryan Mulberry Oak/Jackson Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B99
NEW
1 Canyon Mulberry Olive Road Diet
B23 1 Castlerock Prospect Springfield Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B84
NEW
1 City Park Mulberry Springfield Add Bicycle Lanes
B98
NEW
1 College Maple Laurel Add Shared Lane Markings
B24* 1 College State Highway 1 Poudre River Add Bicycle Lanes R2, R119
B29 1 Constitution Elizabeth Prospect Add Bicycle Lanes
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 37
Bicycle Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
B36 1 Elizabeth Stover Lemay Add Bicycle Lanes
B35 1 Elizabeth Kimball Ponderosa Add Bicycle Lanes
B2 1 Horsetooth College Spindrift Add Bicycle Lanes
B82 1 Laporte Shields Wood Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B3 1 Laporte Bryan Shields Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B4 1 Laurel Howes Remington Add Bicycle Lanes
B50 1 Lincoln 12th Timberline Add Bicycle Lane Signing &
Striping
B51 1 Lynnwood/ Heatheridge Springfield Stuart Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B52 1 Magnolia Canyon Riverside Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B55* 1 Mason/MAX Cherry Laurel Add Bicycle Lanes
B54* 1 Mason/MAX Laurel Prospect Add Bicycle Lanes
B101
NEW
1 Mathews/ Harvard/ Remington Spring Creek Trail Swallow Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B64 1 Oak Sherwood Oak Street Plaza Add/Upgrade Bicycle Lanes or
Add Shared Lane Markings
B103
NEW
1 Oak Remington Riverside Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B83
NEW
1 Olive Canyon Riverside Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B79 1 Vine Overland Shields Upgrade Bicycle Lanes
B105
NEW
1 Walnut College Mountain Replace Bike Lanes with Shared
Lane Markings (because of
diagonal parking)
B85
NEW
1 Washington Laporte Laurel Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
B86
NEW
1 Whitcomb Lake Balsam Add Bicycle Lanes or Shared
Lane Markings
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 38
Tier 2 – Development-Driven Street (3 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
B16 2 Prospect Shields Mason Trail Add Bicycle Lanes
B17 2 Riverside Prospect Mountain/Lincoln Add Bicycle Lanes or Off-Street Path R84, PD58
B18 2 Shields Poudre River Trail Laurel Add Bicycle Lanes
Tier 3 – Forecasted Parking/Station (2 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Bicycle Projects
Project ID Tier Location Description
Cross-
Reference
B19 3 Downtown Transit Center Add Bicycle Parking and Commuter Facilities
B20 3 South Transit Center Add Bicycle Parking and Commuter Facilities
Tier 3 – Forecasted Need Street (26 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Bicycle Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
B22 3 Carpenter College I-25 Upgrade Bicycle Lanes
B31 3 Country Club Turnberry State Highway 1 Add Bicycle Lanes
B33 3 Drake Harvard Stover Add Bicycle Lanes
B37 3 Gregory Country Club State Highway 1 Add Bicycle Lanes
B40 3 Horsetooth Ziegler Strauss Cabin Add Bicycle Lanes
B43 3 I-25 Frontage Road
(east side)
Harmony Kechter Add Bicycle Lanes
B45 3 I-25 Frontage Road
(east side)
Vine Mulberry Add Bicycle Lanes
B42 3 I-25 Frontage Road
(west side)
Kechter Carpenter Add Bicycle Lanes
B44 3 I-25 Frontage Road
(west side)
Vine Mulberry Add Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Projects
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 39
Bicycle Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
B47 3 Kechter Northern Lights CR 5 Add Bicycle Lanes
B49 3 Lemay Riverside Horsetooth Upgrade Bicycle Lanes to Standards
B59 3 Mountain Vista Busch CR 5 Add Bicycle Lane Signing & Striping
B60 3 Mulberry City Park Mason Add Bicycle Lanes
B61 3 Mulberry Mason Lemay Add Bicycle Lanes
B63 3 Mulberry Frontage
Road (north side)
Lemay I-25 Add Bicycle Lanes or Off-Street Path
B62 3 Mulberry Frontage
Road (south side)
Lemay I-25 Add Bicycle Lanes or Off-Street Path
B65 3 Prospect Mason Trail Timberline Add Bicycle Lanes
B66 3 Prospect Poudre River Trail CR 5 Add Bicycle Lanes
B71 3 Shields Douglas Poudre River Trail Add Bicycle Lanes
B72 3 Strauss Cabin Horsetooth Kechter Add Bicycle Lanes
B73 3 Summit View Donella Prospect Add Bicycle Lanes
B74 3 Taft Hill Mulberry Prospect Upgrade Bicycle Lanes to Standards
B32 3 Turnberry Douglas Mountain Vista Add Bicycle Lanes
B80 3 Vine Lemay Timberline Add Bicycle Lanes or Off-Street Path PD25
B81 3 Ziegler Kechter Trilby Add Bicycle Lanes
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 40
Bridge Project Detail
Bridges were consolidated into one program consisting of all structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and scour critical bridges, as described below.
This program was scored at the vision level based on the following projects. Projects were scored and ranked based on engineering criteria related to
safety and quality infrastructure and take into account structural ratings. New projects that have been added since the 2011 CIP are noted as NEW in
the Project ID column.
Structurally Deficient Category (11 Bridges):
This rating focuses on the basic structural integrity of the bridge. These include bridges that are in advanced stages of deterioration, marginal
condition, and those that do not have the desired load carrying capacities.
Bridge Projects
Project ID On Nearest Cross Street Bridge Structure Category
BR7 Bryan Mulberry FCBRYN-0.2-MULB Structurally Deficient
BR4 Canyon Mulberry CANY-S-MULB Structurally Deficient
BR35
NEW
Drake Meadowlark FCDRK-0.1-MDWLK Structurally Deficient
BR3 Mountain Whitcomb MTN-W-WHTM Structurally Deficient
BR19 Mulberry Crestmore FCMULB-CRESTMR Structurally Deficient
BR6 Myrtle Sherwood MYRT-W-SHWD Structurally Deficient
BR8 Oak Whitcomb OAK-WHTM Structurally Deficient
BR5 Olive Loomis OLIV-W-LOOM Structurally Deficient
BR36
NEW
Prospect Brentwood FCPRST-0.1-BRTW Structurally Deficient
BR9 Riverside Prospect FCRVSDE-S.2PRST Structurally Deficient
BR37
NEW
Shields Raintree FCSHLD-0.4-DRK Structurally Deficient
Functionally Obsolete Category (16 Bridges)
This rating addresses the ability of a bridge to deal with traffic conditions regarding number of lanes, clearances, geometry, limited sight distances,
speed reducing curves, etc. These bridges have acceptable load carrying capacity, but impose unacceptable physical restrictions.
Bridge Projects
Project ID On Nearest Cross Street Bridge Structure Category
BR26 City Park Cemetery Mountain CEMT-MTN Functionally Obsolete
BR24 City Park Cemetery Park Shop Maintenance CEMT-PRKS Functionally Obsolete
BR17 Crestmore Bryan FCCRST-0.1-BRYN Functionally Obsolete
BR16* Elizabeth Bryan FCELIZ-0.1-BRYN Functionally Obsolete
BR11 Laporte Taft Hill LAPT-GDV Functionally Obsolete
BR14 Laporte Taft Hill FCLAPT-0.1-TFTH Functionally Obsolete
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 41
Bridge Projects
Project ID On Nearest Cross Street Bridge Structure Category
BR10* Lincoln Willow FCLINC-0.0-WLLW Functionally Obsolete
BR25 Lemay Prospect FCLMY-0.1-STUT Functionally Obsolete
BR21 Lemay Lowell FCLMY-1.2-VINE Functionally Obsolete
BR15 Lemay Vine LMY-S-VINE Functionally Obsolete
BR18 Monroe College FCMNR-0.0-CLGE Functionally Obsolete
BR13 Mulberry Overland FCMULB-0.1-OVLD Functionally Obsolete
BR20 Plum City Park Ave. FCPLM-W0.1-CTYP Functionally Obsolete
BR22 Prospect Center PRST-W-CTRE Functionally Obsolete
BR23 Shields Stuart FCSHLD-0.1-HLPD Functionally Obsolete
BR12 Vine Timberline FCVINE-W.5-SUMV Functionally Obsolete
Scour Critical Category (8 Projects)
Scour is the removal of material from the streambed or embankment because of the erosive action of stream flow. This rating addresses bridges at
which scour has had an adverse effect on the stability of the abutments and the piers, which essentially are what hold up a bridge.
Bridge Projects
Project ID On Nearest Cross Street Bridge Structure Category
BR16* Elizabeth Bryan FCELIZ-0.1-BRYN Scour Critical
BR29 Horsetooth College FCHTH-W0.1-CLGE Scour Critical
BR31 Lemay Muirfield FCLMY-0.2-SRGB Scour Critical
BR32 Lemay Paragon FCLMY-0.2-TRILB Scour Critical
BR10* Lincoln Willow FCLINC-0.0-WLLW Scour Critical
BR27 Linden Willow FCLIND-0.1-WLLW Scour Critical
BR33 Morsman Meadowlark FCMRSN-0.0-RYMT Scour Critical
BR34 Timberline Mulberry FCTMB-0.1-MULB Scour Critical
*Bridges with deficiencies in multiple categories
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 42
Intersection Project Detail
Intersection improvements include projects such as the addition of turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and construction of roundabouts.
Funding for intersection improvements focused on improving operations and safety. All projects are considered near-term needs, and the
intersections were categorized into two programs. Within the first program (“Priority 1”), the intersections are identified in order of priority; the priority
of implementation of the second program (“Priority 2”) will be determined at a later time.
Tier 1 – Intersection Improvement Program, Priority 1 (8 Projects)
- In order of priority, as identified in the 2012 Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study
Intersection Projects
Project
ID Tier Location Description
Cross-
Reference Notes
I1 1 Horsetooth & Timberline Addition of N/S Dual Lefts and SB Right
Turn Lane
R73, R120 Operations and Safety
I2 1 Drake & Shields, Shields & Davidson Addition of NB and SB Right Turn Lanes
and Median to restrict Side Street Left
Turns
Operations and Safety
I3 1 Westbury & Shields Addition of SB Thru Lane R95 Operations
I4 1 Kechter & Timberline Addition of NB Right Turn Lane R29, R40, R52 Operations
I5 1 Drake & Lemay Addition of SB Right Turn Lane Operations
I6 1 Horsetooth & College (US 287) Addition of N/S Dual Lefts Operations and Safety
I7 1 Vine & Shields Roundabout R109, R17,
R15
Substandard Intersection
I8 1 Harmony & Corbett Addition of SB Right Acceleration Lane Operations and Safety
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 43
Tier 1 – Intersection Improvement Program, Priority 2 (19 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Project
ID Tier Location Description
Cross-
Reference Notes
I9 1 Drake & College (US 287) E/W Dual Lefts R93, I29 Operations and Safety
I10 1 Drake & Lemay (Option 1) EB Dual Left Operations
I11 1 Drake & Shields (Option 1) E/W Dual Lefts Operations and Safety
I12 1 Harmony & McMurry SB Dual Left R121 Operations
I13 1 Horsetooth & Lemay (E) EB Right Decel Lane; EB Free Right Safety
I14 1 Horsetooth & Lemay (W) WB Right Decel Lane; WB Free Right Operations
I15 1 Horsetooth & Taft Hill SB Dual Left R85, R91 Safety
I16 1 Mulberry & College (US 287) (Option 1) SB Dual Left Operations
I17 1 Mulberry & College (US 287) (Option 2) WB Dual Left; Convert WB Right to
Thru/Right
Operations
I18 1 Mulberry & Link Lane (Option 1) SB Left Turn Protected Phasing R89 Operations
I19 1 Mulberry & Link Lane (Option 2) Offset E/W Lefts to Improve Sight Distance R89 Operations
I20 1 Prospect & College (US 287) Extend WB Left Turn Lane R14 Operations and Safety
I21 1 Prospect & Lemay EB Right Turn Lane R14 Operations
I22 1 Prospect & Prospect Parkway NB Dual Left Operations
I23 1 Prospect & Timberline EB Right Accel Lane R108, R76 Operations
I24 1 Shields & Laporte Roundabout R17, R23, R12 Substandard Intersection
I25 1 Stover & Prospect Coordinate Ped Signal R14 Safety
I26 1 Vine & Lemay N/S Left Turn Lanes R31, R10, R51 Operations
I27 1 Welch & Prospect Coordinate Ped Signal Safety
Intersection Projects
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 44
Pedestrian Project Detail
Pedestrian projects were categorized as existing sidewalk projects, existing intersection (pedestrian crossing) projects, development-driven sidewalk
projects, forecasted sidewalk projects, and forecasted intersection (pedestrian crossing) projects. One new project has been added since the 2011
CIP related to Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and is noted as NEW in the Project ID column. This project list will be updated in future revisions of the
CIP based on the ongoing Pedestrian Needs Assessment (2012).
Note that signal related improvements (e.g., pushbutton access) are included under ATMS, and transit stop-related improvements are included under
the Transit category. Trail projects, including grade-separated crossings (i.e., underpasses and overpasses) are included in the new Trails category.
Tier 1 – Existing Need Sidewalk (28 Projects)
- In order of priority, as identified in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
PD7 1 Prospect Shields College Add Missing Sidewalk, Upgrade
to Standards
PD9 1 Vine Linden/ Redwood Lemay Add Missing Sidewalk
PD11 1 College Foothills Monroe Add Missing Sidewalk T18
PD17 1 Lemay Lincoln Mulberry Add Missing Sidewalk
PD18 1 Myrtle Washington Howes Add Missing Sidewalk
PD19 1 Shields Mulberry Laurel Upgrade to Standards
PD21 1 College SH1 (Terry Lake) Willox Add Missing Sidewalk
PD25 1 Alta Vista Neighborhood Vine Lemay Add Missing Sidewalk B80
PD26 1 Lemay Buckingham Lincoln Add Missing Sidewalk R31
PD27 1 Cherry Howes College Add Missing Sidewalk
PD29 1 Mulberry Remington Riverside Add Missing Sidewalk, Add
Intersection Ramps
PD34 1 John F Kennedy Horsetooth Bockman Add Missing Sidewalk
PD35 1 College Frontage Road Drake Harvard Add Missing Sidewalk
PD37 1 1st Buckingham Lincoln Add Missing Sidewalk
PD38 1 John F Kennedy Bockman Boardwalk Add Missing Sidewalk
PD39 1 Mulberry City Park Shields Add Missing Sidewalk, Upgrade
to Standards
PD40 1 Buckingham Linden Lemay Add Missing Sidewalk
PD82
NEW
1 Boardwalk Oakridge Bluestem Add Missing Sidewalk
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 45
Pedestrian Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
(SRTS)
PD83
NEW
(SRTS)
1 Palmer Hogan Boardwalk Add Missing Sidewalk
PD43 1 Lemay Willox Vine Add Missing Sidewalk R83, R51
PD49 1 Timberline Kechter Zephyr Add Missing Sidewalk R40
PD50 1 Riverside Erin EPIC Center Add Missing Sidewalk
PD51 1 Vine Lemay Timberline Add Missing Sidewalk
PD52 1 Skyway Gateway Center College Add Missing Sidewalk
PD64 1 Lemay Stuart Commanche Upgrade to Standards
PD67 1 Tavelli Elementary Path Treemont Belmont Add Missing Sidewalk
PD68 1 Lemay Kirkwood Rosewood Add Missing Sidewalk
PD70 1 Laurel Stover Endicott Add Missing Sidewalk
Tier 1 – Existing Need Intersection (4 Projects)
- In order of priority, as identified in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan
Project
ID Tier Location Description
Cross-
Reference
PD4 1 Citywide Near-Term Priority Ped Crossing - Installations/ Enhancements
PD13 1 Citywide ADA improvements (e.g., ramps, pushbuttons, etc.)
PD42 1 Lemay & Lincoln Add Missing Sidewalk R3, R31
PD73 1 Harmony & Taft Hill Add Missing Sidewalk R91
Pedestrian Projects
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 46
Tier 2 – Development-Driven Sidewalk (2 Projects)
- In order of priority, as identified in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
PD24 2 College Trilby Carpenter Add Missing Sidewalk R47
PD71 2 Manhattan Horsetooth Troutman Add Missing Sidewalk, Upgrade
to Standards
Tier 3 – Forecasted Need Sidewalk (7 Projects)
- In order of priority, as identified in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
Cross-
Reference
PD28 3 Lake Shields CSU Ped/Bike Path Add Missing Sidewalk, Upgrade
to Standards
PD53 3 Rutgers College Mathews Upgrade to Standards
PD54 3 Taft Hill Laporte Mulberry Add Missing Sidewalk
PD58 3 Riverside Mulberry Rivendal Add Missing Sidewalk B17
PD60 3 Hickory Soft Gold Park Hickory Spur Trail Add Missing Sidewalk R64
PD65 3 Horsetooth Landings Stover Add Missing Sidewalk
Tier 3 – Forecasted Need Intersection (2 Projects)
- In order of priority, as identified in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan
Project
ID Tier Location Description
Cross-
Reference
PD22 3 Prospect & Whitcomb Upgrade to Standards B67
PD41 3 Citywide Long-Term Priority Ped Crossing - Installations/ Enhancements
Pedestrian Projects
Pedestrian Projects
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 47
Trail Project Detail
Trail projects are categorized as paved trails (i.e., multi-use paths) and grade-separated crossings (i.e., underpasses and overpasses). The list
combines trail projects identified by Park Planning and those in the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan. Those projects that were formerly on the
Bicycle and/or Pedestrian project list are noted with the Bike and/or Ped-related Project IDs from the 2011 CIP.
Tier 1 – Existing Need Trail (3 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Trail Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
2011
Bike/ Ped
Project ID
Cross-
Reference
T1 1 Fossil Creek Trail Shields College Add off-street multi-use path
T2 1 Mason Trail/MAX Lake Prospect Add off-street multi-use path B8 B54
T3 1 Off-Street Trail Connection
(new)
Lincoln Junior High
School
Poudre Trail Add off-street multi-use path
Tier 1 – Existing Need Grade-Separated Crossings (7 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Trail Projects
Project
ID Tier Location Description
2011
Bike/ Ped
Project ID
Cross-
Reference
T4 1 Fossil Creek Trail between Trilby & Carpenter Add off-street multi-use path and underpass (Trilby)
T5 1 Mason Trail/MAX & Harmony Add underpass or overpass (BNSF) B5
T6 1 Mason Trail/MAX & Horsetooth Add underpass or overpass (BNSF) B6
T7 1 Mason Trail/MAX & NRRC Employment/ CSU Vet
Campus
Add overpass (BNSF) B53,
PD12
T8 1 Mason Trail/MAX & Troutman Add underpass (BNSF) B7, PD8
T9 1 Michaud Lane from Foothills Trail to Overland Trail;
Poudre Trail & Overland Trail
Realign/add off-street multi-use path; add underpass
(Overland Trail)
T10 1 Poudre Trail from Environmental Learning Center to
Tinmath
Add off-street multi-use path with overpass (I-25) B10, B15
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 48
Tier 2 – Development-Driven Trail (6 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Trail Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
2011
Bike/ Ped
Project ID
Cross-
Reference
T11 2 Boxelder Recreational Trail Poudre Trail Prospect Add off-street multi-use path
T12 2 Canal #2 CSU Vet Hospital Centre Add off-street multi-use path B21
T13 2 Canal Recreational Trail Horsetooth Spring Creek Trail Add off-street multi-use path
T14 2 Fossil Creek Trail Lemay Harmony Add off-street multi-use path
T15 2 Fossil Creek Trail (North
Branch)
Timberline Strauss Cabin Add off-street multi-use path
T16 2 Overland – Off-Street Trail
(new)
Lions Park Spring Canyon
Park
Add off-street multi-use path B75
Tier 2 – Development-Driven Grade-Separated Crossings (7 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Trail Projects
Project
ID Tier Location Description
2011
Bike/ Ped
Project ID
Cross-
Reference
T17 2 College & Woodlawn Add underpass or overpass (College) B26
T18 2 Foothills between Mason Trail/MAX & Foothills Mall Add off-street multi-use path and underpass
(College)
B27 PD11
T19 2 Midway (Taft Hill to Skyway) Add off-street multi-use path and underpass (BNSF) B77
T20 2 Mulberry & Cooper Slough Add underpass or overpass (Mulberry) B30
T21 2 Power Trail & Drake Add underpass (Drake) B34,
PD79
T22 2 Power Trail & Harmony Add underpass or overpass (Harmony) B38,
PD78
T23 2 Power Trail & Horsetooth Add underpass or overpass (Horsetooth) B39,
PD77
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 49
Tier 3 – Forecasted Need Trail (5 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Trail Projects
Project
ID Tier Location From To Description
2011
Bike/ Ped
Project ID
Cross-
Reference
T24 3 Airport Recreational Trail Northeast Trail Planned
Neighborhood Park
Add off-street multi-use path
T25 3 Lake Canal Recreational
Trail
College Northeast Trail Add off-street multi-use path
T26 3 Northeast Recreational Trail Poudre Trail North edge of city
limits
Add off-street multi-use path PD74 RR Tier 2
T27 3 Northeast Recreational Trail
(Spur)
Northeast
Recreational Trail
(north of Vine)
Mulberry Add off-street multi-use path
T28 3 West Trail to Loveland
(along Shields)
Fossil Creek Trail South edge of city
limits
Add off-street multi-use path
Tier 3 – Forecasted Need Grade-Separated Crossings (3 Projects)
- In alphabetical order by location
Trail Projects
Project
ID Tier Location Description
2011
Bike/ Ped
Project ID
Cross-
Reference
T29 3 College & Cherry Add underpass or overpass (College) B28
T30 3 Power Trail (Caribou to Timberline) Add off-street multi-use path and underpass (UP RR) PD75
T31 3 Power Trail (Keenland to Battlecreek) Add off-street multi-use path and underpass (UP RR) B48,
PD76
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 50
Maps
Maps showing the location of projects in each category are provided on the following pages. Maps are included
for:
Bicycle Projects
Bridge Projects
Intersection Projects
Pedestrian Projects
Railroad Projects
Roadway/Complete Street Projects
Trail Projects
Transit Stop Projects
B65
B49
B62 B63
B71
B66
B42
B17
B32
B22
B31
B18
B68
B80
B24
B75
B50
B84 B73
B43
B37
B44 B45
B60
B11
B52
B74
B40
B72
B79
B35
B55
B16
B61
B2
B54
B3 B69
B78
B59
B33
B29
B47
B36
B81
B4
B100 B64
B23 B51
B99
B20
B19
Shields
College
Drake
392
Prospect
Vine
Taft Hill
Trilby
Overland
Timberline
Harmony
Douglas
Lemay
BR9
BR8
BR6
BR7 BR4
BR11
BR24
BR25
BR32
BR23
BR31
BR29
BR19BR17
BR16
BR15
BR30
BR12
BR34
BR13
BR21
BR33
BR22
BR18
BR10
BR5
BRB1R426BR3
BRB2R820
BR27
BR4
BR37
BR36
BR35
Shields
College
Drake
Mulberry
392
Prospect
Vine
Taft Hill
Trilby
Overland
Timberline
Douglas
Lemay
Horsetooth
Laporte
287
Ziegler
Willox
L
i
n
c
ol
n
Harmony
Carpenter
Elizabeth
Riverside
Main
I2
I2
I8
I3
I4
I9
I1
I7
I6
I5
I20
I16
I15
I21
I14
I25
I19
I27 I22
I24
I13
I12
I26
I23
Shields
College
Drake
Vine
Taft Hill
Prospect
Trilby
Timberline
Overland
Horsetooth
Lemay
Laporte
287
Ziegler
Willox
Lincoln
Mulberry
Harmony
Elizabeth
Riverside
Mason
Country Club
Laurel
Turnberry
Remington
Howes
Mountain
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
B
o
PD57
PD51
PD7
PD24
PD43
PD9
PD29
PD28
PD40
PD71
PD18 PD58
PD54 PD17
PD49
PD60
PD21
PD50
PD37 PD26
PD39
PD34
PD19
PD65
PD68
PD52
PD11
PD27
PD70
PD35
PD53
PD38
PD25
PD64
PD83 PD82
PD67
PD73
Shields
College
Drake
Mulberry
Prospect
Vine
Taft Hill
392
Trilby
Overland
Timberline
Douglas
Lemay
Horsetooth
Laporte
287
Ziegler
Willox
L
inc
o
l
n
Harmony
Carpenter
Elizabeth
RR15
RR16
RR14
RR20
RR19
Shields
College
287
Drake
Mulberry
Prospect
Vine
Taft Hill
392
Trilby
Overland
Timberline
Harmony
Douglas
Lemay
Horsetooth
Laporte
Ziegler
Willox
Lincoln
Carpenter
Elizabeth
Riverside
Main
Turnberry
Mason
Country Club
Laurel
T
e
r
r
y
L
a
k
e
Remington
Howes
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
Boardwalk
287
Lemay
Vine
Vine
Timberline
Lemay
Mason
R95
R109
R35
R89
R41
R24
R80
R1
R48
R90
R7
R6
R104
R81
R101
R61 R100
R20
R121
R3
R25
R11
R52
R16
R88
R47
R12
R73
R94
R76
R102
R45
R22
R87
R82
R86
R85 R38
R60
R14
R39
R79
R78
R15
R40
R98
R92
R37
R96
R70
R63
R34
R110
R83
R103
R108
R77
R4
R118
R105
R124
R19
T28
T16 T25
T11
T1
T10
T26
T26
T27
T4
T26
T9
T15
T13
T19
T4
T24
T15
T3
T12
T2
T10
T30
T10
T18
T5
T7
T8
T6
T20
T31
T22
T21
T17
T23
Shields
College
Drake
392
Prospect
Vine
Taft Hill
Trilby
Overland
Timberline
Harmony
Douglas
Lemay
Horsetooth
Laporte
Mulberry
287
Ziegler
Willox
Lincoln
Carpenter
Elizabeth
Riverside
Main
Turnberry
Mason
Shields
College
Drake
Vine
Taft Hill
Prospect
Trilby
Timberline
Overland
Horsetooth
Lemay
Laporte
287
Ziegler
Willox
Lincoln
Mulberry
Harmony
Elizabeth
Riverside
Mason
Country Club
Laurel
Turnberry
Remington
Howes
Mountain
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
B
o
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
Jefferson
Vine
Lemay
Lemay
Ziegler
Vine
Taft Hill
Mason
Kechter
Capital Transit Improvement Stop Projects Plan
Legend ²
Transit Stop Projects
1
Amy Lewin
From: Ann Hutchison <ahutchison@fcchamber.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:35 AM
To: Amy Lewin
Subject: Notes from LLAC June 29
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Local Legislative Affairs Committee
June 29, 2012
Minutes
City of Fort Collins Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
a. Kathleen Bracke and Amy Lewin provided an overview of the City Transportation Capital
Improvement Plan. The plan was updated with the Master Plan update in 2011 and will now
be updated annually. The goal is to have a current document that will in alignment with the
Budgeting for Outcomes process. As well, the plan includes monitoring. The 2012 update
included updates to intersections, coordinates pedestrian projects with roadway projects and
combines off street bike and pedestrian projects with trails. As well, the plan will help the
City prepare projects for other funding sources including federal and state grant programs.
b. Questions asked by the LLAC included whether the City is actively looking for lack of
connections with the pedestrian system, what impact Keeping Fort Collins Great has had on
the plan, why some of the transportation projects in BFO are on the Economic Health
platform, how the plan interacts with utility plans and how the plan interacts with other right
of way entity plans.
Ann Hutchison, CAE
Executive Vice President
ahutchison@fcchamber.org
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
225 S Meldrum, Fort Collins CO 80521
ph: 970.482.3751 ext. 107
fax: 970.482.3774
web: www.FortCollinsChamber.com
Twitter I LinkedIn
Colorado's Only 5-Star Accredited Chamber
ATTACHMENT 2
Garry W. Steen, Chair
Transportation Board
October 22, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers:
RE: Update of the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
The Transportation Board was presented with an update to the Transportation CIP at our regular monthly meeting
on October 17th by Amy Lewin. The Transportation CIP is an inventory of all multi-modal transportation needs
throughout the City and is an appendix to the Transportation Master Plan.
The CIP update continues to evolve into a sophisticated tool to be utilized by staff and available to citizens
through the City’s website. This important and multifaceted topic has been of interest to the Transportation Board
since the Transportation Master Plan was updated in 2010. Among the highlights of this update included
coordination with other projects, coordination with Parks Planning for pedestrian and bike trails, and an updated
intersections list based on recommendations from Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study.
Although not in the final form for this presentation, the Transportation Board unanimously supports this to be a
valuable tool and asset to the City. One concern the board discussed during the presentation was the possibility of
special interest groups unduly influencing the viability or priority of city validated projects. As discussed, the
process is organized to prevent any such influence without proper vetting by staff and public input, including the
Transportation Board.
I am happy to discuss this matter further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Garry W. Steen
Board Chair
(970) 420-7557
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION 2012-113
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE 2012 UPDATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, APPENDIX F OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
2011 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) is an inventory of all
multi-modal transportation needs throughout the City as identified in master plans, strategic plans,
and subarea plans of the City; and
WHEREAS, the CIP is an appendix to the Transportation Master Plan of the City; and
WHEREAS, the focus of the 2012 update to the Transportation Master Plan CIP is to ensure
that the CIP is up-to-date, user friendly and accurate and supports the action steps that are specified
in the 2011 Transportation Plan CIP; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 2012 update to the Transportation CIP has been presented to the
Transportation Board, which board has recommended its adoption; and
WHEREAS, City staff has also presented the proposed 2012 update through various public
outreach efforts throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the 2012 update to the Transportation CIP, be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the 2012 update to the Transportation CIP, Appendix F, of the City of Fort Collins
2011 Transportation Master Plan is hereby adopted.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th
day of December, A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Country Club
Laurel
T
e
r
r
y
L
a
k
e
Remington
Howes
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
Boardwalk
Jefferson
Vine
Lemay
Vine
Taft Hill
Lemay
287
Ziegler
Kechter
Capital Improvement Trail Projects Plan
Legend ²
Trail Projects
T00ID Project
R44
R31
R97
R2
R30
R13 R43
R120
R64
R75
R26
R112
R9
R84
R27
R117 R68
R67
R57
R55
R91
R17
R59
R69
R58
R18
R62
R65
R107
R72
R122
R21
R29
R51
R56
R111
R28
R5
R113
R66
R126
R49
R125
R117
R33
R74
R71
R23
R32
R123
R54
R36
R126
R42
R93
R10
R114
R106
Shields
College
287
Drake
Mulberry
Prospect
Vine
Taft Hill
392
Trilby
Timberline
Harmony
Douglas
Lemay
Horsetooth
Laporte
Ziegler
L
i
nc
o
l
n
Carpenter
Elizabeth
Riverside
Main
Turnberry
Mason
Country Club
Laurel
T
e
r
r
y
L
a
k
e
Remington
Mountain
Mountain Vista
Kechter
Summit View
Boardwalk
287
Lemay
Vine
Vine
Lemay
Taft Hill
Ziegler
Roadway/Capital Complete Improvement Street Projects Plan
Legend ²
Roadway/Complete Street Projects
R000ID Project
Taft Hill
Ziegler
Kechter
Capital Improvement Railroad Projects Plan
Legend ²
Railroad Projects
RR00ID Project
R
i
v
e
rs
i
d
e
Main
Turnberry
Mason
C
ount
r
y Clu
b
Laurel
T
e
r
r
y
L
a
k
e
Remington
Howes
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
Vine
Lemay
Vine
Taft Hill
Lemay
287
Mason
Timberline
Ziegler
Kechter
Capital Pedestrian Improvement Projects Plan
Legend
Pedestrian Projects
PD00 Project ID ²
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
Jefferson
Vine
Lemay
Lemay
Ziegler
Vine
Taft Hill
Mason
Kechter
I11
I17 I18
I10
Capital Intersection Improvement Projects Plan
Legend ²
Intersection Projects
I00ID Project
Turnberry
Mason
Country Club
Laurel
T
e
r
r
y
L
a
k
e
Remington
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
Boardwalk
Vine
Lemay
Vine
Taft Hill
Lemay
287
Mason
Timberline
Ziegler
Kechter
BR9
BR8
BR6
BR7 BR5
BR11 BR3
BR26 BR24
BR25
BR14 BR32
BR23
BR31
BR29
BR19 BR17
BR28 BR16
BR30
BR15 BR12
BR34
BR13
BR21
BR33
BR22
BR20
BR18
BR27 BR10
Capital Improvement Bridge Projects Plan
Legend ²
Bridge Projects
BR00ID Project
Horsetooth
Laporte
Mulberry
287
Ziegler
Willox
Lincoln
Carpenter
Main
Turnberry
Country Club
Laurel
T
e
r
r
y
L
a
k
e
Remington
Richards Lake
Gregory
Mountain Vista
Strauss Cabin
Giddings
9th
Kechter
Summit View
Boardwalk
Vine
Lemay
Timberline
Lemay
287
Vine
Taft Hill
Ziegler
Kechter
Capital Improvement Bicycle Projects Plan
Legend ²
Bicycle Projects
B000ID Project
3 Future Need Grade-
Separated Crossing
Projects
Future need new
grade-separated
crossings
3 3 2 3 0 1 0 8.3 Low $ 42.1
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
3 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $773.0
R111 Hickory Shields
Soft Gold
Park
Trailhead
build new
collector
3 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $776.0
R112 Michaud GMA Overland Trail
upgrade to
collector
standards
3 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $777.0
R113 Vine College Redwood
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $780.0
to 4L arterial
3 4 0 2 2 1 0 6.8 Low $700.0
R105 Trilby Taft Hill Shields
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 2 1 1 1 0 6.6 Low $703.0
R123
NEW
(MSP)
Elizabeth Taft Hill Constitution
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 4 1 2 1 1 0 6.3 Low $709.0
includes
realignment for
potential
interchange
3 3 2 2 1 1 0 8.3 Medium $631.5
R117 Mason Willox
Realigned
Vine
build new
collector
3 4 3 1 2 1 0 8.3 Medium $639.0
R98 Prospect Overland Trail Taft Hill
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 4 1 3 1 1 1 8.0 Medium $645.0
to 4L arterial
3 4 1 2 3 2 0 10.0 Medium $557.0
R89 Mulberry Riverside Timberline
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
3 5 2 2 3 2 0 9.8 Medium $573.0
R90 Mulberry Summit View I-25
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
3 5 2 2 3 2 0 9.8 Medium $583.0
R119 College Conifer Vine
upgrade to 4L
arterial (North
College)
standards
3 3 1 1 3 2 0 9.7 Medium $585.0
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 5 3 3 3 2 0 12.0 Medium $507.5
R78 Trilby Shields College
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
3 3 2 2 3 1 0 11.7 Medium $511.5
R79 Carpenter Lemay Timberline
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 1 2 3 2 0 11.4 Medium $515.5
R80 Carpenter
County Road
9
I-25
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
3 3 1 2 3 2 0 11.4 Medium $519.5
collector
2 3 2 1 1 1 0 6.6 Low $437.0
R68 Redwood Conifer Vine
build new
collector
2 2 1 1 1 1 0 6.3 Low $437.5
R66 Mason
State Highway
1
Willox
build new
collector
2 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $441.5
R67 Redwood Country Club Willox
build new
collector
2 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $443.5
R70 Richards Lake Giddings I-25
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
2 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $446.5
R71 Swallow Taft Hill Bassick
build new
collector
2 3 1 1 1 1 0 5.4 Low $447.5
Vista
Conifer
build new
collector
2 3 3 2 1 1 0 9.4 Medium $371.0
R56 Mileshouse Nancy Gray Drake
build new
collector
2 3 3 2 1 1 0 9.4 Medium $374.0
R57 New Roadway Skyway Trilby
build new
collector
2 3 3 1 2 1 0 9.4 Medium $376.0
R58 Technology Harmony Rock Creek
build new
collector
2 3 3 2 1 1 0 9.4 Medium $378.0
R59 Aran Skyway Trilby
build new
collector
2 3 2 1 2 2 0 9.1 Medium $380.0
R60 Richards Lake Turnberry Giddings
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
2 3 2 2 1 1 0 8.3 Medium $382.5
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
2 3 2 2 2 2 0 10.9 Medium $294.5
R46
Timberline
and BNSF
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
2 6 3 2 3 3 0 10.2 Medium $314.5
R47 College Trilby Carpenter
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
2 5 2 3 2 2 0 9.8 Medium PD24 $325.0
R48 College Fossil Creek Trilby
upgrade from 4L
to 6L arterial
2 5 2 3 2 2 0 9.8 Medium $336.0
2 3 3 2 3 2 0 13.7 High $233.0
R34
Mountain
Vista
Giddings I-25
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial -
with grade-
separated RR
crossing
2 5 3 3 3 4 0 13.3 High $243.0
R118 Giddings Richards Lake
Mountain
Vista
build new 2L
arterial
2 3 3 3 1 3 0 12.9 High $247.0
R35 Turnberry
Mountain
Vista
Douglas
upgrade from
CR to 2L arterial
2 3 3 3 1 3 0 12.9 High $249.0
R36 Aran Saturn Skyway
upgrade to
collector
standards
2 1 2 1 2 2 0 12.8 High $249.0
R37 Strauss Cabin Horsetooth Harmony
upgrade from
CR to collector
2 3 2 2 3 2 0 12.6 High $251.5
realignment
2 4 3 4 4 4 0 18.0 High $190.0
R26 Prospect Summit View I-25
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
2 4 3 3 4 4 0 16.5 High $197.5
R27 Avondale Triangle College
build new
collector
2 2 3 2 3 2 0 16.0 High $198.5
R28 Troutman Seneca Shields
build new
collector
2 3 3 3 3 2 1 15.7 High $199.5
R29 Timberline Battlecreek Kechter
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial
2 3 2 3 3 3 1 15.4 High $201.5
R30 Trilby Westchase Ziegler
build new
collector
2 3 3 3 3 2 0 15.4 High $203.5
upgrade to 2L
arterial
standards
1 3 -1 2 2 1 0 6.6 Low $158.0
R19 Country Club
State Highway
1
Lemay
upgrade to
collector
standards
1 3 1 2 0 1 0 5.4 Low $161.0
BNSF
Railroad
Tracks
build grade-
separated RR
crossing
1 6 2 2 4 4 0 11.2 Medium $87.0
R7 Trilby Lemay Timberline
upgrade from 2L
to 4L arterial -
with grade-
separated RR
crossing
1 5 1 3 2 2 0 11.1 Medium $104.5
-
Tier 2 Annual
RR Crossing
Improvement
Program
At Grade
Crossing
Upgrades
2 3 0 1 2 3 0 7.7 High $ 13.0
-
Tier 3 Annual
RR Crossing
Improvement
Program
At Grade
Crossing
Upgrades
3 3 0 1 2 2 0 6.9 Medium $ 14.5
3 2 3 3 1 2 2 14.7 Medium $ 25.8