HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-05/24/2022-Work Session (3)
Administration
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6601
970.416.2081 - fax
fcgov.com/pdt
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 27, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dean Klingner, Deputy Director, Planning, Development & Transportation
Thru: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager
Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation
RE: Work Session Summary – May 24, 2022: Regional Transportation Update
All Councilmembers and the Mayor were present. Staff introduced Larimer County
Engineer Mark Peterson and Jenny Young, a County consultant with Felsburg, Holt and
Ullevig.
Presentation Summary
Jenny Young gave an overview of the recent work regarding Larimer County regional
transportation. This included:
x Data illustrating regional travel patterns.
x Summary of the recent changes to State and Federal transportation funding
x Background on the transportation and facilities ballot measure that was brought
to Larimer Co voters in 2019 and did not pass.
Two questions prompts were given to Council for discussion:
x What are the “must haves” for your community to coordinate on regional
transportation solutions? And
x What are the “deal breakers” that would prevent your community from
coordinating on regional transportation solutions.
Discussion Summary
Council’s comments in response to these questions are summarized as follows:
x Any coordinated effort to create regional transportation solutions should be
transit focused.
x Any plan moving forward should be based on good data and a complete
understanding of the needs.
2
x Observations and questions were posed to better understand the information on
travel patterns:
o Does this data reflect our understanding of the # of employed people in
Fort Collins?
o How has this data changed since it was collected?
o Do we have more details about this data? Does it apply uniformly to
different demographics and parts of our community? Do we understand
the originations and destinations?
x Opinions of the Council regarding new vehicular capacity ranged from “not
supportive of any new capacity” to “any new capacity needs to come with a n
addition of strong emphasis on transit, regional trail connections, and other multi-
model strategies.”
x Regional transportation should include surrounding Counties, not just Larimer
County.
x Regional transit should be coordinated through the North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization instead of Larimer County.
x It could make sense to coordinate other regional needs, such as the regional trail
network, within Larimer County.
x Comments were made that supported individual project regional collaboration
with cost sharing based on project benefits.
Follow Up
The summary of the 2018-19 Larimer County Regional Funding effort can be found
online and is also attached below:
Larimer County Funding Strategies Technical Report 093019 FINAL.pdf
Next Steps
The County is continuing to meet with all jurisdictions over the next few months.
Following that effort, the feedback with be consolidated and the staff Technical Advisory
Committee representatives will meet to discuss conclusions from the conversations and
propose next steps.
Funding StrategiesLarimer County TransportationInfrastructure
September 2019
prepared by:
Technical Report
TTechnical Report
Prepared for:
Larimer County
200 W Oak St., Suite 3000
Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
303.721.1440
With support from:
George K. Baum & Company
FHU Reference No. 118104-01
September 2019
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE i
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Background and Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Process Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Funding Proposal ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Revenue Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Project Eligibility ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Transportation Infrastructure Fund ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Transit Fund ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Infrastructure Project Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Evaluation Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................................13
Step 1. Community/Agency Top Priority Projects ............................................................................................................................ 13
Step 2. Performance-Based Metrics ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
Step 3. Revenue Generation Nexus ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
5. Infrastructure Project Priorities ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Maximum Contribution to State Highway Projects ......................................................................................................................... 19
Project Short List .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
6. Administration and Governance ....................................................................................................................................................24
Policy Council ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Infrastructure TAC ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Transit TAC .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
7. Changes to Infrastructure Project List ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Project Readiness (Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects) .................................................................................................................................... 26
Tier 1 Projects ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Tier 2 Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Reimbursement (Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects) ....................................................................................................................................... 27
8. Project Overviews .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Project 1 – Interstate 25 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Project 2 – Owl Canyon Road ................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Project 3 – Larimer County Road 17 .....................................................................................................................................................31
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE ii
Project 4 – Larimer County Road 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Project 5 – Larimer County Road 19 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33
Project 7 – 57th Street ................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Project 8 – Mall Road Intersections ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Project 9 – Larimer County Road 13 ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Project 10 – Timberline Road ................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Project 11 – Timberline Road and Vine Drive ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Project 12 – Power Trail Grade Separation ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Project 13 – Poudre Trail Grade Separation ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Project 14 – Long View Trail Grade Separation ................................................................................................................................. 41
Project 16 – Kechter Road Bridge .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Project 18 – Mulberry Street (SH 14) ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
Project 20 – US 34 and US 36 Intersection ......................................................................................................................................... 44
Project 21 – US 34 Widening (West of I-25) ....................................................................................................................................... 45
Project 22 – Taft Avenue (Central Loveland) ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Project 23 – SH 402 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Project 24 – Boyd Lake Avenue Extension .......................................................................................................................................... 48
Project 25 – US 34 Widening (East of I-25) ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Project 26 – Larimer County Road 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
Project 27 – Taft Avenue (South Loveland) ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Project 28 – US 34 and US 287 Intersections .................................................................................................................................... 52
Project 29 – SH 293 Bridge ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Project 30 – 1st Street .................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Project 31 – Berthoud Parkway ............................................................................................................................................................... 55
Project 32 – Moraine Avenue .................................................................................................................................................................. 56
Project 33 – ®±@S@QXR@JDN@C HFGQHUD ....................................................................................................................... 57
Project 34 – US 34 Multimodal Trail.....................................................................................................................................................58
Project 35 – I-25 and SH 1 Interchange ............................................................................................................................................... 59
Project 36 – SH 1 and LCR 62E Intersection ....................................................................................................................................... 60
Project 37 – Larimer County Road 9 ..................................................................................................................................................... 61
Project 38 – Larimer County Road 58 .................................................................................................................................................. 62
Project 40 – Larimer County Road 5 (Timnath) ................................................................................................................................ 63
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE iii
Project 41 – Larimer County Road 1 (South) ...................................................................................................................................... 64
Project 42 – Larimer County Road 1 (North) ...................................................................................................................................... 65
Project 43 – Harmony Road .................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Project 44 – Larimer County Road 3 Bridge ...................................................................................................................................... 67
Project 45 – Lemay Realignment ........................................................................................................................................................... 68
Project 46 – East Prospect Road ............................................................................................................................................................ 69
Project 47 – Timberline Road .................................................................................................................................................................. 70
Project 48 – College Avenue and Trilby Road .................................................................................................................................... 71
L i s t o f F i g u r e s
Figure 1. Timeline of Milestones and Primary Meeting Topics .............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Regional Transportation Infrastructure Projects ...................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Short List of Regional Transportation Infrastructure Projects ............................................................................................ 21
L i s t o f T a b l e s
Table 1. Estimated Revenue by Year................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Eligible Infrastructure Project List .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Evaluation Criteria Weighting ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 4. Population, Sales Tax, and Property Tax by Community ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 5. Project Evaluation Results ................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 6. Prioritized Project List ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose
Larimer NTMSXR2017 Transportation Master Plan identified a funding deficit of $12 million per year over the next
20+ years. Recognizing that many of the municipalities within Larimer County are also experiencing transportation
funding shortfalls; Larimer County spearheaded an effort to collaborate with the local communities and key
stakeholders within the County to develop Transportation Infrastructure Funding Strategies. The purpose of the effort
is to identify additional funding options for regional transportation improvements in Larimer County.
Process Overview
The effort, which kicked off in April 2018, was guided by two committees. The Regional Task Force (RTF) includes
elected officials from the County and each local municipality, as well as representatives from CDOT, Colorado State
University, and other business and civic organizations. The RTF met four times in 2018 and offered guidance during
the strategy development. TAC members were invited to the RTF meetings.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of staff members from the County, CDOT, and each local
municipality met seven times and provided data and technical oversight and made recommendations for
consideration by the RTF. The methodology described herein was developed collaboratively by the TAC with input
and concurrence from the RTF. Meeting summaries were developed after each meeting and distributed to the RTF
and/or TAC members.
A timeline of major project milestones and primary meeting topics is provided on Figure 1.
Regional Task Force Members:
Berthoud Chamber of Commerce
City of Fort Collins
City of Loveland
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado State University
Commercial Real Estate Brokers
Estes Park Economic Development Corp
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
LaPorte Area PAC
Larimer County
Larimer County 101
Loveland Chamber of Commerce
North Front Range MPO
Red Feathers Lake PAC
Town of Berthoud
Town of Estes Park
Town of Johnstown
Town of Timnath
Town of Wellington
Town of Windsor
Visit Estes Park
Wellington Chamber of Commerce
}
}
¬
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 3
Goals and Objectives
The TAC and RTF agreed on three goals and supporting objectives for the Larimer County Transportation
Infrastructure Funding Strategies effort.
Goal #1: Agree upon high priority regional transportation infrastructure projects within Larimer County.
Objective 1A. Establish criteria to define and identify transportation infrastructure projects of regional importance
within Larimer County.
Objective 1B.Develop a well-defined project list and map of current regional transportation improvement needs in
the County.
Objective 1C. Establish a process for prioritizing the regional projects to allow for scaling of the project list and
communication of the highest priorities.
Objective 1D. Prepare a preliminary opinion of total project costs and determine total funding needs for regional
projects.
Goal #2: Reach a consensus recommendation on strategies to fund the high priority regional transportation
projects.
Objective 2A. Investigate and evaluate potential funding strategies for implementation of regional projects.
Objective 2B. Recommend specific strategies to increase funding for regional transportation improvements that are
most likely to receive public support.
Objective 2C. Identify a framework for long-term administration of new revenue(s).
Goal #3: Attain public support for increasing funding of transportation infrastructure in Larimer County.
Objective 3A.Evaluate potential public support for new funding strategies through analysis of voting history,
demographics, competing ballot measures, and polling.
Objective 3B. Communicate the urgency of the need for additional funding for transportation infrastructure.
Objective 3C. Convey the benefits of the recommended funding strategies to the public.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 4
2. FUNDING PROPOSAL
The Half Penny sales tax, which has been referred to the voters on the November 2019 ballot, would generate an
estimated $1,016M in revenue over the 20-year time horizon (2020-2039). Larimer County proposes all cash funding
of projects (i.e., bonding would not be included in the ballot question), although bonding may be considered at a
future date. Larimer County proposes the following allocation of the Half Penny sales tax:
$10M off the top to Project ID 1: I-25 (Hwy 402 to Hwy 66) – planned to be $2M in each of the first 5 years
45-50% to Transportation Infrastructure Projects
15-20% to Transit Projects
35% to Facilities (Veterans/Safety/ Human Services)
Revenue Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in estimating revenue and number of projects that could be funded:
20-year sales tax (2020 – 2039)
4% annual sales tax growth
4% annual construction cost inflation
Cash funding (i.e., no debt service)
Using these assumptions, the estimated available funding can be calculated on an annual basis. The Half Penny sales
tax would generate approximately $1,016M in revenue over the 20-year time period; the distribution to I-25, the
Transportation Infrastructure Fund, and Transit Fund, and Facilities is detailed in Table 1.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 5
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED REVENUE BY YEAR
YEAR I--25
TRRANSPORTATION
INNFRASTRUCTURE
FUUND
TRANSIT FUUND FACILITIES TOTAL ESTIMATED
REVENUE
$10M 50% 15% 35%
2020 $2,000,000 $16,061,578 $4,818,473 $11,243,105 $34,123,157
2021 $2,000,000 $16,744,041 $5,023,212 $11,720,829 $35,488,083
2022 $2,000,000 $17,453,803 $5,236,141 $12,217,662 $36,907,606
2023 $2,000,000 $18,191,955 $5,457,587 $12,734,369 $38,383,910
2024 $2,000,000 $18,959,633 $5,687,890 $13,271,743 $39,919,267
2025 $20,758,019 $6,227,406 $14,530,613 $41,516,038
2026 $21,588,340 $6,476,502 $15,111,838 $43,176,679
2027 $22,451,873 $6,735,562 $15,716,311 $44,903,746
2028 $23,349,948 $7,004,984 $16,344,964 $46,699,896
2029 $24,283,946 $7,285,184 $16,998,762 $48,567,892
2030 $25,255,304 $7,576,591 $17,678,713 $50,510,608
2031 $26,265,516 $7,879,655 $18,385,861 $52,531,032
2032 $27,316,137 $8,194,841 $19,121,296 $54,632,273
2033 $28,408,782 $8,522,635 $19,886,147 $56,817,564
2034 $29,545,133 $8,863,540 $20,681,593 $59,090,267
2035 $30,726,939 $9,218,082 $21,508,857 $61,453,877
2036 $31,956,016 $9,586,805 $22,369,211 $63,912,032
2037 $33,234,257 $9,970,277 $23,263,980 $66,468,514
2038 $34,563,627 $10,369,088 $24,194,539 $69,127,254
2039 $35,946,172 $10,783,852 $25,162,321 $71,892,344
TOTAL $10,000,000 $503,061,020 $150,918,306 $352,142,714 $1,016,122,040
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 6
3. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY
There are two components to the transportation funding proposal: transportation infrastructure projects and transit
projects. The following sections outline the eligibility for the Transportation Infrastructure Fund and the Transit Fund.
Transportation Infrastructure Fund
The Transportation Infrastructure Fund would be used to construct the transportation infrastructure projects
developed and prioritized by the TAC. Transportation infrastructure projects include design and construction of
permanent capital projects that would improve regional travel within Larimer County. Projects may be located on
State Highways, county roads, or municipal streets, and projects must:
Be in an adopted plan
Relate to a roadway with a functional classification of arterial or higher
Have a demonstrated current transportation need
Carry a significant volume of regional trips
Meet a minimum size threshold of $1 million
Eligible project types include:
Roadway expansion projects (major/minor widening, shoulders, paving a gravel road)
Roadway safety improvement projects
Complete streets projects (projects related and proximate to a street that improve mobility and safety for
all travel modes including bicycle, pedestrian and transit)
Intersection/interchange improvement projects
Bridge improvement projects
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects that produce measurable mobility benefits (e.g., corridor
signal coordination)
Ineligible project types include:
Operations (general, transit)
Purchase of vehicles (general fleet or transit)
Trail projects (outside of the street alignment)
Roadway maintenance or reconstruction projects
Eligible Project List
Larimer County, CDOT, and the eight municipalities submitted 43 eligible projects totaling $547M in funding needs.
Agencies were asked to complete a project submittal form for projects that meet the regional project eligibility
requirements. Projects include roadway expansion, interchange construction, bridge reconstruction, grade-separated
trail and roadway crossings, complete street upgrades, safety enhancements, and intersection improvements. The
eligible project list is provided on Table 2 and the projects are depicted on FFigure 2 . There were a few instances
where entities identified similar project needs or segments. In such cases, more than one submitting agency is shown
on Table 2.
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 7 TABLE 2. ELIGIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT LIST ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION SUUBMITTING AGENCY PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PRROJECT COOST (IIN MILLIONS)) COOMMITTED FUUNDING TO DDATE ((IN MMILLIONS)) COOST REQUEST (IIN MILLIONS)) LOOCAL FEEDERAL/ STTATE 1 I-25 Hwy 402 to Hwy 66 (Segments 5&6) CDOT Larimer County Roadway Expansion $676.00 $224.00 $10.00 2 Owl Canyon Improvements I-25 to US 287 Larimer County Wellington Roadway Expansion $28.60 $28.60 3 LCR 17 Expansion Pyrenees Drive to 57th Street Larimer County Roadway Expansion with Intersection Improvements $26.25 $26.25 4 LCR 5 Expansion Harmony Road to 1/2 mile south of Crossroads Larimer County Roadway Expansion $55.30 $55.30 5 LCR 19 Expansion Horsetooth to Harmony, intersection improvements at Trilby, 57th St, Coyote Ridge Larimer County Fort Collins Roadway Expansion with Intersection Improvements $9.50 $5.00 $4.50 7 LCR 28 (57th Street) US 287 to LCR 11C Larimer County Roadway Expansion with Intersection Improvements $10.70 $10.75 8 US 34 and US 36 Intersections at Mall Road Larimer CountyEstes Park Intersection Improvements $4.00 $4.00 9 LCR 13 Hwy 392 to LCR 13/LCR 30 Larimer County Roadway Expansion with Intersection Improvements $7.75 $7.75 10 Timberline Expansion Mulberry to Vine Fort Collins Roadway Expansion and Multimodal Improvements $8.00 $8.00 11 Timberline Grade Separation Annabel Ave to Suniga Rd (BNSF and Vine) Fort Collins Grade Separated Crossing $25.00 $25.00
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 8 ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION SUUBMITTING AGENCY PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PRROJECT COOST (IINMILLIONS))COOMMITTED FUUNDING TO DDATE ((IN MMILLIONS)) COOST REQUEST (IIN MILLIONS)) LOOCAL FEEDERAL/ STTATE 12 Power Trail Grade Separation Harmony Fort Collins Grade Separated Crossing $6.00 $2.40 $0.80 $2.80 13 Poudre Trail Grade Separation Taft Hill Fort Collins Grade Separated Crossing $5.00 $5.00 14 Long View Trail Grade Separation Trilby Fort Collins Grade Separated Crossing $5.00 $5.00 16 Kechter Road Bridge I-25 CDOT Fort Collins Bridge Replacement and Roadway Expansion $35.00 $25.00 $10.00 18 SH 14 Widening I-25 to Riverside CDOT Fort Collins Roadway Expansion with Multimodal Improvements $50.00 $50.00 20 US 34/US 36 Estes Park CDOT Estes Park Intersection Safety Improvements $6.00 $6.00 21 US 34 Widening Boise to Rocky Mountain Ave CDOT Loveland Roadway Expansion, Safety, Multimodal Improvements $19.20 $4.30 $3.70 $11.20 22 Taft Avenue Improvements 11th St to Westshore Dr; US 34 intersection Loveland Roadway Expansion and Multimodal Improvements $5.30 $5.30 23 SH 402 Widening US 287 to I-25 Loveland Roadway Expansion and Multimodal Improvements $28.80 $28.80 24 Boyd Lake Avenue Extension LCR 20C to SH 402 Loveland Roadway Expansion and Multimodal Improvements $8.40 $8.40 25 US 34 Widening Centerra Parkway to LCR 3 Loveland Roadway Expansion with Intersection Improvements $10.60 $10.60
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 9 ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION SUUBMITTING AGENCY PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PRROJECT COOST (IINMILLIONS))COOMMITTED FUUNDING TO DDATE ((IN MMILLIONS)) COOST REQUEST (IIN MILLIONS)) LOOCAL FEEDERAL/ STTATE 26 LCR 3 US 34 to Crossroads Loveland Roadway Expansion and Multimodal Improvements $5.40 $5.40 27 Taft Avenue Widening 14th Street SW to 28th Street SW Loveland Roadway Expansion and Multimodal Improvements $10.40 $10.40 28 US 34/US 287 Loveland Loveland Intersection Improvements $8.10 $8.10 29 SH 392 Bridge Improvements Poudre River (1/2 mile east of LCR 3) Windsor Bridge Widening $12.00 $12.00 30 1st Street US 287 to Franklin Avenue Berthoud Complete Street $5.00 $5.00 31 LCR 17 (Berthoud Parkway) LCR 10e to SH 56 Berthoud Complete Street $2.00 $2.00 32 Moraine Ave (US 36) Multimodal Davis St to Mary's Lake Road Estes Park Complete Street $20.00 $20.00 33 US 36 Intersection Improvements Mary's Lake Road/High Drive Estes Park Intersection Improvements $5.00 $5.00 34 US 34 Multimodal Trail Connection Mall Road to Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park Complete Street (Multimodal Trail along Highway) $10.00 $10.00 35 SH 1 Interchange Improvements I-25 Wellington Interchange Reconstruction $30.00 $1.00 $29.00 36 SH 1 Intersection Improvements LCR 62E Wellington Intersection Improvements $3.00 $3.00 37 LCR 9 SH 1 to Owl Canyon Road Wellington Roadway Expansion with Intersection Improvements $3.00 $3.00
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 10 ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION SUUBMITTING AGENCY PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PRROJECT COOST (IINMILLIONS))COOMMITTED FUUNDING TO DDATE ((IN MMILLIONS)) COOST REQUEST (IIN MILLIONS)) LOOCAL FEEDERAL/ STTATE 38 LCR 58 SH 1 to I-25 (new interchange) Wellington Interchange Construction and Roadway Expansion $35.00 $35.00 40 LCR 5 (Main Street) Harmony to SH 14 Timnath Roadway Expansion $23.40 $23.4041 LCR 1 (Latham Parkway) Kechter Road to Harmony Timnath Roadway Expansion $11.30 $11.30 42 LCR 1 (Latham Parkway) Buss Grove to SH 14 Timnath Roadway Expansion $13.90 $13.90 43 Harmony Road I-25 to LCR 1 Timnath Roadway Expansion $6.50 $6.50 44 LCR 3 Bridge Big Thompson River JohnstownBridge Reconstruction $3.50 $3.5045 Lemay Realignment Lincoln to Conifer Fort Collins Roadway Realignment Grade Separated Crossing (RR) $22.00 $12.00 $10.00 46 East Prospect Road Sharp Point to I-25 Fort Collins Roadway Expansion Multimodal Improvements $6.00 $2.00 $4.00 47 South Timberline Stetson Creek to Trilby Fort Collins Roadway Expansion Multimodal Improvements $6.50 $2.30 $2.20 $2.00 48 College & Trilby Fort Collins Fort Collins Intersection Improvements $5.00 $1.15 $2.25 $1.60
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 11
FIGURE 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 12
Transit Fund
If the Half Penny sales tax passes, the Transit TAC will go through a process to identify and prioritize transit projects,
in a manner similar to the process established and completed for the transportation infrastructure projects. The
recommendations of the Transit TAC will go to the Policy Council for approval. The following transit eligibility
requirements are proposed:
No funding for existing operations and levels of service
Must demonstrate a regional benefit
Project must be in an adopted plan
Transit provider must support the project
Infrastructure, operations, and fleet
Eligible transit project types may include:
Transit center, maintenance facilities, electric bus charging facilities
Transit stop
Mobility hub
Local or regional operations
o Increased frequency
o New routes
o Route extensions
o Demand responsive service
Transit technology (including planning and implementation)
Transit fleet, including replacement vehicles
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 13
4. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT EVALUATION
Recognizing that fully funding the regional project needs in Larimer County is unlikely, a project prioritization
methodology was needed to identify the projects that are most critical to regional travel in Larimer County, reflect the
KNB@K@FDMBHDROQHNQHSHDR~@MCVHKK@CCQDRRDWHRSHMFSQ@MRONQS@SHNMOQNAKDLRthat are visible to the public. This chapter
focuses exclusively on the Transportation Infrastructure projects; a similar process will be required for Transit projects.
Evaluation Methodology
The methodology for evaluating and prioritizing transportation infrastructure projects was developed collaboratively
during several meetings with the TAC. The RTF discussed, refined, and concurred with the evaluation methodology as
recommended by the TAC. The project evaluation methodology involves a three-step process, as described below.
Step 1. Community/Agency Top Priority Projects
Geographic Equity: MBKTCDD@BGBNLLTMHSXRSNO priority project.
The TAC and RTF recognized that the short list of projects should contain at least one project in every
community to oEEDQFDNFQ@OGHBDPTHSXGDQDBNLLDMCDCHMBKTCHMFD@BGBNLLTMHSX@FDMBXRSNOOQHNQHSX
project (as defined by the community in their project submittals) in the first tier of projects. Because some of the
BNLLTMHSHDRSNOOQHNQHSXOQNIDBSR@QDK@QFD-scale projects, the TAC recommended capping the funding for Tier 1
projects at $15 million. If a Top Priority project exceeds $15 million, it would be divided into two phases.
Step 2. Performance-Based Metrics
All projects were evaluated using five performance-based metrics, each worth five points, weighted as shown in
Table 3. A description of the methodology used for each of the performance-based metrics is provided below.
TABLE 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHTING
Connectivity 225%
Multimodal 115%
Congestion Relief 225%
Safety Mitigation 225%
Project Reach 110%
Connectivity: Does the project complete a link between communities or major corridors?
Projects that would enhance the connection between two or more communities were given a score of 5.
Projects that would enhance the connection between two major corridors (defined as the State Highway
system) were given a score of 5. All other projects were given a Connectivity score of 0. Eighteen projects received a
score of 5, and the remaining 25 projects received a score of 0, for an average Connectivity score of 2.09.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 14
Multimodal: Would the project improve accommodate for multiple travel modes?
Projects were given one point for each mode (motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, transit) that would be
enhanced through project implementation. Projects that would enhance the safety and/or mobility of a
street that is currently used as a transit route received a point for transit. If a project would benefit all four travel
modes – motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit – it was given a bonus point for multimodality, resulting in a
total score of 5. All projects would benefit at least one travel mode; nine projects would benefit all four modes and
received a score of 5. The average Multimodal score was 2.95.
Congestion Relief: Would the project address an existing congestion problem?
The 2015 North Front Range MPO travel demand model was used as the basis for estimating the existing
congestion level associated with each project location. The 2015 base year model has been calibrated to
existing conditions. The daily volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio) was used to calculate the relative congestion levels.
The project with the highest V/C ratio (Project #46: East Prospect Road) was given a score of 5. The scores for all
other projects were scaled based on the 2015 V/C ratio in comparison to the East Prospect Road V/C ratio. The
average Congestion Relief score was 2.43.
Safety Mitigation: Would the project address a safety problem?
The five-year crash history (2011-2015) for each project location was compiled. A cost associated with the
number and crash severity within each project area was calculated using data from the National Safety
Council. Property Damage Only crashes result in an estimated societal cost of $10,200, while Injury and Fatal Crashes
result in estimate societal costs of $96,100 and $1,688,400, respectively. The safety cost associated with Project #1: I-
25 exceeds the safety cost of the next highest project (Project #18: SH 14 Widening) by a factor of four. The I-25
project was given a score of 5. The SH 14 project was also given a score of 5, and all remaining projects were scaled
based on the safety cost in comparison to the SH 14 project. Projects that would eliminate a safety problem by
removing the interaction altogether (through a grade separation, for example) were also given a Safety Mitigation
score of 5. The average Safety Mitigation score was 2.37.
Project Reach: How wide-reaching is the project and how many people would be impacted by the
project?
This measure was also calculated using the 2015 North Front Range MPO travel demand model. The
OQNIDBSRQD@BGV@RB@KBTK@SDC@RSGDMTLADQNEUDGHBKDRTRHMFSGDE@BHKHty each day times the length of those trips.
The result is vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for all trips passing through the project location. The two I-25 projects
(Project #1: I-25 and Project #16: Kechter Road bridge over I-25) have a significantly greater reach compared to the
other regional projects. These two projects were given a score of 5, and the project with the next highest VMT
(Project #25: US 34 Widening from Centerra Parkway to LCR 3) was also given a score of 5. All remaining projects
were scaled based on the project reach (VMT) in comparison to the US 34 Widening project. The average Project
Reach score was 1.67.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 15
Step 3. Revenue Generation Nexus
Revenue Generation Equity: Do the project locations reasonably align with where the revenue
will be generated?
A third step in the project evaluation was added to better align the project priorities with the revenue
generation potential of the project locations. The TAC and RTF recognized that Fort Collins, Loveland, and
unincorporated Larimer County, respectively, have the greatest potential for generating revenue, and therefore the
project benefits should reasonably align with the revenue generation potential. The project team looked at three
metrics to estimate potential revenue distribution: population, sales tax, and property tax. As shown on Table 4, each
BNLLTMHSXRBNMSQHATSHNMSNSGDNTMSXRSNS@KONOTK@SHNM~R@KDRS@W~@MCOQNODQSXS@WV@RB@KBTK@SDC using the latest
available data in 2018. An average of the tGQDDUDQ@FD¸NENS@KV@RTRDC@RSGDA@RHRENQD@BGBNLLTMHSXR
Revenue Generation Potential.
TABLE 4. POPULATION, SALES TAX, AND PROPERTY TAX BY COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
POPULATION DIISTRIBUTION SALES TAX DIISTRIBUTION PRROPERTY TAX DIISTRIBUTION
AVVERAGE
% OF
TOOTAL
2016
POPULATION
(WITHIN LARIMER
COUNTY)
% OF
TOTAL
FY2014 TAXABLE
SALES
% OF
TOTAL
2017 ASSESSED
VALUE
% OF
TOTAL
Berthoud 6,122 1.8% $36,426,734 0.8% $91,518,117 1.6% 1.4%
Estes Park 11,075 3.3% $184,400,544 3.9% $208,290,750 3.7% 3.6%
Fort Collins 162,918 48.1% $2,459,484,850 52.3% $2,581,037,435 45.2% 48.6%
Johnstown 810 0.2% $60,613,825 1.3% $86,826,525 1.5% 1.0%
Loveland 75,987 22.4% $1,359,803,848 28.9% $1,209,000,966 21.2% 24.2%
Timnath 2,907 0.9% $52,525,078 1.1% $88,061,884 1.5% 1.2%
Wellington 8,360 2.5% $27,145,722 0.6% $85,193,587 1.5% 1.5%
Windsor 6,802 2.0% $36,107,424 0.8% $130,078,525 2.3% 1.7%
Larimer County
(Unincorporated) 63,682 18.8% $483,360,799 10.3% $1,226,028,933 21.5% 16.9%
Larimer County
Total 338,663 1100.0% $$4,699,868,824 1100.0% $$5,706,036,722 1100.0%100.0%
Fort Collins has the highest value at 48.6%. Therefore, all projects submitted by Fort Collins received a score of 5. All
remaining projects were scaled based on the submitting commuMHSXRQDUDMTDFDMDQ@SHNMONSDMSH@KHMBNLO@QHRNMSN
NQSNKKHMR Only the submitting agency(ies) were given credit for the revenue generation score (although most
projects would benefit other communities, as well). Projects that were submitted by two communities received credit
ENQANSGBNLLTMHSHDRQDUDMTDFDMDQ@SHNMBNMSQHAution. The average Revenue Generation Equity score was 2.30.
Evaluation Results
The Revenue Generation score account for 20% of the total project score, and the Performance-Based Metrics
account for 80% of the total project score. The average total weighted score was 2.33. The evaluation results are
presented in Table 5, sorted by Project ID. Those projects that were identified as being a comLTMHSXRNOQHNQHSX@QD
highlighted in yellow.
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 16 TABLE 5. PROJECT EVALUATION RESULTS IDPROJECTLOCATIONCOONNECTIVVITY SCORE MUULTI- MODALSCCORE COONGESTION REELIEFSCCORE SAAFETY MIITIGATIONSCCORE PRROJECT REEACHSCCORE REEVENUE GEENERATIONSCCORE WEEIGHTED SCCORE RAANK1 I-25Hwy 402 to Hwy 66 (Segments 5&6) 5 2 4.465.005.005.004.5322 Owl Canyon Improvements I-25 to US 287 5 2 3.48 1.37 0.49 1.89 2.63 17 3 LCR 17 Expansion Pyrenees Drive to 57th Street 5 2 3.79 4.12 1.67 1.74 3.30 7 4 LCR 5 Expansion Harmony Road to 1/2 mile south of Crossroads 5 2 1.97 2.11 2.30 1.74 2.59 19 5 LCR 19 Expansion Horsetooth to Harmony, intersection improvements at Trilby, 57th St, Coyote Ridge5 3 2.90 3.36 1.88 5.00 3.76 4 7 LCR 28 (57th Street) US 287 to LCR 11C 0 3 1.97 2.86 0.81 1.74 1.7429 8 US 34 and US 36 Intersections at Mall Road 0 1 2.70 1.26 4.80 2.11 1.72 30 9 LCR 13 Hwy 392 to LCR 13/LCR 30 5 2 1.76 2.43 1.12 1.74 2.5120 10 Timberline Expansion Mulberry to Vine 0 5 3.42 1.85 0.75 5.00 2.71 15 11 Timberline Grade Separation Annabel Ave to Suniga Rd (BNSF and Vine) 0 3 3.06 5.00 0.39 5.00 3.00 11 12 Power Trail Grade Separation Harmony 0 3 3.37 5.00 2.87 5.00 3.26 8 13 Poudre Trail Grade SeparationTaft Hill 0 3 2.02 5.00 0.43 5.00 2.800 14 14 Long View Trail Grade Separation Trilby 0 3 1.56 5.00 0.34 5.00 2.70 16 16 Kechter Road Bridge I-25 0 3 4.10 1.28 5.00 5.00 2.84 12
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 17 ID PROJECTLOCATION COONNECTIVVITY SCORE MUULTI- MODAL SCCORE COONGESTION REELIEF SCCORE SAAFETY MIITIGATION SCCORE PRROJECT REEACH SCCORE REEVENUE GEENERATION SCCORE WEEIGHTED SCCORE RAANK 18 SH 14 Widening I-25 to Riverside 5 5 3.37 5.00 4.94 5.00 4.67 1 20 US 34/US 36 Estes Park 0 5 2.13 3.00 2.34 0.37 1.8928 21 US 34 Widening Boise to Rocky Mountain Ave 5 5 4.36 4.86 4.67 2.49 4.32 3 22 Taft Avenue Improvements 11th St to Westshore Dr; US 34 intersection 0 5 2.90 1.82 1.73 2.49 2.1824 23 SH 402 Widening US 287 to I-25 5 5 3.42 3.01 2.96 2.49 3..62 5 24 Boyd Lake Avenue Extension LCR 20C to SH 402 0 3 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.49 1.0637 25 US 34 Widening Centerra Parkway to LCR 3 5 3 3.94 2.08 5.00 2.49 3.46 6 26 LCR 3 US 34 to Crossroads 5 3 0.41 1.01 0.14 2.49 2.1525 27 Taft Avenue Widening 14th Street SW to 28th Street SW 0 3 1.82 1.57 1.02 2.49 1.6233 28 US 34/US 287 Loveland 0 5 3.42 1.35 1.12 2.49 2.1426 29 SH 392 Bridge Improvements Poudre River (1/2 mile east of LCR 3) 0 3 3.99 1.02 1.33 0.17 1.5035 301st StreetUS 287 to Franklin Avenue 031.611.310.890.141.043831 LCR 17 (Berthoud Parkway) LCR 10e to SH 56 0 2 2.02 1.13 0.66 0.14 0.95 39 32 Moraine Ave (US 36) Multimodal Davis St to Mary's Lake Road 5 3 3.22 1.35 1.84 0.37 2.50 22 33 US 36 Intersection Improvements Mary's Lake Road/High Drive 0 2 2.28 1.07 1.76 0.37 1.12 36 34 US 34 Multimodal Trail Connection Mall Road to Rocky Mountain National Park 5 2 1.19 5.00 0.74 0.37 2.6118 35 SH 1 Interchange Improvements I-25 0 1 1.87 1.04 1.57 0.16 0.86 40 36SH 1 Intersection Improvements LCR 62E 0 2 0.57 1.00 0.19 0.160.604237 LCR 9 SH 1 to Owl Canyon Road 0 2 0.47 1.10 0.44 0.16 0.62 41
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 18 ID PROJECTLOCATION COONNECTIVVITY SCORE MUULTI- MODAL SCCORE COONGESTION REELIEF SCCORE SAAFETY MIITIGATION SCCORE PRROJECT REEACH SCCORE REEVENUE GEENERATION SCCORE WEEIGHTED SCCORE RAANK 38 LCR 58 SH 1 to I-25 (new interchange) 5 1 0.67 1.03 0.51 0.16 1.5334 40 LCR 5 (Main Street) Harmony to SH 14 5 3 1.35 1.41 0.93 0.12 2.0127 41 LCR 1 (Latham Parkway) Kechter Road to Harmony 5 3 0.36 1.01 0.07 0.12 1.6632 42 LCR 1 (Latham Parkway) Buss Grove to SH 14 5 3 0.31 1.04 0.13 0.12 1.6631 43 Harmony Road I-25 to LCR 1 5 1 2.02 2.93 2.24 0.12 2.3123 44 LCR 3 Bridge Big Thompson River 0 1 0.10 1.00 0.03 0.10 0.36 43 45 Lemay RealignmentLincoln to Conifer 0 3 3.70 3.33 0.64 5.00 2.82 13 46 East Prospect Road Sharp Point to I-25 0 5 5.00 1.92 2.19 5.00 3.169 47 South Timberline Stetson Creek to Trilby 0 3 3.31 1.99 1.01 5.00 2.50 21 48 College & Trilby Fort Collins 0 5 4.04 2.02 3.07 5.00 3.06 10 QNIDBSRGHFGKHFGSDCHMXDKKNVVDQDHCDMSHEHDCAXSGDRTALHSSHMFBNLLTMHSX@RADHMFSGDBNLLTMHSXRSNOOQHNQHSXOQNIDBS
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 19
5. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PRIORITIES
Maximum Contribution to State Highway Projects
Of the 43 eligible regional projects, 17 are located on the State Highway system. The TAC and RTF discussed and
agreed that these State Highway projects are important to the local communities and to regional transportation.
While these projects are eligible for additional Federal and State funding sources (that other non-State Highway
OQNIDBSRL@XMNSADDKHFHAKDENQ~SGDKNB@K@FDMBHDRODQRODBSHUDNMSGDMDDC@MCOQHNQHSXNESGDRDOQNIDBSRL@XMNS
@KHFMVHSGRODQRODBSHUDG@SHR~L@XMNSOQHNritize these projects for Federal/State funding. The TAC and
RTF recommend a maximum contribution of the new funding source (assumed to be a ¼ penny sales tax) to
state highway projects as follows:
Major projects are defined as being linear roadway expansion projects and interchange projects, and minor projects
include intersection, bridge, and eligible trail improvement projects. The remainder of state highway project funding
could come from state, federal, local or private funding sources; the new funding source could be used to leverage
other funding sources. As noted on Table 2,some of the regional projects have existing funding commitments in
place. Project #1 (I-25: Hwy402 to Hwy 66) is a multimillion-dollar project, and the TAC and RTF have recommended a
$10M allocation of sales tax to this project.
The 40% maximum contribution on major state highway projects applies to the following projects:
Project #18 (SH 14 Widening: I-25 to Riverside)
Project #21 (US 34 Widening: Boise to Rocky Mountain Ave)
Project #23 (SH 402 Widening: US 287 to I-25)
Project #25 (US 34 Widening: Centerra Parkway to LCR 3)
QNIDBSª®NQ@HMDUD®±@UHRSSN@QXR@JDN@C
Project #35 (SH 1 & I-25 Interchange Improvements)
Project #38 (I-25 & SH 58 new interchange)
The 80% maximum contribution on minor state highway projects applies to the following projects:
Project #8 (US 34 and US 36 Intersections at Mall Road)
Project #16 (Kechter Road Bridge over I-25)
Project #20 (US 34/US 36 Intersection)
Project #28 (US 34/US 287 Intersection)
Project #29 (SH 392 Bridge Improvements over Poudre River)
QNIDBSª®®®± MSDQRDBSHNM LOQNUDLDMSR@S@QXR@JDN@C HFGQHUD
Project #34 (US 34 Multimodal Trail: Mall Road to RMNP)
40%•Major State Highway Projects
80%•Minor State Highway Projects
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 20
Project #36 (SH 1 & LCR 62E Intersection)
Project #48 (College & Trilby Intersection)
Project Short List
As described in Chapter 4~SGDEHQRSRSDOHMSGDOQNIDBSOQHNQHSHY@SHNMOQNBDRRV@RSNAQHMFD@BGBNLLTMHSX@FDMBXR
top priority project into the first tier of projects. Tier 1 is composed of 10 projects – the top priority project identified
by each of the 8 municipalities, Larimer County, and CDOT. The Tier 1 projects are ordered based on their total score
such that the Tier 1 project with the highest total score (as described in Chapter 4) is first on the list and first to be
eligible for funding from the sales tax. The Tier 1 projects are shown in blue on Figure 3 and are listed in order of their
total score in the top section of Table 6. A maximum of $15M would be contributed to any single Tier 1 project. There
are two Tier 1 projects (Project #2 Owl Canyon and Project #40 LCR 5) that exceed $15 million and would be divided
into two phases. There are five Tier 1 projects on State Highways. The new revenue source would contribute up to
40% or 80% of the total project cost for these projects, depending on the type of project, as detailed in the preceding
section. Project #1 (I-25: Hwy 402 to Hwy 66) is a multimillion-dollar project, and the TAC and RTF have
recommended a $10M allocation of sales tax to this project, which would be allocated over the first five years of the
sales tax ($2M in each year). Other state, federal, local or private funds would be required to complete these projects.
In total, the new revenue source would contribute $96M (in 2018 dollars) toward the ten Tier 1 projects (including I-
25). Based on the funding proposal described in Chapter 1, the sales tax revenue portion of the Tier 1 project funding
would be realized by 2025. The project costs have been inflated at 4 percent per year based on the anticipated year
of expenditure, as detailed in Table 6. Tier 1 projects are shown above the blue line.
After completion of the Tier 1 projects, the next tier of projects (Tier 2) is ordered based on total score. The projects
that can be funded are based on the year of expenditure costs compared to the available revenue. The brown
projects (on FFigure 3) would begin receiving funding in after completion of the Tier 1 projects.
Based on the revenue assumptions, a total of 27 projects could be funded, including one of the phased projects from
Tier 1 (Project #2 Owl Canyon). A total of $300M (in 2018 dollars) would be available for regional transportation
infrastructure projects (excluding I-25). The cumulative project allocation based on year of expenditure is
approximately $500M (matching the total available revenue shown in Table 1). Projects anticipated to be funded over
the 20-year period in are shown above the brown line in Table 6.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 21
FIGURE 3. SHORT LIST OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 22 TABLE 6. PRIORITIZED PROJECT LIST ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION TOOP PRIORITY FOR COOMMUNITY/ AGENCY COOST REEQUEST TOOTAL SCCORE RAANK SAALES TAAX POORTION (2018$) OTTHER FUNDING REQUIRED (STTATE, FEDERAL,, LOOCAL PRIVATE)) REEMAINDER FOR PHASE BB OF PROJECT CURRENT PROPOSAL CUUMULATIVE ALLLOCATION (2018$) YEAR OF EXXPENDITURE (YOE) ALLLOCATION (BBASED ON YOE) CUUMULATIVE ALLLOCATION (BBASED ON YOE) 1 I-25 Hwy 402 to Hwy 66 (Segments 5&6) CDOT $10.00 44.53 2 $10.00 $10M in funding “off the top” 21 US 34 Widening Boise to Rocky Mountain Ave Loveland $11.20 44.32 3 $7.68 $3.52 $7.68 2020 $8.31 $8.31 45 Lemay Realignment Lincoln to Conifer Fort Collins $10.00 22.82 13 $10.00 $17.68 2021 $11.25 $19.56 2 Owl Canyon Improvements I-25 to US 287 Larimer County $28.60 22.63 17 $15.00 $13.60 $32.68 2022 $17.55 $37.10 32 Moraine Ave (US 36) Multimodal Davis St to Mary's Lake Road Estes Park $20.00 22.50 22 $8.00 $12.00 $40.68 2022 $9.36 $46.46 40 LCR 5 (Main Street) Harmony to SH 14 Timnath $23.40 22.01 27 $15.00 $8.40 $55.68 2023 $18.25 $64.71 29 SH 392 Bridge Improvements Poudre River (1/2 mile east of LCR 3) Windsor $12.00 11.50 35 $9.60 $2.40 $65.28 2024 $12.15 $76.86 30 1st Street US 287 to Franklin Avenue Berthoud $5.00 11.0438 $5.00 $70.28 2024 $6.33 $83.19 35 SH 1 Interchange Improvements I-25 Wellington $29.00 00.86 40 $12.00 $17.50 $82.28 2025 $15.79 $98.98 44 LCR 3 Bridge Big Thompson River Johnstown $3.50 00.36 43 $3.50 $85.78 2025 $4.61 $103.58 TTier 1 18 SH 14 Widening I-25 to Riverside $50.00 44.67 1 $20.00 $30.00 $105.78 2027 $28.47 $132.05 5 LCR 19 Expansion Horsetooth to Harmony, intersection improvements at Trilby, 57th St, Coyote Ridge $4.50 33..76 4 $4.50 $110.28 2027 $6.40 $138.45 23 SH 402 Widening US 287 to I-25 $28.80 33.62 5 $11.52 $17.28 $121.80 2028 $17.05 $155.51 25 US 34 Widening Centerra Parkway to LCR 3 $10.60 33.46 6 $4.24 $6.36 $126.04 2028 $6.28 $161.78 3 LCR 17 Expansion Pyrenees Drive to 57th Street $26.25 33.30 7 $26.25 $152.29 2030 $42.03 $203.81 12 Power Trail Grade Separation Harmony $2.80 33.26 8 $2.80 $155.09 2030 $4.48 $208.29 46 East Prospect Road Sharp Point to I-25 $4.00 33.16 9 $4.00 $159.09 2030 $6.40 $214.70 48 College & Trilby Fort Collins $1.60 33.06 10 $1.60 $160.69 2030 $2.56 $217.26 11 Timberline Grade Separation Annabel Ave to Suniga Rd (BNSF and Vine) $25.00 33.00 11 $25.00 $185.69 2032 $43.29 $260.55 16 Kechter Road Bridge I-25 $10.00 22.84 12 $10.00 $195.69 2032 $17.32 $277.87 13 Poudre Trail Grade Separation Taft Hill $5.00 22.80 14 $5.00 $200.69 2033 $9.00 $286.87 10 Timberline Expansion Mulberry to Vine $8.00 22.71 15 $8.00 $208.69 2033 $14.41 $301.28 14 Long View Trail Grade Separation Trilby $5.00 22.70 16 $5.00 $213.69 2034 $9.36 $310.64 2 B Owl Canyon Improvements I-25 to US 287 17 $13.60 $227.29 2035$26.49 $337.14 34 US 34 Multimodal Trail Connection Mall Road to Rocky Mountain National Park $10.00 22..61 18 $8.00 $2.00 $235.29 2035 $15.58 $352.72 4 LCR 5 Expansion Harmony Road to 1/2 mile south of Crossroads $55.30 22.59 19 $55.30 $290.59 2039 $126.02 $478.73 9 LCR 13 Hwy 392 to LCR 13/LCR 30 $7.75 22.51 20 $7.75 $298.34 2039 $17.66 $496.39 47 South Timberline Stetson Creek to Trilby $2.00 22.50 21 $2.00 $300.34 2039 $4.56 $500.95 FFunding Line 43 Harmony Road I-25 to LCR 1 $6.50 22.3123$6.50 22 Taft Avenue Improvements 11th St to Westshore Dr; US 34 intersection $5.30 22.18 24 $5.30 26 LCR 3 US 34 to Crossroads $5.40 22.15 25 $5.40 28 US 34/US 287 Loveland $8.10 22.1426 $6.48 $1.62 40 B LCR 5 (Main Street) Harmony to SH 14 27 $8.40
FFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 23 ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION TOOP PRIORITY FOR COOMMUNITY/ AGENCY COOST REEQUEST TOOTAL SCCORE RAANK SAALES TAAX POORTION (2018$) OTTHER FUNDING REQUIRED (STTATE, FEDERAL,, LOOCAL PRIVATE)) REEMAINDER FOR PHASE BB OF PROJECT CURRENTPROPOSAL CUUMULATIVE ALLLOCATION (2018$) YEAR OF EXXPENDITURE (YOE) ALLLOCATION (BBASED ON YOE) CUUMULATIVE ALLLOCATION (BBASED ON YOE) 20 US 34/US 36 Estes Park $6.00 11.89 28 $2.40 $3.60 7 LCR 28 (57th Street) US 287 to LCR 11C $10.75 11.74 29 $10.75 8 US 34 and US 36 Intersections at Mall Road $4.00 11.72 30 $3.20 $0.80 42 LCR 1 (Latham Parkway) Buss Grove to SH 14 $13.90 11.66 31 $13.90 41 LCR 1 (Latham Parkway) Kechter Road to Harmony $11.30 11.66 32 $11.30 27 Taft Avenue Widening 14th Street SW to 28th Street SW $10.40 11.62 33 $10.40 38 LCR 58 SH 1 to I-25 (new interchange) $35.00 11.53 34 $14.00 $21.00 33 US 36 Intersection Improvements Mary's Lake Road/High Drive $5.00 11.12 36 $4.00 $1.00 24 Boyd Lake Avenue Extension LCR 20C to SH 402 $8.40 11.06 37 $8.40 31 LCR 17 (Berthoud Parkway) LCR 10e to SH 56 $2.00 00.95 39 $2.00 37 LCR 9 SH 1 to Owl Canyon Road $3.00 00.622 41 $3.00 36 SH 1 Intersection Improvements LCR 62E $3.00 00.60 42 $2.40 $0.60 Note: All costs shown are in $Millions.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 24
6. ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE
Over the 20-year life of the tax, there will need to be ongoing oversight and policy direction for project funding
decisions and updates to the project lists. The County wants to share this responsibility with municipal partners
throughout the County and proposes to do so through collaborative groups at two tiers, similar to the ones formed
to craft the current Prioritized Project List. An overall Policy Council would be formed, and each entity would appoint
a member of the Policy Council to represent their interests and who could be either elected or appointed officials.
Two Technical Advisory Committees are proposed to support the work of the Policy Council. One TAC would be
formed for Transportation Infrastructure Projects, and a second for Transit Projects. Both TACs would make funding
and prioritization recommendations to the Policy Council.
Policy Council
The Policy Council will be composed of 9 voting members – an elected or appointed official from each of the 8
municipalities, plus Larimer County. CDOT, the North Front Range MPO, and the Upper Front Range TPR will be non-
voting members of the Policy Council.
A primary responsibility of the Policy Council will be to maintain an updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for all
transportation projects. The I-25 contribution will be allocated during the first five years and held as a local match.
Policy Council approval will be needed to release the funds to CDOT for the project. The portion of the CIP for
infrastructure projects (50% of the Half Penny) is the list that the TAC and RTF have developed during this process.
The transit portion of CIP will initially be developed for 15% of the Half Penny proceeds. The Policy Council can use
the 5% overlap between infrastructure and transit to make allocation adjustments. The Policy Council will also have
discretion over elevating projects based on leveraging local match and/or other funding sources.
Under normal operations, the Policy Council will operate using a supermajority vote structure, requiring a 2/3 vote of
those present (typically, 6 of 9). A supermajority is recommended to demonstrate regional collaboration in the
decisions made by the Policy Council and to avoid moving forward with controversial projects/decisions. An
affirmative supermajority vote would enable a proposed action to move forward to the County Commissioners.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 25
Any member of the Policy Council could call for a weighted vote. If a weighted vote is called, the topic would be
immediately tabled until the next Policy Council meeting, at which time the weighted vote would be enacted. The
weighted vote would be structured such that Fort Collins (with the highest population) would receive 5 votes, Larimer
County and Loveland would each receive 3 votes, and Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Windsor, and
Wellington would each receive 1 vote. The weighted vote would require a simple majority of votes for a proposed
action to move forward to the County Commissioners.
Infrastructure TAC
The Infrastructure TAC will be composed of 9 voting members – an appointed staff member from each of the 8
municipalities, plus Larimer County. CDOT, the North Front Range MPO, and the Upper Front Range TPR will be non-
voting members of the Infrastructure TAC. The Infrastructure TAC will operate using a supermajority vote structure.
Any proposal presented to the Infrastructure TAC would require a 2/3 vote of those present (typically 6 of 9) to be
elevated to the Policy Council for consideration.
Transit TAC
The Transit TAC will be composed of 9 voting members – an appointed staff member from each of the 8
municipalities, plus Larimer County. The Transit TAC appointees are anticipated to be transit operators for those
communities that currently operate transit. CDOT, the North Front Range MPO, and the Upper Front Range TPR will
be non-voting members of the Transit TAC. The Transit TAC vote will bDVDHFGSDCA@RDCNMSGDBNLLTMHSXR
commitment to transit. Each member will receive one vote as a baseline, and additional votes will be given to those
communities that fTMCSQ@MRHSGHRVHKKADB@KBTK@SDC@RSGDBNLLTMHSXR@MMT@KSQ@MRHSATCFDSDWBKTCHng any state
or federal subsidy) per capita. In the case of communities that cross county boundaries, the calculation would be
based on community totals (funding and population) rather than only the portion within Larimer County. The number
of additional votes to be allocated based on transit funding commitment will be established during the negotiation
process for the Intergovernmental Agreements which will control the overall governance process for the regional
transportation tax proceeds. The weighted voSDB@KBTK@SHNMVHKKAD@CITRSDC@MMT@KKXA@RDCNMBNLLTMHSHDR
allocation of their overall budget to transit. Weighting votes based on agency commitment of funds to transit could
serve to encourage regional investment in a well-developed, regional transit network.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 26
7. CHANGES TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT LIST
As described in Chapter 5, the Transportation Infrastructure Project List is divided into two tiers. Tier 1 projects (above
SGDAKTDKHMDHMBKTCDD@BGBNLLTMHSX@FDMBXRSNOOQHNQHSXOQNIDBS~NQCDQDCA@RDCNMSGDOQNIDBSRSNS@KRBNQDTRHMF
the evaluation methodology established by the TAC. Tier 2 projects (between the blue line and the brown line) are
those projects that are anticipated to be funded within the 20-year time horizon of the sales tax, based on the 50%
@KKNB@SHNMNESGD @KEDMMXR@KDRS@WGDHDQOQNIDBSR@QDNQCDQDCA@RDCNMSGDOQNIDBSRSNS@KRBNQDQNIDBSR
below the brown line are not anticipated to receive sales tax funding in the 20-year period; however, they would be
eligible if revenue is available.
Many of the municipalities, the County, and CDOT continue to pursue other revenue sources for the transportation
infrastructure projects. Pursuit of other funding sources is encouraged, and the TAC and RTF have expressed that the
process should be structured to avoid disincentivizing pursuit of other funding. Likewise, the TAC and RTF have
expressed the value of the transportation infrastructure projects in solving regional transportation problems – by the
nature of the eligibility criteria, these projects benefit the people of Larimer County and should not be treated as
singularly benefiting the sponsoring agency. The process described below strives to balance these two sentiments,
while also recognizing that priorities change, and there will inevitably be new regional transportation infrastructure
project needs that are not included in the current project list.
Project Readiness (Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects)
The transportation infrastructure projects are in varying states of project readiness – some have gone through final
design, while others are conceptual. The year of expenditure associated with each project (as identified in the project
list) is b@RDCRNKDKXNMSGDOQNIDBSRQ@MJHMFVHSGHDQ¬OQNIDBSR@RRTLDCSNADETMCDCEHQRS and the estimated
revenues available in each year. The year of expenditure does not account for project readiness. The Infrastructure
TAC will be responsible for developing a 5-year CIP that allocates funds to projects in each year based on anticipated
revenue and project phase (e.g., design, right-of-way, construction). If a project is not ready for construction when
the construction funds are available (either because the design and permitting are not complete or because the
additional funds required for construction are not available, in the case of state highway projects), the next project on
the list would be eligible to receive the funding. The bypassed project would then have first priority for receiving
funding in subsequent years.
Tier 1 Projects
In the case of Tier 1 projects, if a sponsoring agency:
1.Is unable to secure the other funding required to complete the project by the time the sales tax revenue
is available for that project (in the case of State Highway projects); or
2.Has secured full funding for the project through another funding source; or
3.Has established a different top priority project, then
the sponsoring agency may propose to move another priority project into Tier 1. The new Tier 1 project would be
NQCDQDCA@RDCNMSGDOQNIDBSRSNtal score compared to other Tier 1 projects. The sales tax allocation to the new Tier 1
project would be capped at the amount originally allocated to the top priority project being replaced.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 27
If a new project (i.e., not on the existing list) is desired for consideration as a replacement Tier 1 project, it would be
subject to the eligibility requirements and evaluation process previously established. A replacement Tier 1 project
would require an affirmative vote of the Infrastructure TAC and the Policy Council.
Tier 2 Projects
If a sponsoring agency faces one of the three conditions noted above (unable to secure other funding, has secured
full funding, or has identified a replacement project) for a Tier 2 project, the integration of a replacement project will
follow these protocols:
x A new project that is replacing a Tier 2 project would be scored based on the established evaluation criteria
and would be slotted in the project list based on its score relative to the other Tier 2 projects (and those
below the funding line). The sales tax allocation to the replacement project would be capped at the amount
originally allocated to the Tier 2 project, and the replacement project could only be slotted in at the same
position as the project being replaced or lower. That is, the replacement project could not move into a
higher position on the project list, even if its score is higher. This will enable communities to adequately plan
for the timing of project funding without the risk of a project being “bumped” to a later year.
x A new project that is nnot replacing a project on the list would be scored using the established evaluation
process and would be added to the project list below the anticipated funding line. That is, the new project
would be below the Tier 2 projects (even if it scores higher than some of the Tier 2 projects) and would be
eligible to receive sales tax revenue after all Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects are funded, if revenue is available.
Any additional project needs that may arise would be subject to the eligibility requirements previously established.
Any replacement of a Tier 2 project or addition of a new project to the list would require an affirmative vote of the
Infrastructure TAC and the Policy Council.
Reimbursement (Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects)
If a sponsoring agency secures full funding for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 project in advance of funding availability through this
revenue source, the project could be built by the sponsor and a reimbursement agreement would be signed to
reimburse the sponsor when the project comes up on the timed priority list. This option would facilitate early
construction of some regional projects, and perhaps lower costs with less inflation. The reimbursement agreements
would need to consider the timing and amount of reimbursement to ensure that any benefit of the accelerated
construction timing accrues to the regional effort and does not negatively impact the availability or timing of funding
for other projects. The opportunity to accelerate project construction could occur because a sponsoring agency
secured bond financing or alternative sources of cash funding such as developer contributions, grants or other
revenues. The reimbursement amount would be capped at the project expenditure cost (including bonding costs) but
repaid at the time of the assigned construction year. This will enable the regional transportation funding pool to
realize the cost savings associated with the expedited construction timing.
The reimbursement option is an alternative to the project replacement options described above and would be
requested at the discretion of the sponsoring agency. The reimbursement agreement would require an affirmative
vote of the Infrastructure TAC and the Policy Council to move forward.
FF E L S B U R G H O L T & U L L E V I G
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY PAGE 28
8. PROJECT OVERVIEWS
This chapter includes one-page overviews of each of the 43 regional transportation infrastructure projects. The
projects are ordered by Project ID.
Interstate 25 is the north/south spine of Northern Colorado connecting Larimer County to many communities and other major regional travel corridors such as SH 14, SH 392, and US 34. The approximately 12 miles of I-25 between SH 402 and SH 66 is currently two lanes in each direction. Bustang, CDOTʼs interregional and intercity express bus service, uses I-25 to connect Fort Collins and downtown Denver.
Interstate 25 is the primary north/south connection of the Colorado Front Range connecting Denver to Larimer County and many northern Colorado communities. Improvements on I-25 from Denver to Wyoming have been planned for years to improve safety and trip reliability for residents, employees, and visitors. Planned improvements are needed to reduce crashes and fatalities and to decrease travel time and increase trip reliability.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xIncrease highway capacity by adding an Express Lane in each direction
xInterchange improvements
xReconstruct aging and obsolete infrastructure Total Project Cost: $676 million
Current funding commitments: $204 million from Senate Bill 267 and $20 million from a BUILD Grant A new countywide funding source would contribute partial funding ($$10 million) towards this project; additional federal, state, local, and/or private funding would be required to complete this project. PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to I-25 between SH 402 and SH 66 will:
xIncrease trip reliability for nearly 90,000 residents, employees, and visitors traveling this interstate connection each day
xReduce congestion and delay
xSupport transit reliability for Bustang
xImprove safety
Proposed I-25 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
INTERSTATE 25
PROJECT 1
Three general purpose lanes and one Express Lane in each direction
OOQNWHL@SDKX¬LHKDRHMKDMFSG~VK@MXNMN@CRO@MREQNL §°VDRSSN³²HMQTQ@K@QHLDQNTMSXITRSMNQSGNE NQSNKKHMR@QHLDQNTMSXG@RBNLOKDSDCHLOQNUDLDMSRSNVK@MXNMN@CADSVDDMNTMSXN@C¬°@MCNTMSXN@C¬GNVDUDQ~SGDRDFLDMSRADSVDDM³²@MC¬@MCADSVDDM¬°@MC §°QDL@HMTMHLOQNUDC
VK@MXNMN@COQNUHCDR@M@KSDQM@SDD@RS§VDRSBNMMDBSHNMENQOQHU@SD~BNLLDQBH@K~@MCQDBQD@SHNM@KUDGHBKDRGDVDRSDMCNESGDBNQQHCNQQDL@HMRTMO@UDC~QDRTKSHMFHMR@EDSXHRRTDR@MCDWNQAHS@MS@MMT@KL@HMSDM@MBDBNRSRENQ@QHLDQNTMSXGDRDFLDMSNEVK@MXNMN@CEQNL §°SNNTMSXN@C¬°G@RE@HKHMFO@UDLDMS~MNRGNTKCDQR~UDQXM@QQNVAQHCFDRSQTBSTQDR~@MCHM@CDPT@SDCQ@HM@FD@MCTSHKHSHDR
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xMDSQ@UDKK@MDHMD@BGCHQDBSHNM
x MSDQRDBSHNMHLOQNUDLDMSR
xCCHSHNMNE³O@UDCRGNTKCDQR
xQ@HM@FD@MCTSHKHSXHLOQNUDLDMSR
x@EDSXATEEDQR
xTQMK@MDR@SL@INQHMSDQRDBSHNMR
xSQTBSTQDRQDOK@BDLDMSR
Total Project Cost: $28.6 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to owl canyon road will:
xQNUHCD@BNMRHRSDMSQN@CV@XBQNRR§RDBSHNMSGQNTFGNTSSGDBNQQHCNQ
xQD@SD@QDKH@AKD@MCR@ED@KSDQM@SDD@RS§VDRSBNMMDBSHNMADSVDDM
§°@MC³²
xQNUHCDR@EDQDBQD@SHNM@K@BBDRRSNDC D@SGDQ@JDR@MCQ@O@GN
}NNRDUDKS@SHNM@K NQDRSR
xNLOKXVHSGO@UHMFRS@MC@QCR
Proposed owl canyon Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
OwL canyon road
PROJECT 2
@QHLDQNTMSXN@C¬²GHDKCSQDDS@ESUDMTDHR@MNQSGRNTSGQN@CBNMMDBSHMF NQSNKKHMR~NUDK@MC~@MCDQSGNTC¬²HR@O@Q@KKDKQNTSDSN³²GDQN@CEQNLXQDMDDRQHUD@OOQNWHL@SDKX¼LHKDRNTSGNE @QLNMXN@CHM NQSNKKHMRSN°²SGSQDDS³HMNUDK@MCHRBTQQDMSKXNMDK@MDHMD@BGCHQDBSHNM
¬²HR@L@HMSQ@UDKBNMMDBSHNMADSVDDM NQSNKKHMR~NUDK@MC~@MCDQSGNTC¬²BNMMDBSR³²MNQSGNE NQSNKKHMRSN³²HMDQSGNTC@MC@KRNBNMMDBSRSN®¯~@L@INQD@RSVDRSBNQQHCNQHM@QHLDQNTMSX¬²GHDKCRSQDDSHM NQSNKKHMRHR¯K@MDRSNSGDMNQSG~@MC¬²@ESUDMTDHMNUDK@MCHR¯K@MDRSNSGDRNTSGGHR¯°LHKDRDBSHNMHR@ANSSKDMDBJ~@MCSQ@UDKDQREQDPTDMSKXDWODQHDMBDCDK@X
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xN@CV@XDWO@MRHNMSN¯§K@MDROKTR@BDMSDQSTQMK@MD
x MSDQRDBSHNMHLOQNUDLDMSRSN@CCQDRRR@EDSX@MCBNMFDRSHNMOQNAKDLR@SQHKAXN@C®¯@MC°²SGSQDDS³
xHCDRGNTKCDQRENQAHJHMF@MCDLDQFDMBXRSNOOHMF
Total Project Cost: $26.25 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to lcr 17 will:
x MBQD@RDB@O@BHSX@MCSQHOQDKH@AHKHSXNM@L@INQBNMMDBSNQADSVDDM NQSNKKHMR~NUDK@MC~@MCDQSGNTC
xQD@SDBNMSHMTHSXEQNLTKADQQXSQDDSHMNQSGDQM NQSNKKHMRSN¬¯SGSQDDSHMRNTSGDQMNUDK@MC
xQD@SD@LNQDQDKH@AKD@KSDQM@SDMNQSGRNTSGQNTSDSN³²
x LOQNUDR@EDSX@KNMFSGDBNQQHCNQ
Proposed LCR 17 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 17
PROJECT 3
@QHLDQNTMSXN@C°HRKNB@SDCHMD@RSDQM@QHLDQNTMSXGDQN@CHR@MNQSGRNTSGBNMMDBSDQNEL@INQD@RSVDRSQN@CRRTBG@R @QLNMXN@C~DBGSDQN@C~ ®´~@MCQNRRQN@CRNTKDU@QC°EQNL @QLNMXN@CHMHLM@SGSN®«NMSGDVDRSDQMDCFDNEHMCRNQHRBTQQDMSKXSVNK@MDRVHSGM@QQNVRGNTKCDQR
°HR@O@Q@KKDKQNTSDSN §°@MCBNMMDBSR ¬¯@MC ®¯RCDUDKNOLDMSBNMSHMTDRSNNBBTQHMD@RSDQM@QHLDQNTMSX~°HRHMBQD@RHMFKXSQ@UDKDC°G@RADBNLD@L@INQQNTSDENQSQ@UDKADSVDDMBNLLTMHSHDRHMD@RSDQM@QHLDQNTMSXRTBG@R
NGMRSNVM~NUDK@MC~HMCRNQ~HLM@SG~@MC NQSNKKHMRR@O@Q@KKDKQNTSDSN §°~°LTRSB@QQXGHFGUNKTLDRNESQ@EEHBVGDMSGDQD@QDHMBHCDMSRNM §°
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xN@CV@XDWO@MRHNMSN¯§K@MDRVHSG@Q@HRDCLDCH@M
xSGQNTFGK@MDRHMD@BGCHQDBSHNMVHSG@MC@Q@HRDCLDCH@M
x MSDQRDBSHNMHLOQNUDLDMSRHMBKTCHMFSQ@EEHBRHFM@KR@MCNQQNTMC@ANTSR@SSGD®±~®~@MC®«HMSDQRDBSHNMR
xHCDV@KJR
Total Project Cost: $55.3 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to lcr 5 will:
x MBQD@RDB@O@BHSX@MCSQHOQDKH@AHKHSXNM@L@INQBNMMDBSNQADSVDDMNUDK@MC~HMCRNQ~@MCHLM@SG
xQD@SD@QDKH@AKD@KSDQM@SDMNQSGRNTSGQNTSDSN §°
xCCRHCDV@KJBNMMDBSHNMRSNDMG@MBDODCDRSQH@MR@EDSX@MCBNLENQS
Proposed LCR 5 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 5
PROJECT 4
@QHLDQNTMSXN@C¬´@ES HKKN@CHR@MNQSGRNTSGQN@CBNMMDBSHMF NQSNKKHMR@MCNUDK@MC¬´@ES HKKN@CHM NQSNKKHMRHKRNMUDMTDHMNUDK@MCOQNUHCDR@O@Q@KKDKQNTSDSNGHDKCRSQDDS¬²@MC³²¬´HRBTQQDMSKX@§K@MDQN@CVHSG@BDMSDQSTQMK@MD@MCRGNTKCDQRGHROQNIDBSENBTRDRNMTOFQ@CHMFHMSDQRDBSHNMR@KNMF¬´@S°²SGSQDDSHMNUDK@MC~@MC@SNXNSDHCFDQ@HK~QHKAXN@C~@MC @QLNMXN@CHM NQSNKKHMR~@MCVHCDMHMFSGDRDBSHNMNE¬´EQNL @QLNMXN@CSN NQRDSNNSGN@C
¬´HR@L@HMSQ@UDKBNMMDBSHNMADSVDDM NQSNKKHMR@MCNUDK@MC~OQNUHMF@BNMMDBSHNMADSVDDM³²HM NQSNKKHMR@MC®¯HMNUDK@MCRCDUDKNOLDMSBNMSHMTDRSNNBBTQADSVDDM NQSNKKHMR@MCNUDK@MC~¬´HRHMBQD@RHMFKXSQ@UDKDCB@TRHMFBNMFDRSHNM@MCCDK@X
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xN@CV@XDWO@MRHNMADSVDDM NQRDSNNSGN@C@MC @QLNMXN@CSN@¯§K@MDQN@CVHSG@BDMSDQSTQMK@MD
x MSDQRDBSHNMHLOQNUDLDMSR@S @QLNMXN@C~QHKAXN@C~NXNSDHCFDQ@HK~@MC°²SGSQDDS
xHFM@KHY@SHNM@SQHKAXN@CCCHSHNMNEAHJDK@MDR@MCRHCDV@KJR NQRDSNNSGN@CSN @QLNMXN@C
Total Project Cost: $9.5 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRаHKKHNMHMEDCDQ@KETMCHMFPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to lcr 19 will:
xQD@SD@R@EDQDMUHQNMLDMSENQ@KKSQ@UDKDQR
x MBQD@RDB@O@BHSX@MCSQHOQDKH@AHKHSXNM@L@INQBNMMDBSNQADSVDDM NQSNKKHMR@MCNUDK@MC
xQD@SD@LNQDQDKH@AKDMNQSGRNTSG@KSDQM@SDQNTSDSN³²
x LOQNUDE@BHKHSHDRENQV@KJHMF@MCAHJHMF
Proposed LCR 19 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 19
PROJECT 5
NB@SDCITRSVDRSNENXC@JDS@SD@QJ~°²SGSQDDSOQNUHCDRENQD@RS§VDRSSQ@UDKHMVDRSDQMNUDK@MCGDRDBSHNMNE°²SGSQDDSADSVDDM³²@MC@QHLDQNTMSXN@C¬¬RSQDDSHRBTQQDMSKXSVNK@MDRVHSGKHLHSDCBDMSDQSTQMK@MDRGDQTQ@KRSQDDSCNDRMNSG@UDRGNTKCDQR
°²SGSQDDSHRSGDNMKXBNMSHMTNTRD@RS§VDRSRSQDDSADSVDDM®¯@MC ®´SG@SBNMMDBSR¬¬SN³²°²SGSQDDSG@RADBNLD@GD@UHKXTRDCBNQQHCNQ~O@QSHBTK@QKXEQNL NQSNKKHMR@MCNUDK@MCGDOQNIDBSVNTKCHLOQNUD@BNMMDBSHNMADSVDDMSVNQDFHNM@KBNQQHCNQR~HMBQD@RHMFQDKH@AHKHSX@MCBNMMDBSHUHSX
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xDBNMRSQTBSK@MDRVHSG@BDMSDQSTQMK@MDVGDQDMDDCDC
xCC±§ENNSO@UDCRGNTKCDQREQNL¬®SN¬¬
x MSDQRDBSHNMHLOQNUDLDMSR@SSGDHMSDQRDBSHNMNE°²SGSQDDS@MC¬® Total Project Cost: $10.75 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to 57th street will:
xQNUHCDQDKH@AHKHSXSN@GD@UHKXTRDCD@RS§VDRSBNQQHCNQADSVDDMNHRDUDMTD@MC³²
xCCRHCDV@KJR@MCAHJDK@MDRRGNTKCDQR
xCCSTQMK@MDRSNHLOQNUDBNQQHCNQR@EDSX
Proposed 57th street Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
57th street
PROJECT 7
Mall Road intersects both US 34 (Moraine Avenue) and US 36 (N St. Vrain Avenue) on the east side of Estes Park. US 34 and US 36 are the main gateway corridors into Estes Park. Both intersections are currently unsignalized.
Mall Road is a heavily used connection between US 34 and US 36 on the eastern side of Estes Park and Lake Estes. Travelers use Mall Road to bypass downtown Estes Park which is often congested due to visitors. Non-local travel on US 34 and US 36 is significant because both routes connect to Rocky Mountain National Park. These intersections are frequently congestion, especially during the summer visitation season.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xTraffic signals and/or roundabouts
xIntersection improvements including turn lanes
Total Project Cost: $4 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to mall road intersections will:
xImprove safety conditions, particularly for turning vehicles
xProvide a more reliable bypass on the eastern side of Estes Park
xReduce congestion in Estes Park for residents and the significant volume of tourists visiting Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park
ROUNDABOUT example:
PROJECT LOCATION
Mall road intersections
PROJECT 8
On the south side of Fort Collins, Lemay Avenue (LCR 13) extends south from SH 392 to the intersection of LCR 30 and Timberline Road. LCR 30 is a direct connection to the I-25 Frontage Roads approximately 1-mile east. LCR 13 is currently a two-lane rural road without shoulders.
LCR 13 south of SH 392 has become a commonly traveled connector between Loveland and Fort Collins since it provides direct connections to Fort Collins from Boise Avenue, Boyd Lake Avenue, and the Frontage Road in Loveland. As development continues to occur, this route is anticipated to be a more heavily used corridor in the County.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xAdd 6-foot paved shoulders
xTurn lanes at various intersections and driveways
xIntersection improvements, possibly a roundabout, at LCR 13 and LCR 30 Total Project Cost: $7.75 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to lcr 13 will:
xIncrease reliable connectivity to Fort Collins, Loveland, and the I-25 Frontage Road
xIncrease safety and accommodate bicyclists by adding shoulders
Proposed lcr 13 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 13
PROJECT 9
Timberline Road between Mulberry Street and Vine Drive is in northeastern Fort Collins. The majority of Timberline Road is a two-lane road with some turn lanes. Wider shoulders exist on both sides of the road and a sidewalk is present on the east side between Mulberry Street and International Boulevard. Timeline Road includes four lanes and a median at the intersection of Mulberry Street.
Timeline Road is an important regional connection between Loveland, Fort Collins, and Wellington. Traffic has been increasing on Timberline Road north of Mulberry Street and four-lanes are needed to accommodate the additional trips.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden the road to four lanes
xAdd medians and left-turn lanes
xAdd bicycle lanes and sidewalks
Total Project Cost: $8 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to TIMBERLINE will:
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability
xImprove safety on a regional connector
xAdd multimodal improvements including bike lanes and sidewalks
xSupport transit reliability for TransFort Route 14
Proposed TIMBERLINE ROAD Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
TIMBERLINE ROAD
PROJECT 10
Timberline Road and Vine Drive is an intersection in northeastern Fort Collins. Vine Street parallels the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNSF) immediately adjacent to the intersection.
Timeline Road is an important regional connection between Loveland, Fort Collins, and Wellington. The current intersection of Timberline Road and Vine Drive experiences significant congestion and delay due to the close proximity to the BNSF railroad yard operations. A grade-separation would reduce congestion and improve safety by eliminating the conflict between trains and vehicles and improving emergency vehicle response time.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xGrade-separation of Timberline Road, either over or under the BNSF railroad tracks and Vine Drive
xBike lanes
Total Project Cost: $25 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to TIMBERLINE road and vine drive will:
xReduce the congestion and delay experienced due to BNSF railroad operations
xImprove safety by eliminating the conflict between trains and vehicles
xSupport transit reliability for TransFort Route 14
xImprove safety and comfort of cyclists
xImprove emergency vehicle response time
PROJECT LOCATION
TIMBERLINE ROAD AND VINE drive
PROJECT 11
The Power Trail is a north/south trail that connects many neighborhoods, parks, and trails in Fort Collins. The trail currently meets Harmony Road approximately ¼ mile west of Timberline Road. The Power Trail parallels the Union Pacific Railroad.
Grade-separation of the Power Trail and Harmony Road is needed to improve safety and eliminate the conflict between trail users and vehicles. This project is one of many projects that will improve regional trail connectivity in Larimer County. Future phases will extend the 10-foot concrete trail and 5-foot gravel path south beyond Harmony Road and eventually connect to Lovelandʼs trail system.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xGrade-separation of the Power Trail either over or under Harmony Road
Total Project Cost: $6 million
Current funding commitments: $2.4 million City of Fort Collins funds and $0.8 million Federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to TIMBERLINE road and vine drive will:
xProvide a safer and convenient connection for trail users
xEliminate conflict between trail users and vehicles
xCreate a lower-stress environment for all users
grade-separation example:
PROJECT LOCATION
Power Trail Grade Separation
PROJECT 12
The Poudre Trail is a major regional trail that connects many neighborhoods, parks, and trails in Larimer County. The trail intersects Taft Hill Road approximately ¾ of a mile north of Vine Drive. The intersection of the trail and the road is currently signed and striped at-grade. The Poudre Trail loosely follows the Cache la Poudre River for over 10 miles.
Grade-separation of The Poudre Trail and Taft Hill Road is needed to improve safety and eliminate the conflict between trail users and vehicles. This project is one of many projects that will improve regional trail connectivity in Larimer County. Extension of this trail east toward I-25 is expected over the next several years.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xGrade-separation of the Poudre Trail either over or under Taft Hill Road
Total Project Cost: $5 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to the poudre trail will:
xProvide a safer and convenient trail connection
xEliminate conflict between trail users and vehicles
xCreate a lower-stress environment for all users
grade-separation example:
PROJECT LOCATION
Poudre trail grade separation
PROJECT 13
The Long View Trail opened in August 2018 and is a 4.4-mile, concrete multi-use trail connecting the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins to five existing open spaces and natural areas. The trail intersects Trilby Road at Shields Street in Fort Collins. The intersection of Trilby Road and Shields Street is a signalized intersection and trail users cross at a marked crosswalk.
Grade-separation of the Long View Trail is needed to improve safety and eliminate the conflict between trail users and vehicles. This project is one of many trail improvement projects that will increase regional trail connectivity in Larimer County.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xGrade-separation of the Long View Trail either over or under Trilby Road
Total Project Cost: $5 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to the long view trail will:
xEliminate conflict between trail users and vehicles
xCreate a lower-stress environment for all users
xProvide a safer and convenient trail connection
grade-separation example:
PROJECT LOCATION
Long view trail grade separation
PROJECT 14
Kechter Road crosses over I-25 and provides connections to the I-25 Frontage Roads. Kechter Road provides east/west connectivity between Timberline Road in Fort Collins (on the west side of I-25) and LCR 5 in Timnath (on the east side of I-25).
The Kechter Road bridge replacement is needed to accommodate the expansion of I-25 to 4 lanes in each direction. The travel lanes on the Kechter Road bridge are narrow and there are no shoulders, making travel for bicyclists dangerous.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xBridge reconstruction to accommodate future widening of I-25
xWide shoulders for biking on the Kechter Road bridge
Total Project Cost: $35 million
Current funding commitments: $25 million in federal funding is secured and $10 million is needed to match the federal funding PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to the kechter bridge over I-25 will:
xAllow I-25 to be widened to 4 lanes in each direction
xProvide wider travel lanes and shoulders on Kechter Road to make travel, particularly for bicyclists, safer and more comfortable
xSupport transit reliability for Bustang operations on I-25
EXAMPLE Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Kechter road bridge
PROJECT 16
Mulberry Street (SH 14) is a primary gateway corridor connecting I-25 to downtown Fort Collins. Mulberry Street between College Avenue (US 287) and I-25 is a four-lane highway with a center median and frontage roads that provide business access.
Mulberry Street is a heavily traveled corridor with locals and visitors seeking to access Colorado State University, major retail and healthcare destinations in downtown Fort Collins. Widening on Mulberry Street (SH 14) is needed to increase mobility, safety, and mode choice within a heavily used corridor in Larimer County.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden Mulberry Street from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
xIntersection and safety improvements
xWide shoulders for bicycling
xSidewalks Total Project Cost: $50 million
Current funding commitments: none
A new countywide funding source would contribute partial funding
towards this project; additional federal, state, local, and/or private
funding would be required to complete this project. PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to mulberry street will:
xReduce congestion and delay
xIncrease reliable connectivity between I-25 and downtown Fort Collins
xSupport transit reliability for TransFort Route 14
xImprove safety for all users
xAccommodate bicyclists
Proposed mulberry street Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Mulberry street (SH 14)
PROJECT 18
US 34 (Moraine Avenue) and US 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) are the two main gateway corridors into Estes Park. The two roads intersect at a signalized intersection in downtown Estes Park. The intersection is the most heavily traveled entrance into Estes Park, which accommodates nearly 4 million visitors annually to Rocky Mountain National Park.
Due to extremely high visitor traffic, the intersection of US 34 and US 36 is often at a stand-still. The intersection is difficult to cross as a pedestrian and the pavement is in poor condition. This project would reconstruct and enhance the intersection to alleviate the often standstill traffic conditions. The project would also improve pedestrian crossing safety for those trying to access shopping and restaurants across US 34 north of the Visitor Center.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xReconstruct and enhance the intersection, potentially with a roundabout
xPedestrian crossing safety improvements; potentially a pedestrian underpass
xSafer connections between major attractions for pedestrians such as the Visitor Center and local businesses
Total Project Cost: $6 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improving the us 34 AND US 36 INTERSECTION will:
xAlleviate traffic congestion
xReduce or eliminate conflicts for pedestrians and bicyclists
xSupport more reliable transit operations for the local shuttles and trolleys
xEnhance safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
Current intersection and crossings:
PROJECT LOCATION
US 34 AND US 36 INTERSECTION
PROJECT 20
Eisenhower Boulevard (US 34) is the primary corridor connecting downtown Loveland and I-25. The corridor serves local traffic as well as regional traffic from Estes Park (and Rocky Mountain National Park) and Greeley. The section of highway from Boise Avenue to Rocky Mountain Avenue in Loveland is currently two lanes in each direction with a center grassy median.
East/west travel options are limited in Loveland due to geographic constraints such as Boyd Lake and the Northern Colorado Regional Airport. Significant development has occurred in eastern Loveland creating additional travel demands on US 34 which are expected to increase in the future. Widening US 34 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes will alleviate the current traffic congestion and delay and provide a more reliable east/west route in Larimer County. Portions of US 34 have already been widened to 6 lanes, and this project will tie into the recent improvements, creating a more continuous corridor.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden US 34 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
xIntersection improvements at the Boise Avenue, Denver Avenue, Sculptor Drive, Hahnʼs Peak Drive, and Rocky Mountain Avenue intersections
xAddition of bike lanes and sidewalks Total Project Cost: $19.2 million
Current funding commitments: $4.3 million from Loveland and $3.7 in federal/state funding PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to US 34 will:
xProvide a more reliable east/west travel route through Loveland
xSupport transit reliability for the City of Loveland ʼs Transit (COLT) Routes 3 and 5
xImprove comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists by filling in gaps in the sidewalk and bike lane network
Proposed US 34 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
US 34 Widening (west of I-25)
PROJECT 21
Taft Avenue is a north/south corridor connecting Berthoud, Loveland, and Fort Collins, and serving as a parallel route to US 287. Taft Avenue from 11th Street to Westshore Drive in Loveland is located immediately south and north of US 34 and provides many business and residential accesses. The street is currently two lanes in each direction with sidewalks, bike lanes, and a COLT bus stop at 12th Street.
Taft Avenue south and north of US 34 has narrow travel lanes, narrow bike lanes, and substandard sidewalks. This project will widen the travel lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks to create a safer environment for all users. The project will also improve the intersection of Taft Avenue and US 34, alleviating delay caused by the increase in traffic experienced in recent years.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden the travel lanes
xIntersection improvements at Taft Avenue and US 34 (Eisenhower Boulevard)
xWiden sidewalks and add bike lanes Total Project Cost: $5.3 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to taft avenue will:
xCreate a safer travel environment for all users
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
xProvide a more reliable route for City of Loveland Transit (COLT) Routes 2 and 4
xAlleviate congestion at the US 34 intersection
Proposed taft avenue Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Taft avenue (central Loveland)
PROJECT 22
SH 402 connects US 287 and I-25 approximately 2 miles south of US 34 in Loveland. SH 402 provides east/west connectivity between Loveland, Johnstown, Greeley, and Evans and serves as a parallel route to US 34. This section of highway is currently two-lanes with narrow shoulders.
As development has continued, SH 402 is increasingly used to access I-25 from southern Loveland causing congestion and delay on this two-lane highway. The existing shoulders are narrow. Widening SH 402 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes will alleviate the current traffic congestion and delay and provide a more reliable east/west route in Larimer County. This project will also complement the interchange reconstruction at SH 402 and I-25 currently being completed by CDOT (anticipated to be completed by Fall 2019).
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden to four lanes from US 287 to Boise Avenue and from LCR 9 to I-25
xIntersection improvements at SH 402 and St. Louis Avenue, Boise Avenue, LCR 9E, future Boyd Lake Avenue extension, and LCR 7
xAddition of center turn lane from Boise Avenue to LCR 9
xAddition of sidewalks and bike lanes
Total Project Cost: $28.8 million
Current funding commitments: none
A new countywide funding source would contribute partial funding
towards this project; additional federal, state, local, and/or private
funding would be required to complete this project. PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to SH 402 will:
xImprove safety and travel conditions for all users
xProvide a more reliable east/west travel route in Larimer County
xSupport transit reliability for the City of Loveland ʼs Transit (COLT) Route 5
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
Proposed SH 402 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Sh 402
PROJECT 23
Boyd Lake Avenue is a north/south avenue that parallels Boyd Lake in Loveland. Boyd Lake Avenue turns west and becomes E 1st Street (LCR 20C) in Loveland approximately ¾ of a mile south of US 34. This project would extend Boyd Lake Avenue south of LCR 20C to connect to SH 402.
Extending Boyd Lake Avenue by 1.5 miles will connect Boyd Lake Avenue to SH 402 and provide an alternative north/south route to I-25 and US 287. Significant development has occurred in this part of Loveland and is expected to continue adjacent to the corridor. This extension will alleviate the current traffic congestion and delay and provide an additional reliable north/south route in Larimer County.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xExtend Boyd Lake Avenue south to connect to SH 402 as a 2-lane street. Two lanes is an interim improvement. The ultimate roadway will be 4 lanes.
xAddition of bike lanes and sidewalks Total Project Cost: $8.4 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to SH 402 will:
xProvide a more connected north/south travel route in Loveland
xComplete an additional parallel route to I-25
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
Proposed boyd lake avenue Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Boyd lake avenue extension
PROJECT 24
US 34 is a primary east/west corridor in Larimer County, connecting Loveland, Johnstown, and Greeley. US 34 serves local traffic as well as significant regional traffic. The section of highway from Centerra Parkway to LCR 3 in Loveland is currently two lanes in each direction with a center grassy median and shoulders.
Significant development has occurred in eastern Loveland and is expected to continue, increasing travel demands on US 34. Widening US 34 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes will alleviate the current traffic congestion and delay and provide a more reliable east/west route. Portions of US 34 (west of I-25) have already been widened to 6 lanes, and the section from Rocky Mountain Avenue to Centerra Parkway is planned to be widened to 6 lanes. This project will tie into the recent and planned improvements, creating a more continuous corridor. This section of US 34 lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden US 34 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
xIntersection improvements at the US 34 and LCR 3 intersection
xAddition of bike lanes and sidewalks
Total Project Cost: $10.6 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to us 34 east of I-25 will:
xProvide a more reliable east/west travel route connecting Loveland, Johnstown, and Greeley
xProvide a more reliable connection to I-25
xImprove comfort for bicycles and pedestrians
Proposed us 34 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Us 34 widening (east of I-25)
PROJECT 25
Larimer County Road (LCR) 3 is a north/south road in eastern Larimer County. The two-lane road from US 34 to Crossroads Boulevard is currently gravel without shoulders or any walking or bicycling facilities.
As development has continued in eastern Loveland and Larimer County, use of LCR 3 has increased. The gravel road is unsuitable for the traffic volumes.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xRoadway paving
xAddition of bike lanes
xIntersection improvements at LCR 3 and US 34 and Crossroads Boulevard Total Project Cost: $5.4 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to lcr 3 will:
xImprove mobility, safety, and travel conditions
xProvide a more reliable north/south travel route in eastern Larimer County that also serves as an alternative route to I-25
xImprove comfort for bicyclists
xImprove air quality by reducing dust pollution
Proposed lcr 3 Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 3
PROJECT 26
Taft Avenue is a north/south corridor in Larimer County connecting Berthoud, Loveland, and Fort Collins, and serves as a parallel route to US 287. The road serves local and regional traffic into and out of Loveland. Taft Avenue between 14th Street SW to 28th Street SW in Loveland is four-lanes between 14th Street SW and 23rd Street SW and two-lanes between 23rd Street SW and 28th Street SW. The road includes some bike lanes and shoulders.
Taft Avenue from 14th Street SW to 28th Street SW currently has narrow travel lanes, inconsistent bike lanes, narrow shoulders, and inadequate sidewalks. The improvements from 14th Street SW to 28th Street SW will tie into other recent improvements to Taft Avenue and are needed to create a more continuous travel corridor. As growth continue along this corridor, particularly in southern Loveland and Berthoud, travel demand on this roadway is anticipated to increase.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWiden current travel lanes and shoulders
xAdd and/or widen sidewalks
xAdd continuous bike lanes
Total Project Cost: $10.4 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to taft avenue will:
xCreate a safer travel environment for all users
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
xProvide a more reliable route through Loveland to support the steady residential and employment growth
Proposed taft avenue Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Taft avenue (south Loveland)
PROJECT 27
US 34 (Eisenhower Boulevard and US 287 are the two main travel corridors in Loveland. Both streets serve as major regional connections to surrounding communities including Estes Park, Loveland, Greeley, Berthoud, Fort Collins, and beyond. The two streets intersect at two signalized intersections in downtown Loveland. The intersection of the two highways is the most heavily traveled intersection in Loveland.
Due to extremely high traffic, the two intersections of US 34 and US 287 are often severely congested causing delay and making the corridor unreliable. The intersections are difficult to cross as a pedestrian and as a cyclist.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xUpgrade turn lanes with increased capacity
xImprove bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Total Project Cost: $8.1 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to us 34 and us 287 will:
xAlleviate traffic congestion and delay
xProvide a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists
xSupport more reliable transit operations for Loveland ʼs Transit (COLT) Route 1
Evaluated us 34 and us
287 INTERSECTIONS FROM
THE US 34 PEL STUDY
PROJECT LOCATION
Us 34 and us 287 intersections
PROJECT 28
State Highway (SH) 392 provides connections to Loveland, Fort Collins, I-25, and Windsor in Larimer County. The highway crosses the Cache la Poudre River approximately ½ mile east of Larimer County Road (LCR) 3 on the west side of the Town of Windsor. The SH 392 bridge over the river is currently a two-lane bridge with narrow shoulders.
Development continues to occur in eastern Larimer County, increasing travel on SH 392. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) plans to widen SH 392 to four lanes, including the addition of bike lanes, sidewalks, and the widening of the existing Poudre Trail underpass, to accommodate the additional trips on SH 392. The bridge widening of SH 392 over the Cache la Poudre River is needed to accommodate the widening of the highway (from I-25 to 17th Street).
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xBridge widening of SH 392 over the Cache la Poudre River
xAddition of bike lanes, sidewalks
xWidening of the Poudre Trail underpass Total Project Cost: $12 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to sh 392 will:
xAllow SH 392 to be widened to 2 lanes in each direction to better handle the traffic demand
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
PROJECT LOCATION
Sh 392 bridge
PROJECT 29
1st Street is a primary north/south corridor through Berthoud. 1st Street is a two-lane street with narrow shoulders that provides business and residential access. 1st Street connects to US 287 on the north side of Berthoud and is becoming a heavily traveled corridor with locals seeking access to Loveland and other destinations in Larimer County.
Widening 1st Street is needed to increase mobility, safety, and mode choice on an increasingly used corridor in Larimer County.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening of 1st Street from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
xCenter turn lanes and safety improvements
xBike lanes and a wide detached sidewalk Total Project Cost: $5 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to 1st street will:
xIncrease travel reliability between Berthoud, Loveland, and US 287
xProvide a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists
xImprove safety for all users
Proposed 1st street Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
1st street
PROJECT 30
Berthoud Parkway (Larimer County Road 17) is a primary north/south corridor connecting Berthoud to US 287, Loveland, and other communities in Larimer County. Berthoud Parkway is currently a rural, two-lane street with narrow shoulders and no sidewalk or bicycle facilities.
Residential development is increasing adjacent to Berthoud Parkway. As more residents use the street to travel north and south, the road will need to accommodate the increase in traffic, provide a safer turning environment, and accommodate bicyclists.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening from 2 lanes to 3 lanes
xCenter turn lane
xAdd bike lanes
Total Project Cost: $2 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to Berthoud parkway will:
xCreate a safer travel environment for all users
xIncrease reliable connectivity between Berthoud, US 287, and Loveland
xImprove comfort for bicyclists
Proposed Berthoud parkway Cross-Section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Berthoud parkway
PROJECT 31
NQ@HMDUDMTD®±EQNL@UHRSQDDSSN@QXR@JDN@CHMRSDR@QJRDQUDRSGDD@UDQD@CNVRMSQ@MBDNENBJXNTMS@HM@SHNM@K@QJ~@OOQNWHL@SDKXNMDLHKDVDRSNECNVMSNVMRSDR@QJNQ@HMDUDMTDHRBTQQDMSKX@SVN§K@MDQN@CVHSGL@MX@CI@BDMSATRHMDRRDRNMANSGRHCDRNESGDQN@C
D@QKX°«ODQBDMSNENBJXNTMS@HM@SHNM@K@QJUHRHSNQRNUDQ¯LHKKHNMHM«¬°DMSDQSGQNTFGSGDD@UDQD@CNVRDMSQ@MBD~L@JHMFNQ@HMDUDMTD@RHFMHEHB@MSKXSQ@UDKDCQN@CHMRSDR@QJQ@EEHBHRNESDM@S@RS@MCRSHKKNMNQ@HMDUDMTD@RSTQMHMFUDGHBKDRCDK@XSGQNTFGUDGHBKDRRDDJHMFSN@BBDRRSGDO@QJBBDRRHRONNQKXCDEHMDCSNL@MXNESGDCQHUDV@XR@MCATRHMDRRDRNQSHNMRNESGDCDS@BGDCLTKSHTRDO@SG@QDLHRRHMF~L@JHMFV@KJHMF@MCAHJHMFNQ@HMDUDMTDCHEEHBTKS
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xDSSDQCDEHMDC@BBDRRSN@CI@BDMSATRHMDRRDR
xCCHSHNMNE@BDMSDQSTQMK@MD
xCCHSHNMNEAHJDK@MDR@MC@LTKSHTRDSQ@HK@MCSQDDK@VMNMSGDRNTSGRHCDNESGDQN@C
xQNTMC@ANTS@SKLN@CSNHLOQNUDR@EDSX@MC@BBDRR
Total Project Cost: $20 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improving moraine avenue will:
xQD@SD@R@EDQSQ@UDKDMUHQNMLDMSENQ@KKTRDQR
x LOQNUDBNLENQSENQAHBXBKHRSR@MCODCDRSQH@MR
xQNUHCD@LNQDQDKH@AKDQNTSDSNNBJXNTMS@HM@SHNM@K@QJRLNRSTRDCDMSQ@MBD
xDSSDQCDEHMDATRHMDRR@BBDRRONHMSR~HMBQD@RHMFOQDCHBS@AHKHSX@MCQDCTBHMFBNMEKHBSRENQ@KKSQ@UDKDQR
Proposed cross-section for moraine avenue:
PROJECT LOCATION
Moraine avenue
PROJECT 32
The intersection of US 36 and Maryʼs Lake Road/High Drive is located in western Estes Park, approximately ½ mile east of the Beaver Meadows Entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park. The intersection is currently a signalized intersection.
Nearly 50 percent of Rocky Mountain National Park visitors (over 4 million in 2015) enter through the Beaver Meadows entrance, making the US 36 and Maryʼs Lake Road/High Drive intersection one of the most traveled in Estes Park. The intersection is often at a stand-still due to heavy visitor traffic causing delay. The asphalt and traffic signal equipment are in extremely poor condition and in need of replacement.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xReplace the signalized intersection with a roundabout
xBicycle and pedestrian facilities, providing continuity from Rocky Mountain National Park to downtown Estes Park Total Project Cost: $5 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improving us 36 at mary’s lake road/high drive will:
xCreate a safer travel environment for all users
xReduce delay caused by traffic congestion
xComplete the multiuse connections from downtown Estes Park to Rocky Mountain National Park
xProvide a more reliable route to Rocky Mountain National Parkʼs most used entrance
xSupport more reliable transit operations for the local shuttles and trolleys
Roundabout example:
PROJECT LOCATION
US 36 at Mary’s Lake Road/High Drive
PROJECT 33
US 34 (Fall River Road) is one of two major highways providing access to Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park. The US 34 corridor from Mall Road to Rocky Mountain National Park (the Aspen Glen Campground) is located in western Estes Park and provides a connection to the Fall River Entrance, the northern entrance to the Park.
Recent improvements to US 34 between Estes Park and Loveland include 6ʼ wide shoulders serving as bike lanes for cyclists but there is no bike facility west of Mall Road making it difficult for bicyclists to travel between Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
x10ʼ concrete multimodal path from Mall Road to the Aspen Glen campground in Rocky Mountain National Park
Total Project Cost: $10 million
Current funding commitments: $$1.9 million including $400k from Land and Water Conservation Fund, $250k from Colorado Parks and Wildlife Non-motorized Trails fund, $400k from Estes Valley Recreation and Parks Districts, and $857k from the Town of Estes Park. PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improving the us 34 multimodal trail will:
xCreate a continuous cycling facility from Loveland to Rocky Mountain National Park
xCreate a safer environment for all travelers
PROJECT LOCATION
US 34 multimodal trail
PROJECT 34
Proposed cross section example:
GDHMSDQBG@MFDNES@SD HFGV@X ¬@MC §°HRKNB@SDCNMSGDD@RSDQMRHCDNEDKKHMFSNMGDHMSDQBG@MFDHRSGDNMKXHMSDQRS@SD@BBDRROQNUHCDCSNSGDBNLLTMHSX ¬ADBNLDRKDUDK@MCUDMTD~NMDNESGDL@HMCNVMSNVMRSQDDSRHMDKKHMFSNM~@MCOQNUHCDR@BNMMDBSHNMSN NQSNKKHMR
DRHCDMSRNEDKKHMFSNM@MCTMHMBNQONQ@SDC@QHLDQNTMSX@RVDKK@RRHFMHEHB@MSQDFHNM@KEQDHFGSSQ@EEHBQDKXNMSGDHMSDQBG@MFDNE ¬@MC §° MBQD@RHMFTRDNESGDHMSDQBG@MFDG@RADDMB@TRHMFCDK@XBQD@SHMFTMR@EDBNMCHSHNMR@SSGDHMSDQBG@MFDHMBKTCHMFKNMFUDGHBKDPTDTDRNMRGNQSBNMMDBSNQQN@CRDFLDMSRGDM@QQNVAQHCFD@MCGD@UXUDGHBKDSQ@EEHBKD@UDMN@BBDRRENQAHBXBKD@MCODCDRSQH@MRSNBQNRR §°
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
x@EDSXHLOQNUDLDMSR
x MSDQBG@MFDHLOQNUDLDMSRDWSDMCHMFGHFGV@XQ@LOR
x LOQNUDSQ@EEHBRHFM@KETMBSHNM@KHSX
xTKSHTRDO@SGBNMMDBSHMFD@RSDQMDKKHMFSNMSNCNVMSNVM
Total Project Cost: $30 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRЬLHKKHNMEQNLDKKHMFSNM
MDVBNTMSXVHCDETMCHMFRNTQBDVNTKCBNMSQHATSDO@QSH@KETMCHMF
SNV@QCRSGHROQNIDBS@CCHSHNM@KEDCDQ@K~RS@SD~KNB@K~@MCNQOQHU@SD
ETMCHMFVNTKCADQDPTHQDCSNBNLOKDSDSGHROQNIDBSPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to the I-25 and SH 1 interchange will:
xKKDUH@SDBNMFDRSHNM@SSGDHMSDQBG@MFD
x MBQD@RDBNMMDBSHNMRENQAHBXBKHRSR@MCODCDRSQH@MR
xQD@SD@R@EDQSQ@UDKDMUHQNMLDMSENQ@KKTRDQR
example interchange overpass:
PROJECT LOCATION
I-25 and SH 1 interchange
PROJECT 35
The intersection of SH 1 and LCR 62E is located on the western side of Wellington and serves as a gateway into the community as SH 1 is the primary connection to Fort Collins. SH 1 is a two-lane highway with a center-turn lane and narrow shoulders. LCR 62E is a two-lane road with narrow shoulders. The current angle of the intersection is skewed.
As development has continued in Wellington and northeastern Larimer County, SH 1 is increasingly used as a connecting route between Wellington and Fort Collins. The Poudre School District has plans for a new high school at the northwest corner of LCR 62E and LCR 9 which will increase traffic and regional trips passing through the intersection of SH 1 and LCR 62E/LCR 9.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xReconfiguration of SH 1 and LCR 62E and LCR 9
xSignalization and turn lanes at LCR 62E and LCR 9
xPedestrian path adjacent to SH 1
xSafety improvements Total Project Cost: $3 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to the SH 1 and lcr62e intersection will:
xImprove safety and travel conditions for all users
xProvide a more reliable north/south travel route in Larimer County
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
intersection EXAMPLE:
PROJECT LOCATION
SH 1 and LCR 62E Intersection
PROJECT 36
@QHLDQNTMSXN@C´HR@MNQSGRNTSGQNTSDSG@SO@Q@KKDKR §°@MCOQNUHCDR@QDFHNM@KBNMMDBSHNMADSVDDMDKKHMFSNM@MCVK@MXNMN@CGDQTQ@KQN@CHRBTQQDMSKXSVN§K@MDRVHSGUDQXM@QQNVRGNTKCDQR
RCDUDKNOLDMSG@RBNMSHMTDCHMMNQSGD@RSDQM@QHLDQNTMSX~´HRHMBQD@RHMFKXTRDC@R@BNMMDBSHMFQNTSDADSVDDMTMHMBNQONQ@SDC@QHLDQNTMSX~DKKHMFSNM~@MC NQSNKKHMRGDNTCQDBGNNKHRSQHBSG@ROK@MRENQ@MDVGHFGRBGNNK@SSGDMNQSGVDRSBNQMDQNE´@MC±VGHBGVHKKHMBQD@RDSQ@EEHB@MCQDFHNM@KSQHOR@KNMF´
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xHCDMHMFEQNLK@MDRSN¯K@MDREQNL ¬SN±¯
xTQM§K@MDR@SL@INQHMSDQRDBSHNMR@MC@SSGDGHFGRBGNNK
xHFM@KHY@SHNM@MCHMSDQRDBSHNMHLOQNUDLDMSR@S±@MC´
xHCDRGNTKCDQRENQAHJHMF
Total Project Cost: $3 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to LCR 9 will:
x LOQNUDR@EDSX@MCSQ@UDKBNMCHSHNMRENQ@KKTRDQR
xQNUHCD@LNQDQDKH@AKDMNQSGRNTSGSQ@UDKQNTSDHMMNQSGD@RSDQM@QHLDQNTMSX
xTOONQSAHJHMFVHSGSGD@CCHSHNMNEVHCDRGNTKCDQR
Proposed lcr 9 cross-section:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 9
PROJECT 37
Larimer County Road (LCR) 58 between State Highway (SH) 1 and I-25 is located in northeastern Larimer County south of Wellington. LCR 58 is currently a rural, two-lane road with narrow shoulders and steep roadside ditches. LCR 58 currently provides access to the I-25 Frontage Road but does not provide access to the interstate.
Recent development in northeastern Larimer County and along the I-25 corridor has increased the number of trips on the interstate and on Larimer County roads. New interchanges are needed along the I-25 corridor to facilitate the increase in local and regional travel.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xAddition of shoulders and turn lanes on LCR 58
xIntersection improvements at SH 1
xRailroad crossing improvements
xMultiuse path across I-25
xNew interchange at I-25
Total Project Cost: $35 million
Current funding commitments: none
A new countywide funding source would contribute partial funding
towards this project; additional federal, state, local, and/or private
funding would be required to complete this project. PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to LCR 58 and I-25 will:
xExpand regional connectivity and provide another entrance to Wellington from I-25
xIncrease safety and trip reliability on a connector between SH 1 and I-25
xImprove emergency access across I-25
xAccommodate multiple modes of travel
Proposed improvements EXAMPLE:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 58
PROJECT 38
Larimer County Road (LCR) 5 (Main Street in Timnath) is a primary north/south road in eastern Larimer County. LCR 5 parallels I-25 and provides regional connectivity between eastern Loveland, Timnath, and Fort Collins. The section between Harmony Road and SH 14 is one lane in each direction with no shoulders.
As development continues to occur in Timnath and eastern Larimer County, LCR 5 is increasingly traveled. When incidents happen on I-25, LCR 5 provides a parallel route to alleviate north/south travel.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening LCR 5 to include median and center turn lanes
xMultimodal improvements including bike lanes and sidewalks
Total Project Cost: $23.4 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to LCR 5 between Harmony Road and SH 14 will:
xProvide a safer travel environment for all users
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability on a major connector between Loveland and Timnath
xCreate a more reliable and safer north/south alternate to I-25
xAdd facilities for walking and biking
Proposed improvements to lcr 5:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 5
PROJECT 40
Latham Parkway (LCR 1) is a primary north/south road in eastern Larimer County. LCR 1 parallels I-25 and provides regional connectivity between Windsor, Timnath, and eastern Fort Collins. The section between Kechter Road and Harmony Road is one lane in each direction with no shoulders. No sidewalk or bicycle facilities are provided.
As development continues to occur in Timnath and Windsor, Latham Parkway (LCR 1) is increasingly traveled. There is currently no accommodation for bicycles and pedestrians.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening Latham Parkway from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
xMultimodal improvements including bike lanes and sidewalks
Total Project Cost: $11.3 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to LCR 1 between Kechter Road and Harmony
Road will:
xProvide a safer travel environment for all users
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability on a major connector between Windsor and Timnath
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
Proposed improvements to lcr 1:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 1 (south)
PROJECT 41
Latham Parkway (LCR 1) is a primary north/south road in eastern Larimer County. LCR 1 parallels I-25 and provides regional connectivity between Windsor and Timnath. The section between Buss Grove Road and SH 14 (E. Mulberry Street) is one lane in each direction with no shoulders. No sidewalk or bicycle facilities are provided.
As development continues to occur in Timnath and Windsor, Latham Parkway (LCR 1) is increasingly traveled. The street does not currently accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xReconstructing Latham Parkway and addi-tion of center turn lane
xAdding multimodal facilities including bike lanes and sidewalks
xRealigning the intersections at Prospect Road Total Project Cost: $13.9 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to LCR 1 will:
xProvide a safer travel environment for all users
xIncrease trip reliability on a major connector between Timnath and Windsor
xCreate a more reliable and safer north/south alternate to I-25
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
Example cross-section for lcr 1 improvements:
PROJECT LOCATION
Larimer county road 1 (north)
PROJECT 42
Harmony Road is the primary east/west road through Timnath. Harmony Road connects to I-25 and provides regional connectivity between Timnath and Fort Collins as well as communities to the east in Weld County. The current road is two lanes in each direction with a center median and wide shoulders/bike lane.
Harmony Road is the primary gateway serving Timnath as well as regional travel east of I-25. As development continues to occur in Timnath and farther east in Weld County, Harmony Road is increasingly traveled and used to access I-25.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening Harmony Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
xWide shoulder/bike lanes would be maintained
Total Project Cost: $6.5 million
Current funding commitments: none PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements to harmony road will:
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability on a major connector in eastern Larimer County
xCreate a more reliable connection to I-25
Example cross-section for harmony road
improvements:
PROJECT LOCATION
Harmony road
PROJECT 43
@QHLDQNTMSXN@C®®O@Q@KKDKR §°@MCBNMMDBSRSGDBNLLTMHSHDRNE
NGMRSNVM~NUDK@MC~@MCHMCRNQ®BQNRRDRSGDHFGNLORNMHUDQ@OOQNWHL@SDKX¬LHKDRNTSGNE®¯HMSGDNVMNE
NGMRSNVMGD®AQHCFDNUDQSGDQHUDQHR@M@QQNVSVN§K@MDAQHCFD
GDAQHCFDVHCDMHMFNE®NUDQSGDHFGNLORNMHUDQHRMDDCDCSN@BBNLLNC@SD@§K@MD@QSDQH@KBQNRR§RDBSHNM
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xQHCFDQDBNMRSQTBSHNMNE®NUDQSGDHFGNLORNMHUDQ
xCCHSHNMNEAHJDK@MDR~RHCDV@KJR
Total Project Cost: $3.5 million
TQQDMSETMCHMFBNLLHSLDMSRMNMDPROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improvements To the LCR 3 Bridge will:
xKKNV®SNADVHCDMDCSN@§K@MD@QSDQH@K
xCCQDRRSGDRSQTBSTQ@KCDEHBHDMBXNESGDAQHCFD
x LOQNUDBNLENQSENQAHBXBKHRSR@MCODCDRSQH@MR
PROJECT LOCATION
LCR 3 bridge
PROJECT 44
Lemay Avenue is a primary north/south route serving northern Fort Collins and Wellington. Lemay Avenue between E Lincoln Avenue and Conifer Street is one lane in each direction with wide shoulders/bike lanes. Some detached sidewalks are provided on the west side of the road. Lemay Avenue intersects the railroad immediately south of Vine Drive.
The intersection of Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive is frequently congested due to the railroad crossing adjacent to the railroad switching yard. As development continues to occur in northern Fort Collins, Lemay Avenue is increasingly traveled and used to access SH 14/Mulberry Street, furthering the congestion at this intersection.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xRealignment and widening of Lemay Avenue to four lanes
xOverpass of the railroad
xIntersection improvements at Suniga Road
xAddition of a center median
xCompleting the sidewalks and maintaining the bicycle lane
Total Project Cost: $22 million
Current funding commitments: $12 million from the City of Fort Collins PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Realigning Lemay Avenue will:
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability on a major corridor in Fort Collins
xEliminate the conflict between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists with the railroad
xReduce congestion and delay currently experienced by all users
Proposed rendering:
PROJECT LOCATION
Lemay realignment
PROJECT 45
East Prospect Road is an east/west route through Fort Collins providing access to I-25 and connection to Timnath. The section of the road between Sharp Point Drive and I-25 is currently one lane in each direction with wide bike lanes and a center landscaped median from Sharp Point Drive and Summit View Drive.
East Prospect Road frequently experiences congestion and delay. As one of the primary entrances to Fort Collins and Colorado State University from I-25, Prospect Road widening is needed to handle the travel demands.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening East Prospect Road from two lanes to four lanes
xCompleting a center median and turn lanes
xCompleting on-street bike lanes, sidewalks, and a detached multi-use trail Total Project Cost: $6 million
Current funding commitments: $2 million from the City of Fort Collins PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Widening East Prospect Road will:
xProvide a safer travel environment for all users
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability on a major connector between Fort Collins and Timnath
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
Proposed prospect road cross-section:
PROJECT LOCATION
East Prospect road
PROJECT 46
South Timberline Road is a north/south corridor extending through eastern Fort Collins. The portion of South Timberline Road between Stetson Creek Drive and Trilby Road connects major east/west routes such as Harmony Road and SH 392, both with interstate access to I-25. South Timberline Road is currently a two-lane rural road with wide shoulders/bike lanes in this section. Portions of a detached sidewalk are present.
Traffic volumes on South Timberline Road warrant the roadway being upgraded to a 4-lane arterial. The additional lanes would address safety issues while the sidewalks, and bicycle lanes would support alternative modes of transportation. When incidents happen on I-25, South Timberline Road can be used as a parallel route to alleviate north/south travel.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xWidening South Timberline Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes including a center median and turn lanes
xCompleting the multimodal facilities including sidewalks and bike lanes Total Project Cost: $6.5 million
Current funding commitments: $2.3 million from the City of Fort Collins, and $2.2 million from the Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG) PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Widening timberline road will:
xProvide a safer travel environment for all users
xIncrease capacity and trip reliability on a major connector between Loveland and Fort Collins
xCreate a parallel alternate route to I-25
xImprove comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians
Proposed timberline road cross-section:
PROJECT LOCATION
timberline road
PROJECT 47
The intersection of College Avenue (US 287) and Trilby Road is located in southern Fort Collins. The intersection is a heavily traveled intersection serving local and regional traffic between Fort Collins and Loveland.
The intersection of College Avenue (US 287) and Trilby Road is heavily traveled by regional traffic traveling between Fort Collins and Loveland. The intersection often experiences congestion and delay, specifically for turning vehicles.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED?
WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED?
xAdding dual left-turn lanes on Collage Avenue
xAdding dedicated right-turn lanes
xUpgrading the existing traffic signal
xBicycle and pedestrian improvements
xAdding raised medians
Total Project Cost: $5 million
Current funding commitments: $1.15 million from the city of Fort Collins and $2.25 million from a Federal safety grant PROJECT COST REGIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
Improving College Avenue and Trilby Road will:
xImprove safety for all users
xAdd capacity and reduce delay for turning vehicles
xImprove reliability of a significant intersection
xIncrease transit reliability for FLEX transit routes
PROJECT LOCATION
College avenue and trilby
PROJECT 48
www.fhueng.com
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 | Centennial, CO 80111 | 303.721.1440