Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-003-01/06/2009-ACCEPTING THE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY FOR THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTER
RESOLUTION 2009-003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING THE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY FOR THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25 AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE STUDY TO THE COLORADO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL WHEREAS, the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the "Interchange"), located at Exit 262, borders the western edge of the Town of Windsor ("Town") and the southeastern limits of the City; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2006, the Town and the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the "IGA") wherein the parties have pledged to cooperate and to explore and implement solutions to existing traffic issues related to the Interchange; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the IGA, the Town and the City authorized the preparation of the Systems Level Study for the improvement of the Interchange; and WHEREAS, the Windsor Town Board and the City Council have conducted a series of joint meetings for the purpose of reviewing and directing the preparation of the Systems Level Study; and WHEREAS, the Systems Level Study is now in final form and ready for acceptance by the City Council, and thereafter for transmittal to the Colorado Transportation Commission for approval at the Commission's next scheduled meeting on January 21, 2009; and WHEREAS, upon approval of the Systems Level Study by the Colorado Transportation Commission, it is the intention of the Town and the City to move forward with the final design of the Interchange, followed by construction thereof at the earliest possible time. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the Systems Level Study, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Section 2. That the City Council directs the City Manager, or his designee, to jointly present with the Town of Windsor and the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Systems Level Study to the Colorado Transportation Commission for consideration and approval on January 22, 2009, or as soon thereafter as the Commission may take up such consideration. Section 3. That the City Council further directs the City Manager to continue to work cooperatively with the Town of Windsor and the Colorado Department of Transportation to move forward with the plans for the final design and construction of the Interchange. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Co of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of January A.D. 2009. Mayor ATTEST: 0 j % . �a hu�.0 a City Clerk EXHIBIT A STATE HIGHWAY 392/ 1 =25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY prepared for City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor prepared by AECOM DRAFT January 5 , 2009 EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY DRAFT January 5 , 2009 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES - 1 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 Project Description and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 2 Submittal Requirements and Approval Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 3 Project Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . 0 INTERCHANGE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . 1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . 2 Traffic Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 . 3 Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 . 4 No Action and Proposed Action 2035 Level of Service Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 . 5 FHWA Policy Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 . 1 Structure Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 . 2 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4 . 0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 . 0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6 . 0 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY List of Tables Table 1 Interchange Alternatives Matrix Table 2 SH 392 — 2035 Intersection Results — Proposed Action Table 3 SH 392 — 2035 Intersection Results — No Action Table 4 Proposed Action Cost Estimate List of Figures Figure 1 North 1 -25 EIS Study Area and SH 392 Interchange Location Figure 2 No Action & Proposed Action 2035 Average Daily Traffic Forecasts Figure 3 No Action & Proposed Action 2035 Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts Figure 4 No Action Lanes Figure 5 Proposed Action Lanes Figure 6 No Action 2035 Level of Service and 95th % Back of Queue Figure 7 Proposed Action 2035 Level of Service and 95th % Back of Queue Figure 8 Proposed Action Concept Design Plan View Figure 9 Proposed Action SH 392 Profile Figure 10 Bridge Span Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Figure 11 Proposed Action Bridge in Plan View Figure 12 Proposed Action Bridge in Cross Section View Figure 13 Scenario A Financial Plan Figure 14 Scenario B Financial Plan Figure 15 Scenario C Financial Plan Appendix A Technical reports from the North 1-25 EIS, FHU, August 2007. Harmony Road (LCR 38) at 1-25 Interchange and Parking Traffic Evaluation, SH 392 at 1-25 DEIS Interchange Evaluation, and Crossroads Boulevard at 1-25 DEIS Interchange and Parking Evaluation . North 1 -25 EIS Summary of Resource Impacts — SH 392/ 1 -25 Interchange 1 -25 mainline and ramp merge/diverge Level - of- Service output data from HCS 2000 Level -of- Service , Delay , and 95th % Back of Queue Length output data from SYNCHRO 7 . 0 Average Daily Traffic and Peak Hour volume output from North Front Range MPO TransCAD Traffic Demand Model Appendix B Public Open House Information Stakeholder Meeting Information City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Resolutions AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The SH 392/ 1 -25 interchange infrastructure is currently operating at a failing level -of- service ( LOS ) " F " , indicating a break down of traffic flow with excessive congestion and delay . This operational deficiency is further compounded by design deficiencies that impact current traffic movement and safety . The scope of the Proposed Action is to reconstruct the existing SH 392/1 -25 interchange . Based on the alternatives analysis conducted as part of the North 1 -25 DEIS , the tight diamond alternative was advanced as the preferred interchange type by CDOT and FHWA . In the Spring of 2008 , a Justification for Separate Action was approved by CDOT and FHWA based on the concept that the North 1 -25 DEIS preferred tight diamond alternative would be the basis of the design for the SH 392/ 1 -25 Proposed Action in the CDOT 1601 analysis . Under the No Action scenario for 2035 forecasted traffic , the existing interchange infrastructure operates at level - of-service ( LOS ) " F " during AM and PM peak hours . Under the Proposed Action scenario for 2035 forecasted traffic , studied intersections on SH 392 operate at an acceptable LOS " D " or better for all movements and overall intersection LOS " C " or better during both peak hours . The turn lane storage provided by the Proposed Action will accommodate the forecasted 2035 95 % back of queue lengths . No impacts to 1 -25 ramp merging or diverging is the result of the Proposed Action , and all acceleration and deceleration lanes meet current AASHTO standards for 75 mph design speed . Therefore , no improvements to the existing acceleration and deceleration lanes are included as part of the Proposed Action . The NEPA documentation required for the Proposed Action was determined by CDOT to be a Categorical Exclusion with the requirement that the environmental results be supported by the investigations completed under the North 1 -25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) . The supporting environmental data has been packaged and the Categorical Exclusion was approved by CDOT and FHWA on December xx , 2008 . The Proposed Action $ 22 . 6 million cost estimate for the interchange improvements reflects the minimum cost to construct the proposed tight diamond interchange and the associated approaches and connections to the existing roadway facilities . Given the acute functional obsolescence of the interchange and the inability of CDOT to commit current or future program funding , the local communities have developed financing scenarios that provide a range of potential opportunities for funding the project . Under all scenarios , a 9 % CDOT contribution is held as a constant to the funding plan . The 9 % CDOT contribution is intended to reflect the $ 1 . 9 million federal earmark and state match /overmatch that has been previously programmed by CDOT for the interchange improvements . It is the intent of the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor to use these committed funds to begin the preliminary and final design phase of the project and continue working toward implementing a more specific finance plan for construction . Es - I AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2008 , the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor requested that the SH 392/ I -25 interchange be separated from the North I -25 EIS process and that they collectively work through the Colorado Department of Transportation ( CDOT ) 1601 and independent environmental clearance process for the proposed interchange improvements . The basis of the design was consistent with the interchange type and configuration that was defined through the EIS process . The Proposed Action interchange improvements are therefore consistent with and do not preclude either of the Package A or Package B build alternatives currently being considered in the North I - 25 EIS . The analysis included in this Systems Level Study was prepared to meet the CDOT Policy Directive 1601 process guidelines to assist with local agency coordination and to help define the project for implementation . 1 . 1 Project Description and Location The scope of the Proposed Action is to reconstruct the existing SH 392/ I -25 interchange . The Proposed Action interchange improvements are within the limits of the North I -25 EIS study limits . The Proposed Action location relative to the North I -25 EIS Study Area is shown in Figure 1 . 1 . 2 Submittal Requirements and Approval Process The CDOT Policy Directive 1601 dictates that all requests for new interchanges and improvements to existing interchanges on major state highways be reviewed and fairly evaluated in a consistent manner through the use of established guidelines . These guidelines provide general policy direction regarding the content and format of information to be provided to CDOT for their review during the interchange modification approval process . This report provides the analysis necessary to support a Type I Improvement as defined in the 1601 process guidelines . The approval of the Type I interchange improvements as proposed within this analysis occurs at the CDOT Transportation Commission . 1 . 3 Project Purpose and Need The infrastructure at the current SH 392/ I -25 interchange is failing to serve the existing travel demand . The interchange is currently operating at a failing level - of-service ( LOS ) " F " , indicating a break down of traffic flow with excessive congestion and delay . This operational deficiency is further compounded by design deficiencies that impact current traffic movement and safety . The following are items that define the project purpose and need . 1 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY • The North 1 -25 EIS technical analysis indicates existing LOS " F " during peak hours at the southbound ramp intersection with SH 392 , with queuing analysis indicating traffic backup from the intersection through the northbound ramp intersection , and traffic backup from the southbound ramp intersection onto I - 25 . These operational issues are causing systemic operational and safety issues . • The North 1 -25 EIS indicates the No Action interchange configuration includes minor modifications to the northbound and southbound ramp intersections . Even given these assumed No Action improvements to the ramps , the SB and NB ramp intersections as well as the west and east frontage roads operate at LOS " F " in the peak hours for future years . This further demonstrates that the interchange needs to be improved to serve existing and future traffic demands . • The close distance between the west frontage road intersection and the southbound ramp intersection causes confusion for drivers at the interchange . Driver confusion can occur both at low speeds during congested times of the day and perhaps more concerning for safety at times of the day when congestion is not as bad but speeds are higher . The proposed interchange improvements will include relocation of the west frontage road further to the west to provide improved separation from the interchange . • The existing SH 392 bridge is more than 50 years old and is functionally obsolete in terms of width and typical section . The current width of the bridge is 28 feet and does not include sidewalks , turning lanes , or adequate shoulders . • Lack of sufficient left turn lanes at the ramp terminals causes spill - back at the interchange which creates systemic operational issues with the surrounding local roads and 1 -25 . Excessive queuing on the ramps onto the 1 -25 main line lanes has been experienced during peak hours . These operational issues are severe enough to affect the safety of the roadway . 2 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY 2 . 0 INTERCHANGE ASSESSMENT Based on preliminary 1601 scoping meetings with CDOT , the following analysis and performance measures were defined : • Intersection level - of-service at the 1 -25 ramp intersections and frontage road intersections . • Queue lengths at the 1 -25 ramp intersections and frontage road intersections • On/Off ramp merge/diverge level -of-service . • 1 -25 mainline level -of-service The data necessary to report on the above described performance measures were prepared by using Synchro 7 . 0 and Highway Capacity Software . With concurrence of CDOT staff, the existing conditions analysis conducted as part of the North 1 -25 EIS was used for this analysis and no new existing data was collected or analyzed . The North 1 -25 EIS conducted future year operational analysis of the proposed interchange improvements based on 2030 Travel Demand Model information . With consensus from CDOT , the future year analysis herein is conducted based on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO ) 2035 Travel Demand Model . The 2035 analysis conducted and presented herein provided similar acceptable performance measures as the North 1 -25 EIS 2030 analysis . The following sections provide results of the operational analysis performed for the Existing Conditions , 2035 No- build and 2035 Proposed Action . The 2035 forecast traffic conditions were modeled using Synchro 7 . 0 and Highway Capacity Software 2000 . 2 . 1 Existing Conditions Existing conditions operation analysis was obtained from the North 1 -25 EIS . The North 1 -25 EIS technical operations analysis was conducted for the existing conditions (2004 ) at the SH 392 interchange . The operations analysis included the interchange ramp intersections and the adjacent frontage road intersections for the AM and PM peak hours . The analysis included intersection level - of-service for each peak hour and 95'h percentile queue lengths based on the Highway Capacity Manual ( HCM ) 2000 guidelines . The results of the North 1 -25 existing conditions (2004 ) analysis can be found in Appendix A . As shown in Appendix A , key movements (those that could have an impact on adjacent intersection or an impact to 1 -25 ) operate at failing or near failing level of service ( LOS " E " or LOS " F " ) with 95'h percentile queuing issues at several turn lane approaches . The following is a summary of these identified existing condition issues : • SH 392 — Westbound approach at the southbound ramp terminal LOS " F " during both peak hours . Queuing exceeds provided storage and extends through intersections to the east . Excessive queuing cited as causing systemic operational issues at the interchange . 3 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY • SH 392 — Southbound left-turn at the southbound ramp terminal LOS " E " during AM peak hour and LOS " F" during PM peak hour . The 95 % queuing exceeds provided storage and extends onto 1 -25 deceleration lane . • SH 392 — EB left-turn at the Westgate Drive intersection LOS " E " during both peak hours . 2 . 2 Traffic Forecasts The year 2035 was selected as the long range forecast . The year 2035 average daily traffic (ADT ) and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were determined using the North Front Range MPO ' s Travel Demand Model . A select link analysis was conducted on the ramp terminals at SH 392 to find the AM and PM peak- hour turn volumes . A post- processing was done to adjust the forecasts using the MPO ' s National Cooperative Highway Research Program ( NCHRP ) methodology for post- processing . The 2035 ADT volumes and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2 and 3 , respectively . Also , print-outs from the North Front Range MPO TransCAD Traffic Demand Model are included in Appendix A . 2 . 3 Alternatives Considered During the North 1 -25 EIS process , several interchange alternatives were considered at the 1 -25/SH 392 location . A series of seven interchange small public groups were used to conduct alternatives development and analysis . These groups met for a period of eight months in one month intervals between February 2006 and January 2007 to discuss interchange alternatives along the 1 -25 corridor . The Interchange Working Group included all contributing agencies , the general public , nearby property owners and businesses . Initial alternatives were developed and presented at the early meetings with public and agency input solicited to provide the basis for further screening . The initial alternatives considered for SH 392/ 1 -25 included the standard diamond , tight diamond , and single point urban interchange ( SPUI ) . After this initial input was obtained and further analysis was prepared based on cost , environment , and traffic operations , the preferred tight diamond alternative was presented at the subsequent small group meetings . Interchange Alternatives Considered Table 1 is a summary of the considerations for each interchange alternative considered during the North 1 -25 DEIS process : 4 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ I -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Table 1 — Interchange Alternatives Matrix Full Diamond Tight Diamond Single Point Urban Interchange Cost $27 . 6M — Mod $25 . 6M — Low Cost $33 . 1 M — High Cost Cost No advantage in Traffic Ops Preferred Acceptable operations compared to tight diamond No advantage in Environment More Impact Less Impact environment compared to tight diamond Note : the above table represents an interpretation/summary of the analysis conducted by North I-25 EIS process. No new analysis was conducted. All analysis conducted by the EIS was using 2030 future traffic. Cost Consideration The tight diamond interchange configuration was the least expensive alternative considered . The SPUI alternative was the most expensive alternative considered because of the large structure that is necessary to build a SPUI elevated above the freeway . Traffic Operations Consideration With interchange design , a primary goal is to provide acceptable LOS at the interchange ramps and surrounding intersections . Based on the analysis conducted during the North 1 -25 DEIS , the traffic operations for the tight diamond interchange accomplished LOS " C " or better for all ramp and frontage road intersections for the forecast year of 2030 . In comparison , the SPUI alternative resulted in slightly poorer LOS and overall delay . Therefore , the tight diamond alternative was considered the alternative that provided the best traffic operations while also reducing the environmental impacts discussed in the following section . Environmental Consideration Another important consideration is proper separation of intersections to allow vehicles waiting to turn left to be stored in turn lanes without impacting through traffic . The full diamond alternative provides the most preferred separation of the frontage road intersections from the ramp intersections . However, the footprint of the full diamond alternative resulted in the most impacts to the Fossil Creek Reservoir and wetland areas . To reduce the footprint and environmental impacts , the tight diamond alternative was developed that achieved reduced footprint and impacts on the environment while also providing acceptable , although not the most preferred separation of the frontage roads 5 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY from the ramp intersections . Given the length of left turn storage that is required at the frontage road intersections , the frontage road spacing from the ramp intersections is proposed at the minimum distance to not impact through traffic on SH 392 . If the frontage road intersections are moved any closer to the ramp intersections , both safety and level - of-service from the through traffic perspective would deteriorate . The SPUI alternative did not have an environmental footprint advantage to the tight diamond alternative . This is because the frontage road separation requirements from the SPUI intersection would be similar if not the same as with the tight diamond alternative . Therefore , the SPUI alternative provided no environmental impact advantage to the tight diamond alternative . Conclusion Based on the alternatives analysis conducted as part of the North I -25 DEIS , the tight diamond alternative was advanced as the preferred interchange type by CDOT and FHWA . The Justification for Separate Action was approved by CDOT and FHWA based on the concept that the North I -25 DEIS preferred tight diamond alternative would be the basis of the design for the SH 392/ I -25 Proposed Action in the CDOT 1601 analysis . 2 . 4 No Action and Proposed Action 2035 Level of Service Analysis The following performance measures were defined as the primary areas of concern for the analysis . • Intersection level - of-service at the I -25 ramp intersections and frontage road intersections . • Queue lengths at the I -25 ramp intersections and frontage road intersections • On/Off ramp merge/diverge level -of-service . • I -25 mainline level -of-service Each of the performance measures are discussed in more detail in the following sections . Figures 4 and 5 show the lane geometry assumed in the performance measures analysis for the No Action and Proposed Action scenarios , respectively . The 2035 lane geometry at the Harmony Road ramp intersections was modeled using existing geometry . The 2035 lane geometry at Crossroads Boulevard ramp terminals was modeled as 2 - lane roundabouts . All supporting documentation , as obtained from the North I -25 EIS technical reports can be found in Appendix A . Intersection Level -of-Service Figure 6 illustrates the resulting overall intersection level - of-service ( LOS ) for 2035 conditions for No Action at the three interchanges in the study area . Table 2 shows the resulting intersection level -of-service and delay at SH 392 under No Action . As illustrated by Table 2 , all studied intersections in the SH 392 study area operate at LOS " F " during both peak hours with the exception of the northbound ramp terminal during the PM peak hour which operates at a level -of service C . As mentioned above , I -25 6 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY mainline operates at a LOS " E " or better during both peak hours , which is not related to the Proposed Action . Figure 7 illustrates the resulting overall intersection level - of-service ( LOS ) for 2035 conditions for the Proposed Action . Table 3 shows the resulting intersection LOS and delay at SH 392 under the Proposed Action . As illustrated in Table 3 , all studied intersections on SH 392 operate at an acceptable LOS " D " or better for all movements and overall intersection LOS " C" or better during both peak hours . For the 2035 condition , signal cycle lengths at the 1 -25 and SH 392 interchange ramp intersections and frontage road intersections were maintained at a cycle length of 100 seconds . The SH 392 ramp intersections and frontage road intersections were also coded as semi - actuated signals that will allow maximum green time and progression on the SH 392 corridor . The 2035 results shown in Figure 7 and Table 3 provide similar acceptable LOS as the North 1 -25 EIS 2030 analysis . An 1 -25 mainline level -of-service analysis was conducted between Harmony Road and SH 392 and between SH 392 and Crossroads Boulevard . The 1 -25 mainline operates at a level -of-service E or better during both peak hours . These results are the same for the No Action and Proposed Action are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively . The Proposed Action therefore has no negative impacts to 1 -25 mainline level - of- service . However , by improving the level -of-service at the SH 392 ramp intersections , I - 25 mainline operations can be better maintained because peak hour back- ups on the ramp deceleration lanes will be improved . 7 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ I -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Table 2 : SH 392 - 2035 Intersection Results - No Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement Delay 95% Queue Delay 95% Queue LOS ( sec ) (ft) LOS ( sec ) (ft) West Frontage Road Intersection WB Left F 158 . 7 250 F 427 . 6 500 WBTH /RT F 208 . 2 375 F 258 . 8 575 EB Approach F 842 . 2 1900 F 2225 . 6 1350 NB Approach D 35 . 9 375 F 532 . 9 1150 SB Approach F 517 . 0 925 1 F 1 105 . 8 550 Overall F 509 . 0 F 849 . 8 Southbound Ramp Terminal WB Left F 268 . 6 575 F 198 . 9 625 WB Through A 9 . 2 250 C 25 . 1 675 EB TH/ RT F 370 . 2 1525 F 434. 6 775 SB Left F 127 . 9 525 D 52 . 1 400 SB TH/RT A 7 . 7 75 C 24. 9 225 Overall F 221 . 0 F 163 . 0 Northbound Ramp Terminal WB Through B 19 . 4 225 D 42 . 8 600 WB Right A 3 . 2 50 A 7 . 8 150 EB Left B 14. 2 125 D 49 . 0 275 EB Through F 153 . 8 1275 C 25 . 6 600 NB Left C 1 30 . 0 200 1 C 29 . 4 250 NB Right F 120 . 5 1 675 D 46 . 2 500 Overall F 90 . 9 C 32 . 4 Westgate Drive Intersection W B Left B 12 . 5 50 A 25 . 8 25 WB Through E 73 . 7 1050 F 379 . 9 1375 WB Right A 4 . 0 25 B 13 . 4 100 EB Left A 9 . 8 25 A 31 . 8 50 EB Through F 165 . 6 1200 F 262 . 2 1325 EB Right A 8 . 0 175 A 10 . 0 75 NB Left D 39 . 4 125 F 75 . 6 700 NB Through D 39 . 0 50 D 29 . 8 25 NB Right C 20 . 6 25 B 12 . 0 25 SB Left C 31 . 1 50 D 60 . 7 100 SB Through D 38 . 6 25 D 47 . 2 25 SB Right B 16 . 2 50 C 63 . 5 100 Overall F 87 . 4 F 222 . 6 8 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ I -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Table 3 : SH 392 - 2035 Intersection Results - Proposed Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement Delay 95% Queue Storage Delay 95% Queue Storage LOS (sec) (ft) Provided (ft) LOS (sec) (ft) Provided (ft) West Frontage Road Intersection WB Left D 41 . 3 125 360 C 32 . 8 200 360 WB Through C 20.4 150 530 * C 30. 1 200 530 * WB Right A 4 .2 50 470 A 6. 2 75 470 EB Left D 52 . 1 275 300 C 33 . 7 200 300 EB TH/RT C 27 . 3 500 - C 24. 1 225 - NB Left C 27 . 1 75 200 C 25 .0 150 200 NB Through D 36 . 3 25 530 * C 31 . 6 50 530 * NB Right B 15 .0 75 180 B 11 . 2 100 180 SB Left C 34. 1 175 180 C 22 . 5 75 180 SB Through C 31 . 5 25 180 C 35 .0 50 180 SB Right A 9 .5 75 180 B 13 .4 75 180 Overall C 26 . 7 C 23 . 3 Southbound Ramp Terminal WB Left C 26 .4 175 335 C 27 . 2 200 335 WB Through A 5 .8 100 335 * B 12 . 3 250 335 * EB Through C 22 . 3 200 530 * C 29 .0 100 530 * EB Right A 5 .4 75 480 A 7 . 7 75 480 SB Left/TH D 38 . 2 175 - D 38 . 5 300 - SB RT A 1 0 .2 1 Free I A 0. 3 Free Overall B 17 .0 B 18 . 8 Northbound Ramp Terminal WB Through B 12 .4 75 535 * C 22 . 1 150 535 * WB Right A 3 . 1 50 480 * A 5 . 6 75 480 * EB Left C 31 . 2 100 335 C 26 . 5 100 335 EB Through A 6 .2 200 335 * A 8. 5 175 335 * NB Left/TH D 41 . 8 125 - D 38 . 1 225 - NB Right A 0 .8 Free A 0. 7 Free Overall A 10.0 B 13 . 8 Westgate Drive Intersection WB Left A 7 . 1 25 450 C 20. 8 25 450 WB Through B 12 . 7 275 - C 33 . 9 450 - WB Right A 2 .2 25 225 A 4. 3 50 225 EB Left A 6 .0 25 200 D 46 . 2 75 200 EB Through B 14. 7 325 535 * C 34. 1 500 535 * EB Right A 2 .7 50 195 A 4.0 50 195 NB Left D 41 . 7 100 125 * D 53 . 3 475 125 * NB Through D 40. 5 50 125 * C 26 .4 25 125 * NB Right C 21 . 9 25 125 * B 11 .0 25 125 * SB Left C 32 . 2 50 100 * D 54. 3 100 100 * SB Through D 40.0 25 100 * D 46. 6 25 100 * SB Right A 0 . 1 FREE 100 * A 0. 2 FREE 100 * Overall B 11 . 9 C 32 . 2 ( * ) Length to nearest intersection 9 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Queue Lengths The 95th % back of queue lengths were not reported for the No Action due to the level - of-service failures at the studied intersections on SH 392 . Figure 7 and Table 3 illustrate the resulting 95th % back of queue lengths for the Proposed Action at the SH 392 intersections . As shown in Table 3 , the Proposed Action design at all analyzed intersections on SH 392 provide enough storage to accommodate the forecasted 2035 95 % back of queue lengths . On /Off Ramp Merge/ Diverge Analysis Figure 6 illustrates the on/off ramp merge/diverge LOS on 1 -25 at the three interchanges in the corridor for No Action . All merges and diverges operate at a LOS " D " or better during both peak hours . Figure 7 illustrates the on /off ramp merge/diverge level -of-service on 1 -25 at the three interchanges in the corridor for the Proposed Action . All merges and diverges operate at a LOS " D " or better during both peak hours . The existing SH 392/ 1 -25 interchange ramp acceleration and deceleration lengths were compared to AASHTO design criteria and were determined to meet minimum criteria for 75 mph design speed on 1 -25 . Therefore , no improvements to the acceleration and deceleration lanes are included as part of the Proposed Action improvements . 2 . 5 FHWA Policy Points Summary To assure the Interstate system provides the " highest level of service in terms of safety and mobility . . . " and to protect the integrity of the extensive investment associated with it , the FHWA has retained all approval rights for the control of access to the Interstate system . FHWA approval is necessary for all new/ modified permanent and temporary access points to the Interstate system or its Right-of-Way , regardless of funding and project oversight . The FHWA has developed 8 - policy points for consideration in approving an Interstate Access Request ( IAR) . Response to each of the policy points are provided below . Policy Point 1 . The existing interchanges and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands while at the same time providing the access intended by the proposal. The SH 392/ 1 -25 interchange is 3 miles from the nearest interchange to the north and south . The areas surrounding the SH 392 interchange have experienced intense development and redevelopment over the last 10 years . The SH 392 interchange serves as the primary gateway to the Town of Windsor, and as a southern gateway to 10 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY the City of Fort Collins . The interchange also provides a northern access point to the City of Loveland . With this interchange serving as the access point to 1 -25 for such a large developing area , it is not feasible that alternative routes on local roads or streets can or should accommodate the design year traffic demands . Policy Point 2. All reasonable alternatives for design options, location and transportation system management type improvements (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities) have been assessed and provided for if currently justified, or provisions are included for accommodating such facilities if a future need is identified. Alternatives for the interchange have been screened during the North 1 -25 EIS process . A concept design has been prepared to fully document the preferred and Proposed Action tight diamond interchange and the interim ramp connections to the existing 1 -25 mainline . The tight diamond design concept has been closely developed with input from CDOT and the North 1 -25 EIS team so as to not preclude the EIS alternatives that have been carried forward in the DEIS documents . Further discussion about the concept design as it relates to the EIS alternatives is provided in later sections of the study . The Proposed Action also include maintaining the existing car pool lot that is connected to the southwest frontage road . The Proposed Action also does not preclude either Package A or Package B alternatives in the North 1 -25 EIS , both of which include transit facilities . Policy Point 3. The proposed access point does not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility based on an analysis of current and future traffic. The operational analysis for existing conditions shall, particularly in urbanized areas, includes analysis of sections of Interstate to and including at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side. Crossroads and other roads and streets shall be included in the analysis to the extent necessary to assure their ability to collect and distribute traffic to and from the interchange with new or revised access points. Based on the level - of-service analysis conducted , the proposed action improvements to the SH 392/ 1 -25 interchange will improve the operation and safety of the Interstate facility by improving the 1 -25 ramp intersections with SH 392 . The proposed ramp intersection improvements and associated betterment of level -of-service will allow existing queuing of vehicles on to the 1 -25 main lines to be eliminated . As concluded by analysis , ramp queue lengths will be reduced from backing up onto 1 -25 to a length not more than 300 feet for the 2035 forecast traffic . This single improvement to traffic operations will allow the interstate system to operate more efficiently and safely . Policy Point 4. The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "full interchanges " for special purposes access for transit vehicles, for HOV's, or into park and ride lots may be considered on a 11 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY case-by-case basis. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards for Federal-aid projects on the Interstate System. The proposed improvements to the SH 392/ 1 -25 interchange do not change the nature of the connection of the Interstate system to the SH 392 corridor. Full movement access will be maintained by the proposed improvements . Currently there is a basic transit park-and -ride facility located with access off of the southwest frontage road . The proposed action includes replacing this park-and - ride facility with a new paved parking lot with access to the relocated southwest frontage road . Policy Point 5. The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior to final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be consistent with the metropolitan and/or statewide transportation plan, as appropriate, the applicable provisions of 23 CFR part 450 and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. The proposed SH 392/ 1 -25 interchange improvement is in the Colorado Department of Transportation 2009 -2013 State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP ) , and is also identified in the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization 2009 -2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP ) . Policy Point 6. In areas where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, all requests for new or revised access are supported by a comprehensive Interstate network study with recommendations that address all proposed and desired access within the context of a long-term plan . The proposed interchange improvements are located within the study limits of the North 1 -25 EIS process . The proposed action is consistent with and does not preclude any of the current alternatives carried forward in the DEIS . The North 1 -25 EIS process included a comprehensive Interstate network study that included the SH 392 interchange . Policy Point 7. The request for a new or revised access generated by new or expanded development demonstrates appropriate coordination between the development and related or otherwise required transportation system improvements. No new access or development is proposed with the interchange improvements . The existing frontage roads will be relocated as part of the proposed improvements to provide adequate separation of the frontage road intersections from the 1 -25 ramp intersections . Level -of-service and queuing analysis for the 2035 future traffic condition was conducted to confirm the separation will provide acceptable safety and operations . If development is proposed , Traffic Impact Studies will be required by the City of Fort Collins , the Town of Windsor , Larimer County , and the Colorado Department of Transportation . The Traffic Impact Study process will determine what improvements 12 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY may be necessary to the frontage road intersections or SH 392 intersections beyond what is included in the proposed action . Policy Point 8. The request for new or revised access contains information relative to the planning requirements and the status of the environmental processing of the proposal. The Proposed Action has been closely coordinated with the CDOT Environmental Program Manager to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) . The NEPA documentation required for the 392/ 1 -25 Interchange Project was determined by the Colorado Department of Transportation ( CDOT ) and FHWA to be a Non - Programmatic Categorical Exclusion with the requirement that the environmental results be supported by the investigations completed under the North 1 -25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) . The investigations under the North 1 -25 EIS included actual field data as well as a projection of impacts out to the year 2030 . Under the North 1 -25 DEIS , the following resource areas were evaluated with field surveys and /or technical reports completed for those resource areas indicated by an asterisk : Land Use* Threatened , Endangered , and State Social Conditions Sensitive Species* Economic Conditions Visual Quality Right-of-Way Historic Preservation * Air Quality Paleontological Noise and Vibration * Hazardous Materials* Water Resources Parks and Recreation Wetlands * Farmlands Floodplains Energy Vegetation Public Safety and Security Noxious Weeds Environmental Justice* Wildlife * 13 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION DESIGN The Proposed Action Tight Diamond concept design is shown in Figure 8 , and the Proposed Action profile of SH 392 is shown in Figure 9 . These design concepts were reviewed by CDOT , the City of Fort Collins , and the Town or Windsor . The footprint of the improvements are within the North 1 -25 EIS and do not preclude either Package A or Package B alternatives carried forward in the North 1 -25 DEIS . 3 . 1 Structure Considerations A specific design detail that was coordinated through the process with CDOT staff was the determination of the bridge span that can accommodate the existing 1 -25 alignment and not preclude the North 1 -25 EIS Package A or Package B realignments and associated widening of 1 -25 . The following discussions provide more detail on the bridge alternatives that were considered for meeting these requirements . Structure Constraints The existing structure consists of 4 -spans , combination steel and concrete , spanning 4 lanes of traffic on 1 -25 with a total roadway width of 128 feet . The Proposed Action structure , which will replace the existing structure , must satisfy the following criteria : • Accommodate the existing 1 -25 cross section • Accommodate the proposed ultimate widening of the 1 -25 corridor for either North 1 -25 DEIS Package A or Package B alternatives . • Minimize roadway profile changes to minimize impacts to surrounding intersections on SH 392 . • Provide aesthetics consistent with existing 1 -25 corridor . • Accommodate a 14 foot horizontal clear distance from the future edge of pavement to any structure obstruction . (to consider the ultimate build out of 1 -25 based on guidelines in the North 1 -25 DEIS ) Structure Types The bridge span alternatives evaluation matrix attached as Figure 10 provides a detailed listing of several structure span alternatives to the bridge replacement and the impacts , good or bad , which coincide with each . Refer to the matrix as the alternatives are discussed in detail below . 14 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Alternative 1 Alternative 1 represents the least expensive solution , which proposes a two span structure , approximately 84 ' each , center median pier between existing northbound and southbound lanes and typical abutments . This alternative provides a cost effective improvement to the current bridge geometry and allows for the structure to be widened . The biggest draw back is that it does not accommodate the ultimate condition . Alternative 2a Alternative 2a represents the least expensive 2 -span solution , which satisfies both interim and ultimate roadway configurations . However , the use of bulb tee girders limits the span lengths to less then 160 ' and therefore a stepped garden style abutment is not possible . In order to keep the span lengths below 160 ' a vertical cantilevered style abutment must be used to satisfy horizontal clear zone requirements . Alternative 2b Alternative 2b uses a longer 2 -span configuration than Alternative 2a . The superstructure elements are either steel plate girder or a post-tensioned concrete tub girder . Either girder type can span 167 ' and therefore can be used with a stepped garden style abutment while allowing for adequate horizontal clearance from the edge of ultimate pavement . A draw back to alternative 2b is the increased cost to achieve the garden wall aesthetics . Alternative 3 Alternative 3 represents the same configuration as alternative 2b , however, uses a phased construction of the bridge . The phasing of the bridge would include the west half of the bridge constructed in the interim , and the east half of the bridge constructed in the future when I -25 is reconstructed to its ultimate alignment . This option reduces short term costs and defers some of the interchange bridge costs to future I -25 reconstruction projects . Alternative 4 Alternative 4 is a clear span option . The clear span option can be achieved with a long 300 ' span arch structure . A clear span structure will eliminate any substructure units within the roadway clear zone . The clear span alternative is by far the most expensive and is difficult to construct while maintaining traffic on SH 392 . This type of bridge would also be much different aesthetically to any other bridge that has been constructed on I -25 . 15 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Proposed Action Bridge Span Alternative Based on review of the alternatives with CDOT and FHWA staff, Alternative 2b represents the most cost effective alternative which fully accommodates the existing I - 25 lane configuration as well as both North 1 -25 EIS Package A and Package B alternatives . Figure 11 shows the Proposed Action bridge in plan view relative to the future North 1 -25 EIS Package A and Package B typical sections on 1 -25 . Figure 12 shows a cross section of the Proposed Action bridge , also relative to the future North I - 25 EIS Package A and Package B typical sections on 1 -25 . The Proposed Action bridge provides a cost effective way to improve the existing bridge and roadway by moving the abutments back and providing bridge openings wide enough to accommodate the future needs on 1 -25 . The ability to splice the superstructures together enables the structure to be even more robust and to extend the service life . During final design , a final bridge selection report will be prepared and closely coordinated with CDOT staff. The analysis conducted was only to determine a sufficient cost estimate to move forward with project programming decisions . 3 . 2 Cost The cost of the Proposed Action was determined based on the conceptual level design that was prepared . The level of design allowed the major quantities for materials including earthwork , aggregates , pavement , bridge , walls to be modeled and more accurately quantified . A historical cost analysis was conducted by using recent bid tabulations on similar projects from the CDOT cost data book . Table 4 below shows a summary of the cost estimate for the Proposed Action . 16 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ I -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Table 4 — Proposed Action Cost Estimate OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SH 392/1 -25 Interchange 11 /26/2008 9 :27 UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST Embankment CY 177 , 000 $8 $ 1 ,416 , 000 ABC Ton 17000 $ 18 $306 , 000 HMA (Gr S )( 100 )(PG 64-22) Ton 255400 $57 $ 1 ,447 , 800 C&G LF 45200 $ 18 $75 , 600 Concrete Pavement 10in SY 135100 $40 $524 , 000 Concrete Pavement 13in SY 0 $55 $ 0 Concrete Median Cover SF 14 , 600 $7 $ 102 , 200 Walls SF 115900 $50 $595 , 000 Structure SF 36 , 740 $ 175 $6 ,429 , 500 $ 10 , 896 , 100 % RANGE % USED COST Project Dependent N/A $ 10 , 896 , 100 (A) Contingencies ( 15% - 30% ) of (A) 15 . 00 % $ 1 , 634 ,415 (B ) ITS , Signals (6- 10 % ) of (A+ B ) 6. 00 % $751 , 831 (C ) Default = 6% Drainage/Utilities (3- 10 % )of (A+ B ) 7. 00 % $877 ; 136 (D ) Default = 6% Signing and Striping ( 1 -5 % ) of (A+ B ) 3 . 00 % $375 , 915 (E ) Default = 5% Construction Signing & Traffic Control 5 to 25% of (A+ B ) 7. 00 % $877 ; 136 ( F ) Default = 20% Mobilization (4 to 10% ) of (A+ B + C+ D + E+ F) 7. 00 % $ 1 , 078 , 877 (G ) Default = 7% Total of Construction Bid Items (A+ B +C+ D + E + F +G ) $ 16 ,491 ,411 ( H ) Force Account - Utilities ( 1 to 2 % ) of (H ) 2 . 00 % $329 , 828 ( 1 ) Default = 2 % Force Account - Misc. ( 10 to 15%) of (H ) 10 . 00 % $ 1 , 649 , 141 (J ) Default = 12% Subtotal of Construction Cost ( H + I +J ) $ 18 ,470 , 380 ( K) Total Construction Engineering ( 10 to 17%) of K 12 . 00 % $2 , 216 ,446 ( L ) Total Preliminary Engineering (8 to 12 % ) of K 10 . 00 % $ 1 , 847 , 038 ( M ) Agency Review/Oversight N/A N/A $400 , 000 Total Project Cost $22 , 533 , 864 ( P ) Does not include right of way cost 17 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY 4 . 0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE One component of the environmental review is the analysis completed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) . The NEPA documentation required for the 392/ 1 -25 Interchange Project was determined by CDOT to be a Categorical Exclusion with the requirement that the environmental results be supported by the investigations completed under the North 1 -25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) . The SH 392/ 1 -25 Interchange project team was provided with a summary of environmental investigation results from the North 1 -25 DEIS for documentation in CDOT ' s Categorical Exclusion checklist . The results of environmental investigations for the entire North 1 -25 EIS project corridor are further documented in the North 1 -25 DEIS with technical reports prepared from field surveys . Although the environmental results in the North 1 -25 DEIS were not isolated to the SH 392/ 1 -25 Interchange project area , the field surveys and analysis thoroughly reviewed the SH 392/ 1 -25 Interchange project area and associated resources by the North 1 -25 EIS Project Team including environmental professionals , the CDOT Environmental Program Manager and the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) . Under the North 1 -25 DEIS , the following resource areas were evaluated with field surveys and/or technical reports completed for those resource areas indicated by an asterisk : Land Use* Threatened , Endangered , and State Social Conditions Sensitive Species* Economic Conditions Visual Quality Right-of-Way Historic Preservation * Air Quality Paleontological Noise and Vibration * Hazardous Materials* Water Resources Parks and Recreation Wetlands * Farmlands Floodplains Energy Vegetation Public Safety and Security Noxious Weeds Environmental Justice * Wildlife * 18 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 =25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Land Use : The Land Use at this interchange has been changing , much like the economic growth surrounding Interstate Highway Interchanges across the country . The Land Use is subject to change at Interstate access points with future growth in the area with or without the Proposed Action . It is part of the design to keep this inevitable growth at a functional and environmentally sensitive level . The northwest quadrant of this interchange abutting the Fossil Creek Natural Area is the area with highest environmental concern . This area is home to various shorebirds , eagles , and many other wildlife species . The Proposed Action alignment of the west frontage road will allow only limited development on the land between the frontage road and Fossil Creek Reservoir . The development of this land will be closely approved through the local agency development review and environmental review process . Noise and Vibration . There are no expected noise impacts . The closest impact is the Mountain Shadows Subdivision approximately 3000 feet south of the interchange . Wetlands : The Proposed Action impacts approximately 0 . 4 acre of relatively low quality roadside wetlands to the west of the interchange . The roadside wetlands were probably formed by the combination of the Fossil Creek expansion and the drainage culvert design under SH 392 . Wetlands on both north and south sides of SH 392 were classified as " low quality" during the wetland survey performed by Ecotone in September 2005 . In general terms a " low quality" wetland is one that has lower ecological value in terms of vegetative species and habitat for native fauna . Retaining walls will be installed to minimize the impact into the wetland by road fill . Although these retaining walls will be tied into solid material , surface and ground water flows will be maintained to the other side of the road . For purposes of the NEPA clearance , a conservative 0 . 4 acres was estimated with the retaining walls installed . The project will mitigate the impacted wetlands at a minimum ratio of 1 : 1 to meet the requirements of NEPA and for the completion of the 1601 process with CDOT . Any mitigation beyond 1 : 1 is a local requirement and therefore all costs and requirements associated with mitigation greater than 1 : 1 will be by the local contributing agencies . Barring major information that is not available to the team at this point , achieving a higher ratio of mitigation appears feasible and will continue to be a goal of the project . Further analysis and selection of the specific wetland mitigation and design of the wetland mitigation will be accomplished in the final design phase of the project , and is also a requirement of CDOT ' s mandate to follow Executive Order 11990 , " Protection of Wetlands , " and is in accordance with 23 CFR 7717 23 CFR 777 , and Technical Advisory T6640 . 8A . Wildlife : In general wildlife impacts at this interchange will be low . The Proposed Action has a footprint not much larger than foot print of the current roadway . The prairie dog species that live along the road sides where widening will take place will be properly handled based on CDOT approved guidance and is further discussed in the Threatened , Endangered , and State Senstive Species discussion below . Otherwise 19 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY measures have been taken to avoid permanent impacts to wildlife adjacent to the interchange . The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan establishes natural area buffers for bald eagles , great blue herons , waterfowl , and other wildlife . More detail on all regulations pertaining to wildlife resources is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report [ ERO Resources Corporation ( ERO ) 2008] . Threatened , Endangered , and State Sensitive Species : The northwest quadrant does have a prairie dog colony larger than two acres . The black-tailed prairie dog is a State Species of Concern . The CDOT " Impacted black-tailed prairie dog policy" for colonies larger than two acres will be followed to foremost avoid and minimize impacts , relocating prairie dogs were they can not be avoided , and lastly donate prairie dogs to ferret or raptor programs or humanely euthanize prairie dogs before construction activities risk burying the colony . Coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Food and Drug Administration will be established to accomplish these goals . This area is home to various shorebirds , eagles , and other sensitive wildlife species . The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan establishes natural area buffers for bald eagles , great blue herons , waterfowl , and other wildlife . More detail on all regulations pertaining to wildlife resources is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report [ ERO Resources Corporation ( ERO ) 2008] . The Proposed Action is outside the buffers set for wildlife in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan . Historic Preservation : No impacts to historical sites are expected . Hazardous Materials : There are three potential hazardous material sites . Two gas stations on the east side of 1 -25 and one at the RV dealership on the west side of 1 -25 are present in the project vicinity . These sites are not directly impacted by the footprint of the Proposed Action . If necessary prior to construction , the appropriate environmental surveys will be conducted at these sites to determine the full extent of the hazardous material which will then be properly removed or treated in accordance with state and federal guidelines . Environmental Justice : No impacts concerning environmental justice are expected as a result of the Proposed Action . Separate from the NEPA process , a summary of the environmental investigation results from the North 1 -25 DEIS has been provided to City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor staff. Compliance with the City ' s Land Use code including environmental resources has been considered as part of this analysis . A summary of the results provided in the Categorical Exclusion were presented at a City and Town Joint Council/ Board Work Session on November 3 , 2008 . In addition , the potential environmental impacts were presented to the City of Fort Collins Land Conservation and Stewardship Board ( November 12th ) , the Air Quality Board ( November 17th ) and the Natural Resource Advisory Board ( November 19th ) . Comments and concerns were collected and answered at the Joint Council/ Board Work Session held on December 17 , 2008 . The minimization of potential impacts to the natural resources in the project area may continue beyond the levels required by the environmental clearance of the SH 392/1 -25 20 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY Interchange project currently underway for the 1601 Process . The environmental investigations documented for the Categorical Exclusion clears the roadway improvements associated with the SH 392/1 -25 Interchange Project . NEPA clearance of the interchange improvements does not preclude the City of Fort Collins or Town of Windsor from pursuing further voluntary environmental mitigation beyond what is required by state and federal regulations . The interchange improvement clearance also does not preclude the City of Fort Collins or Town of Windsor from applying restrictions on development based on the City/Town Land Use Code . 21 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY 5 . 0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Two public open houses were conducted as part of the current 1601 process . The meeting invitation and public open house display information is included in Appendix B . A stakeholder meeting for the property owners near the interchange was also conducted . The stakeholder meeting invitation and meeting information is also included in Appendix B . In addition to the Public Open house and Stakeholder meetings , several agency coordination meetings and presentation were conducted as part of the 1601 process . These meetings included the following : • September 24 , 2008 : CDOT Coordination Meeting • September 24 , 2008 : Stakeholder Meeting • October 16 , 2008 : CDOT Coordination Meeting • October 28 , 2008 : FHWA and CDOT Coordination Meeting • November 3 , 2008 : Town Board /City Council work session • November 5 , 2008 : Public Open House , Fort Collins • November 6 , 2008 : Public Open House , Windsor • November 12 , 2008 : Presentation to Fort Collins Land Conservation Board • November 14 , 2008 : Presentation to Fort Collins Planning and Zoning • November 17 , 2008 : Presentation to Fort Collins Air Quality Board • November 19 , 2008 : Presentation to Fort Collins Natural Resources Board • November 20 , 2008 : Presentation to Fort Collins Planning and Zoning • November 26 , 2008 : CDOT Coordination Meeting • December 17 , 2008 : Town Board /City Council work session • January 6 , 2009 : City Council Hearing • January 12 , 2009 : Town Board Hearing No irresolvable issues were raised during the Public or Agency meeting process . Some of the issues that were raised but resolved included the following : • West frontage road alignment . The alignment of the west frontage road is required to be within the North I -25 EIS footprint . Therefore , the alignment of the west frontage road is consistent with and not outside the footprint of the North I - 25 EIS . • Interchange type . Some clarification on the process conducted for determining the interchange type was requested by the Town Board and City Council . A detailed response to this request was provided based on the North I -25 EIS process and analysis used in selecting the Proposed Action tight diamond interchange type . The Proposed Action therefore is consistent with the North I - 25 tight diamond configuration . • Wetland Mitigation . A request was to clarify the feasibility of mitigating the wetland impacts beyond 1 : 1 mitigation , such as 2 : 1 mitigation ratio . The mitigation ratio of 1 : 1 for wetland impacts meets the requirements of NEPA . A 22 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 =25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY related question was if a bridge over the wetlands would be feasible for reducing impacts . The cost of a bridge over the wetland related to the benefit of marginally improved wetland impacts was considered excessive . Therefore , the Proposed Action does not include a bridge over the wetlands . Overall , the Proposed Action impacts approximately 0 . 4 acres of wetlands and these wetlands impacts will be mitigated at a ratio of at least 1 : 1 . The mitigation ratio of 1 : 1 for wetland impacts meets the requirements of NEPA and for the completion of the 1601 process with CDOT . The intent and commitment of the project from a local agency perspective will be to continue to evaluate the feasibility of wetland mitigation options up to a 3 : 1 ratio . Barring major information that is not available to the team at this point , achieving a higher ratio of mitigation appears feasible and will continue to be a goal of the project . Further analysis and selection of the specific wetland mitigation and design of the wetland mitigation will be accomplished in the final design phase of the project , and is also a requirement of the NEPA process . Involvement of City and Town environmental specialists and application of City and Town environmental policies will be instrumental in achieving this desired outcome . Any mitigation beyond 1 : 1 is understood to be a local requirement and therefore all costs and requirements associated with mitigation greater than 1 : 1 will be by the local contributing agencies . • Retaining Walls . A request for information to verify the feasibility of designing retaining walls in the wetlands was requested by the Town Board and City Council . A response to this request was provided that provided clarification that retaining wall design can be accomplished in wetland areas , and the Proposed Action design and cost estimates reflect the types of walls anticipated for the project . These walls also help reduce the footprint of the project in the wetland area to the west of the interchange . They will be designed to not impact the existing flow of water or wetland area . Therefore , the Proposed Action includes retaining walls to the west of the interchange to reduce the wetland impacts . As a result of this process , the City of Fort Collins Council and Town of Windsor Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO BE ADDED BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF DECEMBER JOINT WORK SESSION AND JANUARY HEARINGS 23 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 -25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY 6 . 0 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL PLAN In 2007 an independent interchange improvement planning project sponsored by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor , referred to as the I -25/SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan 2007 , was completed . During the overall process of the Interchange Improvement Plan , open houses were held every 4 -6 months with stakeholders . Stakeholders included private property owners , CDOT , North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization , Larimer County , the City of Fort Collins , and the Town of Windsor . Throughout all discussions on funding the interchange improvements , private property owners represented that they should bear an equitable portion of the overall cost . Part of the study evaluated the universe of financing tools available to the Town of Windsor and the City of Fort Collins . While several funding mechanisms were identified , a consensus was achieved among private property owners to pursue mechanisms that generated funding coincident with when development occurred . The overall vision for the interchange finance plan included the following : • Land uses and related revenues associated from those uses on both sides of the interchange . • Development standards that are reflective of the high standards required by both communities in the region . • All stakeholders ( CDOT , City of Fort Collins , Town of Windsor & private sector) have a financial responsibility . • The property owners recognize the benefit and expect to participate significantly in the funding . In January 2008 , a joint task force ( staff from the Town , City and a potential Developer) was formed to focus on a specific funding scenario of the interchange improvement using only the property under the control of a specific developer near the interchange . The developer engaged the services of Stifel Nicolaus & Company ( ` Stifel ' ) as financial advisor to generate a funding scenario utilizing the tools identified by the study . The funding scenario created by Stifel focused on the following financing tools : • An urban renewal authority ( ` URA' ) with an active plan area on the eastside of the interchange combined with a public improvement fee ( ` PIF ' ) on all property under the developer' s control would generate 45 % of the required funding . It should be noted that the developer' s plan was heavily dependent upon 600 , 000 square feet of retail space on the eastside of the interchange . • A metropolitan district would also be created to generate a mill levy that would cover 30 % of the overall funding . While the URA plan area would be limited to only the retail and commercial zoning , the metro district would include all land under the developer' s control . 24 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392/ 1 =25 INTERCHANGE SYSTEMS LEVEL STUDY • The remaining 25 % would be funded by a combination of contributions from the City of Fort Collins , the Town of Windsor, and approximately $ 1 . 9 million of CDOT funding already earmarked for design improvements at the interchange . The Stifel funding scenario was authorized exclusively by the developer and remains proprietary information of the developer. The cost estimate used for the Stifel scenario was the following : Funding Gap for the Interchange : Preliminary Cost Estimate : $ 22 . 7 Million Funding from CDOT : $ 1 . 9 Million Funding GAP to Fill $ 20 . 8 Million As the national economy weakened during May & June 2008 , the developer' s interest in pursuing the project also declined as retail tenants curbed their expansion plans . Faced with the possibility of losing the developer' s participation in the project , the joint task force went to work drafting alternative funding scenarios that were not as dependent on a single developer and 600 , 000 square feet of retail space . Using input from earlier stakeholder meetings as well as discussions with City and Town administration , the joint task force created three funding scenarios . They are as follows : A . SIGNIFICANT RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Based on the efforts of a single site retail development plus a Metro District . ( Stifel scenario for the developer) B . PUBLIC ENTITY FUNDING Based on a significant joint investment by both the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor plus a Metro District . The City and Town would request a new dedicated funding source from their respective communities or alter their current budgets to payback the cost of the interchange . C . MIX OF PUBLIC ENTITY/ DEVELOPMENT Based on an equal mix of investment by both the public sector ( City & Town ) plus all impacted property owners , the funding is covered . Figures 13 , Figure 14 , and Figure 15 show these scenarios graphically . Under all scenarios , the 9 % CDOT contribution is held as a constant to the funding plan . The 9 % CDOT contribution is intended to reflect the $ 1 . 9 million federal earmark and state match /overmatch that has been previously programmed by CDOT for the interchange improvements . It is the intent of the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor to use these committed funds to begin the preliminary and final design phase of the project and continue working toward implementing a more specific finance plan for construction . 25 AECOM EXHIBIT A LEGEND a Cities & Towns in Project Area L Regional Study Area �welnnyto �v Study Corridors Highways 287 \ Arterial Roads /" `. C Pierce I City Boundaries I Four Ault 257 1 imnath a Severance Eaton �I I �I Proposed i 287 vends ! 3sz SH 392/1 -25 Lucerne Interchange ! r Greeley t; '% 72673 34 Interchange -Loveland Gardenci I 34 Study Area i - Evans 1 La Salle / Campion Jdmstown % 60 / Berthoud a Milliken 85 56 Mud I / I / 1 Mec / Platteville 66 1 1 I Longmont I " lone Vollmar a / a Firestone 1 J edeick 1 Niwot l ^� a DacOno Fort Lupton ' 52 J Gunbarrel 1 i 119 a V7 Wattenberg I' Ilbh l I ,a Lata, uwl '1 7 Q� Louisville� I Y/ Brigl . . J \ J Superior f •\ U J 93 \ 36 I�87 72 Derive a j 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 1 T1 11 % Miles North — Map Document. (N I-25 Mao remPlete021607 mxd) Exhibit courteous of Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 1 6112000— 2.2230 PM Figure 1 — North 1 =25 EIS Study Area and SH 392 Interchange Location AECOM x EXHIBIT A 0 0 N N CO L 12 ,600 11 ,700 Harmony Rd 63300 31 , 000 NO SCALE 217000 20, 700 0 0 s` ci 0 Kechter Rd 11 , 200 el 15100 7,300 SH 392 20, 800 26, 300 44 00 37 , 600 7,400 15,200 V , \ 8 , 550 107 , 60 a d j fl 6 0 U. N d 9, 00 9, 100 Crossroads Blvd. 23 100 32 700 Figure 2 12 ,200 2035 Average Daily 129100 �e Traffic Forecasts Legend : ©�� No Action & Proposed Action �a XX,XXX - 2035 Average Daily Traffic AECOM x EXHIBIT A ee � *--1940(1930 260(169) r `210(300) szo(aea) 830(800)J 1200(920)---y 960(1120)- I m Harmony Rd NO SCALE 4 N a a 1N T 4 1 m � N e b m Kechter Rd as M M M M O o n+ M F 570(860] J ` 4204480) 860(360) --► T 490(340) � g g k� 420(470) env �— 340(570) N k� 200(250 `V lQ + 380(480) 220(250) � y ` 250(460) laso{7so) --r m a 230{200) , o e - 8301340) —> n 280(3151 a r v O Y O M b Y SH 392 O ryOry M N N N 80(185) � 1080(1070) r `► ` 70J10) t 1190(1120) I� 5801170)� v YI o N O N � � N � N zm s C N - O o �L o Y M ' O O N V tO O b - 720(619) o ,` 350(540) 350{370) ► 330(590) 200(350) N 400(370) 210(260) } 970(720) � N O O Figure 3 Crossroads Blvd. 2035 Peak Hour 3, Traffic Forecasts .m� No Action & Proposed Action Legend . 2035 AM (PM ) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes �� AECOM EXHIBIT A m r Jr (F 8► � .l Y� Harmony Rd NO SCALE Kechter Rd �- � r SH 392 N 'a O1 d C 1 3 d jBlvd. Crossr Figure 4 No Action Lanes AECOM K EXHIBIT A d k-- JL (F � r Harmony Rd NO SCALE Kechter Rd SH 392 Jjt N C m c { ti N I 3 I Y (Fre '4t!` A A Crossroads Blvd. Figure 3 Q� aam Proposed Action Lanes daeq AECOM x EXHIBIT A -� (— Overall v -a r D(°) Overall D(D) ci Harmony Rd NO SCALE o� U m Kechter Rd vt N h U o Q rT FA(Cu675 tJ r F(FU625 A I F(F)71525 � w I - Overall 1 � F(F) 1 0 Overall Overall F(F) n F(C) A(Au150 f B(DN690 F(FY575 B(D)275 F(Cy1275 --t N m F(Fu1900 o } u c u O SH 392 f�l Overall C r W c E(F) V UOG A(A)7100 m q 1u � D(F)f1375 �r ` C(Av50 B(A)150 +l r F(F)11325 � o o m A(A)1175 a G U N W Qf o a 3 cT u Overall F(E) Overall F(F) Crossroads Blvd. Figure s 2035 Level of Service �a and 95 % Back of Queue Legend : No Action AM ( PM ) Peak Hour Level of Service V� GPI 195th % Back of Queue (ft) I AECOM EXHIBIT A Overall U J L D(D) —1 4 Overall D(D) Harmony Rd I NO SCALE Kechfer Rd i e 44 ° W I a' a r-- A(B)1250 I w r ` C(C)f20O I o C(C)1200 A(A)10 � Overall � B(B) Overall l i Overall A(B) LA(A}10 in O(C) ti » M + B(C)1150 msin 0 U a , A(Ap75 C(CN100 ,' +-- C(C)1225 �► ` O(D)1225 0 ` A(AU200 --► n 11 t N Q D(Du225 J ► J \ in a C(Cy525 l► I ( / o_ o n }• Q G oa ¢ G SH 392 p Overall p N r' B(C) V n n k� A(AU50 m ° v � B(C)1450 1 `A(C)ISO B(cua�5 � '1t l` aov m N W Q I 6 C � k � 0 H U U Overall y F(E) /J ° overall ° F(F) Crossroads Blvd. Figure 7 2035 Level of Service Legend : s ` A and 95 % Back of Queue t ,a Proposed Action AM ( PM) Peak Hour Level of Service l95th % Back of Queue (ft) u °�� AECOM �� .,..{. 'I i - u ' �Fti x,.v >1/�' {� Y er '.I v �. x „ I / ,:,, 1 • 1XHIBIT A I . 1 X. ;a y+ I i j" map +' < „ ♦' "� \ tI rCC.I, z It I YIyI �� ♦ ' / I. 9 ,y, 1 // IIt 6 1 In a a ,I ' r 1 { \ sag'' LAIt ER COUNTY ;/ +rr 4 % j rr 1 / / , Gn I I \ ' TOWN OF WINDSOR S ' + 1 1 I " , I IN dr p It ittItIt ta It It zt% 41 '—'<f �e x trl - E i 1 \ set I n ..` ram- • " � r tome — rr It 1 , - I tttl tip -41 — . — — tni r It 1{ ItILIII. _ r - r- . _ IF It x :.1�1 �l I `.`... x 3,,; f 1 " i r / t -/ �_ rye, _h 1 _ . ° COL f/ M :s �. t 'ems '�� �'. .��• I � � Vy �./I '�?�� i � + i ! 9 43s'4i 'Frt =7i : I i ;R I /t 1' s // Tc�v - _ n. ww_ � It 2222 " .,/ lot TIMM CUT _ ; i I: �+, i:; ! Ir Lj _.£ . :•-` - 1 '_ p. a {� F `L. InIt Y ' _ -p '. .. _ .v.n ! =`_ 11 Yi. .Eta _t3_ r� � -._�,' .� � <t F tr • ' ^v _`_. W FIGURE 8 - PROPOSED ACTION CONCEPT DESIGN t W EXHIBIT A FRONTAGE ROAD V.C. 0168.00' 8B RAMPS NB RAMPS WESTGATE K -84.08 r rt e --0.42' I m I Y N i ssD -824' i N � I v.c. -a76.00' � 9 K -96.38 i. I -2.94' I V.C. -650.00' I $ w O1 + in °' a W I a w SSD -428' mm I 4940 -- -K--96� 4 N o a `° 4940 e -5.4 : o I '� ~ 4.5' SE IN ROF0.E I . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . : SSD -4 T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _o. .� . . . . . � �.. . . . > .:. . a - - . . : . I . . . vim. . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t. . . . n7:. . I ; . . . . . . . : . . . . . aszo , . > > _ . d L . 92D > 4 » m ON : > W !! _ _ W 4900 � t } m 4880 _ > w - _ -. J. N m . . . 4880 . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . - - - - - - - . . 486D - 4O B :'-7. 9' 4860 ^ m . . .; . . . . . . . mo ~. 4840 ' W - - 4 840 W 4820 4820 102.00 103.00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108.00 109+00 110.00 111.00 112+00 113+00 114+D0 115.00 116.00 117+00 118.00 119.00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123.00 124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00 12 B+00 129+00 130+00 131+00 132+00 7 LL N LL N N m O n 2 FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED ACTION SH 392 PROFILE AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392 Bridge over I-25 Evaluation Matrix Date : October 20h, 2008 SH 392 Interchange 1601 Study Governing Constraints . 1 . The intent of this project is not to reconstruct existing I-25. 2. Span configurations should accommodate both Alt. A and Alt. B cross sections in the North I-25 DEIS. 3 . Distance from ultimate edge of pavement to structure piers/walls should be 14 feet as is identified in North I-25 DEIS guiding documents. This option builds a 2-span bridge that spans existing I-25 and does not accommodate either Alt A or Alt B from the North I-25 DEIS. It includes a center pier in 1 2-Span existing I-25 median. Pier foundations for the new structure would be constructed to avoid the existing bridge foundations. This option builds a temporary (Interim) structure, assuming that I-25 would be reconstructed sometime in the future. The ramp intersections, SH 392 lanes, and frontage road intersections would be constructed to match the North I-25 DEIS. This option was prepared for comparative purposes only. 2-Span This option builds a 2-span bridge that accommodates existing I-25 and both Alt A and Alt B typical sections from the North I-25 DEIS. This option clear spans 2a Tall Abutment existing I-25 and locates the west abutment 14 foot from existing outside edge of SB I-25 pavement. The interim east abutment and ultimate center pier is located Walls at the centerline of future I-25, and a barrier at the outside edge of NB I-25 pavement would be introduced. Note that the tall abutment walls help to minimize span lengths and structure depth requirements. 2-Span This option is similar to option 2a, except that tiered MSE "garden" walls are included in lieu of the tall abutment walls. This option has a deeper structure depth 2b With Tiered MSE requirement due to longer spans. The cost difference between options 2a and 2b is the result of the additional bridge length, depth and increased superstructure "Garden" Walls costs. Phased funding This option allows for construction phasing of either alternative 2a or 2b. This basically means that the west span of the structure would be constructed as part of 3 scenario (based on this project, and then the east span of the structure would be constructed when I-25 is reconstructed in the future. Alt 2a and 2b) 4 Clear Span This option provides a complete clear span of existing I-25 and both Alt A and Alt B from the North I-25 DEIS. This option requires a complex and expensive bridge type that would look much different than any of the bridges on I-25. An example would be a truss bridge. More detailed information for all alternatives is included in page 2 . Figure 10 1 of 2 AECOM EXHIBIT A SH 392 Bridge over I-25 Evaluation Matrix Date : October 21st, 2008 SH 392 Interchange 1601 Study Project Site Impacts Alt Description Interim Structure Ultimate Structure Construction Structure Cost Info. Info. Roadway Substructure Phasing Comments Middle pier must be L = 163 ' (2 spans) Maintains existing Stub abutment on Minimal temporary removed for 2-Span Cone. P/S Box or ultimate lane 1 $ 2.3 M N/A SH392 profile at piles or shafts. closures (Interim) BT Girder configuration and D = 3. 5 ' structure location Pier on shafts Phasing required new superstructure constructed. 2-Span L = 303 ' (2 spans) Raise pro approximately 4 file SH392 Tall cantilever Minimal temporary.0' Median pier to be 2a Tall Abutment $ 4. 9 M N/A Conc. BT 84 Girder abutment on piles. closures protected by Walls D = 8.0' to accommodate Pier on drilled shafts Phasing required AASHTO crash interim condition tested barrier. 2-Span L = 334 ' (2 spans) Stub abutment w/ Minimal temporary Median pier to be 2b With Tiered MSE $ 6. 5 M N/A Conc. U-Grdr or Raise profile SH392 tiered MSE closures protected by Steel I-Girder approximately 4. 5 ' "garden" walls. AASHTO crash "Garden" Walls D = 8. 5 ' Pier on drilled shafts Phasing required tested barrier. Phased funding Utilizes similar span layouts as Alternates 2a and 2b but defers ultimate costs into the future. Interim and ultimate costs are noted as follows: 3 scenario (based on * Alternate 2a (Int) = $ 2.7 M, (Ult) = $ 4.9 M; Alt 2a and 2b) * Alternate 2b (hit) = $ 3 .5 M, (Ult) = $ 6.5 M L = 303 ' Deep foundations Extended road Must build ultimate Minimal profile closure. Consider structure now 4 Clear Span $ 9.OM N/A Tied or Thru Arch and special D = 6.0' changes consideration Fast-track Aesthetics both a construction pro and con Figure 10 2 of 2 AECOM EXHIBIT A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2b- BRIDGE WITH DEIS PACKAGE ATYPICAL SECTION I I I 1 I C_ BRG 1167 * 1 11 I 1 , 137, _ PROPOSED BRIDGE 1 ECISTNG BRIDGE \ �J � b s r I 72 EDGE OF I EDGE OF 1 PROPUSED 1 1 I 1 1 PROPOSED / , PAVEMENT I PAVEMENT I ! � I / PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2b- BRIDGE WITH DEIS PACKAGE B TYPICAL SECTION I � I I � \ I 1 1 i I I I 1 I II III I 1 1 , � 1 C_ ERG I , I'ISP � 1 I I I . , ,. I PROPOSED BRIDGE IT , I I ' I ' I ' ' EXISTNG BRIDGE b I I 43 34 ! 1 I I� 11 / 338 I EDGE OF ' ' I ' ' E GE OF PRUPOSED I PROPOSED PAVEMENT ' ' I ' ' PAVEMENT I I ! 1 I 1 I 1 1 ! ! �� I / Figure 11 — Proposed Action Bridge in Plan View AECOM EXHIBIT A EXISITNG PROPOSED q 1-25 I-25 1 1 70' 18T3 SPAN PROPOSED IGT*SPAN FUTURE 71Z 7t SH 392 8.5' STRUCTURE DEPTH 18' 5' MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE i 7 t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10' 17 12' 28' 29 1 i SHLDR LANE LANE 4 MEDIAN MEDIAN 9 LANE LANISHLD 4*let 34't - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - ` EXISTING 28': GROUND 8:1 I FUTURE GROUND18' ' 12' 12' 12' 17 28' 2V 17 12'1 - 1IT 17 12' 81's SHLDR LANE LANE LANE SHLDR MEDIAN I MEDIAN SHLDR LANE LANE LANE SHLDR I CROSS SECTION 1-25 (LOOKING NORTH) INTERIM AND WITH DEIS PACKAGER EXISITNG PROPOSED (i 4 1-25 N25 1 1 7D' iBTS SPAN PROPOSED 18TY SPAN FUTURE � 344 SH 392 8.5'STRUCTURE DEPTH 18 8" MIN, VERTICLE CLEARANCE 7 t 10' 12' 12' 28' 28' 12' 17 luri - - - - - - - - 34'3 HLO LANE LANE ; MEDIAN MEDIAN jLANE LANE HLDA _ I < EXISTING 2ft - _ GROUND g;1 8:1 FUTURE GROUND + + r r :E]:9:HLDR r r18' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 14.75' 18' 12' 12' 17 12' 12' 12' 17SHLDR LANE LANE SHLDR SHLDR LANE LANE BRT SHLDR MEDIAN MEDIAN SHLDR BRT LANE SFILDR LANE LANE SHLDR b 43'3 2' BARRIER DECEL I ACCEL 2' BARRIER 1.25' GORE CROSS SECTION 1-25 (LOOKING NORTH) INTERIM AND WITH DEIS PACKAGE B FIGURE 12 - PROPOSED ACTION BRIDGE IN CROSS SECTION IAECOM EXHIBIT A Scenario Am SignificantRetail - - • • 1 ' ❑ Metro District ■ Development Related Tools ( PIF & URA) ❑ CDOT ❑ City of Fort Collins ❑ Town of Windsor Figure 13 — Scenario A Financing Plan AECOM EXHIBIT A Scenario B .m Public • • 27 EMS o City of Fort Collins ❑ Town of Windsor ❑ CDOT ❑ Metro District Figure 14 — Scenario B Financing Plan AECOM EXHIBIT A Scenario Co. Mix 1 PublicDeveloper Funding each 1 mz, 1 � ❑ City of Fort Collins ❑ Town of Windsor ❑ CDOT ■ Development Related Tool - PIF only ❑ Metro District Figure 15 — Scenario C Financing Plan AECOM