Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Correspondence & Supplemental Traffic Info.On Fri, -Apr 4, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann(c garfield-county.com> wrote: Hi Dan: Attached are the supplemental Traffic Submittals and site plan adjustments from the Buffalo Valley Apartments Applicants. Thanks again for you insights and comments in our previous telephone conferences. Given the new traffic count information and the new information from the Applicant any additional referral comments would be most appreciated. It would be excellent if you are able to further address or clarify the topic of whether an Access Permit from CDOT is triggered by this Application. I will give you a call later today to discuss the diagram you attached with your original comments and which shows up in similar forms in a couple of other reports/studies that I've been reviewing. Thanks for your ongoing assistance and expertise. S incerely, Glenn Hartmann Community Development Department From: Chris Hale{mailto:chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 5:05 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Norman Bacheldor; 'Seth Hmielowski' Subject: Buffalo Valley Glenn: Attached are additional exhibits to address some of the comments concerning Buffalo Valley: Sheet Cl has been revised to: - Show a sidewalk that connects to CR 154 Provides additional parking: o 76 regular stalls o 13 compact stalls o 4 ADA car stalls o 2 ADA van stalls o 11 tandem stalls (*2) o = 117 parking stalls (compared to 100 previous) Sheet C3 has been revised to show that a ladderlplatform fire truck can make the turn around the parking island per the Fire Marshal comments. 3 Sheet Cha has been added to show snow storage locations available around the project site to avoid the hauling of snow. Attached is an email from Kimley-Horn addressing comment #2 from CDOT. The proposed Skylark school performed a safety analysis and the recommendations have been summarized in the email. Sheet C1 (RevDesign-C 1) is a concept of how the entrance might be combined with the south access for the church. Initial conversations seem to have the church agreeable to the idea. This exhibit will be used to further discussions. We appreciate your continued efforts on this matter. Feel free to call or email with any questions. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 4 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 4201 East Arkansas Ave Denver, Colorado 80222-3400 303-757-9841 FAX 303-757-9219 March 3, 2411 To: CDOT Region 3 Access Permit Unit From: Alex Karami, Statewide Access Program Administrator Re: Access Regulation Questions UOWNUMOMPINMMWm This memo responds to your request for response to the following questions. Questions Presented: Question No. 1: How CDOT applies the State Highway Access Code relative to the 20% threshold concept? Question No. 2: How CDOT has maintained trip counts on all intersections of County roads with State Highways in the county? Question No. 3: What baseline count was used and from what point in time did CDOT begin their counts in order to determine when the 20% threshold is exceeded? Answer To the Questions: Areas within the State Highway Access Code 43-2-147, C.R.S., (SHAC) relevant to this inquiry are: Subsection 2.6(3) of the State Highway Access Code "(3) Unless there are identified safety problems, existing legal access to the state highway system shall be allowed to remain or be rnoved or reconstructed under the terms of an access permit in accordance with subsection 2.6 as long as total daily trips to and from the site are less than 100 or as long as only minor modifications are made to the property or as long as the access does not violate any specific permit terms and conditions. Minor modifications are defined as anything that does not increase the proposed vehicte volume to the site by 20 percent or more." And Subsection 2.6(6) of the State Highway Access Code "(6) Vehicular use and operation of local roads where they connect 10 (access) a state highway is the responsibility of the appropriate local authority. The local authority should maintain such state highway access locations in conformance with the Code to the extent feasible and practicable within statutory and public finding limitations. The local authority may fund any necessary improvements by obtaining contributions fr•orra the primary users of the access or as o/J site subdivision improvements necessary for the public safety pursuant to sections 30-28-133 and 133.1, C.R.S, and sections 31-23-201 to 227, C.R.S., or other available public fltnds and local requirements." CDOT Traffic Analysis Unit which operates within the Division of Transportation Development (DTD) is responsible for collecting Traffic Data and Statistics on all Roadways including City/County/State/Federal roads, intersections included and reporting the information to the Federal Highway Administration. The program has been around since before the 1950's. The baseline traffic data for any specific segment or intersection is therefore established when such data becomes available. CDOT also has access to additional Traffic Data via Traffic impact Studies conducted by third parties in relation to Access Permit applications and/or other highway improvement projects. With respect to the 20 percent provision of the SHAC, the Regional Access Permit Units may apply traffic information from any of the above sources to establish baseline traffic counts and to evaluate the cumulative impact (not single project) of land use changes and/or development proposals effecting the Traffic Volume and Level of Service (LOS) at specific segments or intersections of State highways and County Roads. Access Permit applications involving intersections of State Highways and County Roads are therefore processed and examined with respect to the cumulative effect of the proposed developments and the confines of the Subsection 2.6(6) of the SHAC. At CDOT our mission is to provide the best transportation system for Colorado that most effectively moves people, goods and information, we believe that partnership and cooperation between CDOT and Units of Local Government is vital and essential in this pursuit so as to work together to find logical solutions on highway improvement projects. Please let me know if you need any additional information, Regards, U ^!� Alex Karami Access Programa Administrator Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch 303-757-9841 Alex.karami@,dot.state.co.us Glenn Hartmann From: Norman Bacheldor [normbacheldor c@gmail_com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:30 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Chris Hale; Seth Hmielowski; Ken Janckila Subject: Parking Studies Attachments: Parking Case Study 1, pdf; Parking Case Study 2.pdf: Glenwood Green 12-0195-12-0198_ O8.pdf; Institute of Transportation Engineers.pdf; King County.doc Glenn, I offer the following studies on Parking stall requirements. 1. Case Study One: Machebeuf Apartments in Glenwood Springs 2. Case Study Two: Glenwood Green Apartments at Glenwood Meadows 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers recommendations 4. King County Washington State, Apartment parking per unit calculator. Case Study One: Machebeuf Apartments in Glenwood Springs The web page for Google maps 15: https://www.gooetle.com/maps/place/111+Soccer+Field+Rd1 39.563142,- 107.360088,354m/data=?3m2f 1 e3!4b1 ?4m2?3m1 ! 1 s0x8741 Obdfcbfba6ad:Ox7eb7ba96b348a6b4 Case Study Two: Glenwood Green Apartments at Glenwood Meadows Three: Institute of Transportation Engineers Four: King County Washington State, Apartment parking per unit calculator. Thanks, Norm Bacheldor normbacheldor@gmail.com 970-379-7874 Parking Case Study 1 Machebeuf Apartments 111 Soccerfield Rd Glenwood Springs, CO Site Manager: Rodney Long. 970-945-9792 This is a 55 unit Archdiocese project Built in 1996 17 each 2 -bedroom units 37 each 3 -bedroom units 1 each 3 -bedroom Manager unit 55 Units, 148 Bedrooms Total Parking Stalls: 116 Includes 8 Handicap stalls Includes 18 guest stalls Parking management system is maximum of 2 assigned stalls per apartment. However, some units only have one car or none. Parking Stall Ratio: Per Bedroom: .78 parking stalls per bedroom Per Unit: 2.1 parking stalls per unit Parking Case Study 2 Glenwood Green At Glenwood Meadows Managed by Munroe Group Ltd. 303-322-8888 Site Manager: Kim Krelovich 970-230-9075 60 Units Approximately 28 each 1 -bedroom 20 each 2 -bedroom 12 each 3 -bedroom No parking management plan currently in place, however, the manager states that one is being developed. Parking stalls: 91. No on -street parking. No assigned guest parking. Parking Ratios: Per Unit: 1.52 parking stalls per unit Per Bedroom: .88 parking stalls per bedroom Parking received a variance of 1.5 stalls per unit according to a Glenwood Post news article. Institute of Transportation Engineers Provided by Curtis Rowe Curtis Rowe, P.E., PTOE (P.E. in CO, NE, WY, NM, MT, and NV) Kimley-Horn and Associates, inc. 990 South Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 228- 2304 Cell: (720) 480-9036 curtis.rowe@a kimIey-horn.com www.kimley-horn.com "1 ran some calculations for you to provide some information at the next hearing. The ULI parking calculation procedure (as attached) identifies that the demand would be projected at 95 parking spaces. ITE Parking Generation shows the parking demand of apartments as 1.23 spaces per apartment unit. So, that would equate to 70 parking spaces for 57 units, So, you would be fine at 100 parking spaces. " The ULI parking calculation is in a separate attachment. King County, Washington State Apartment Parking Calculator http://www.biziournals.comiseattleiblog/2013/02frow-many- pa rking-stalls-does-a n.html?page=all The referenced article describes a robust parking calculator for apartment projects. This tool came out of a comprehensive study funded by the Federal. Highway Administration, and conducted by The Center for Neighborhood and Technology, The Urban Land Institute and Washington Department of Transportation. The calculator uses about 100 factors to determine the correct ratio of parking stalls per unit. I used the city of Kent, Washington because it is a somewhat rural small town with limited public transit. I zeroed in on two different parcels of land in the town of Kent. The calculator allows you to adjust rentals and numbers of units of various types (studio through 3 -bedroom) I used Buffalo Valley product mix, and kept the rents the same as the calculator example. The results 1 got were 1.4 stalls per unit and 1.48 stalls per unit. Next, I used Bellevue because it has the reputation of better public transit. I chose some land a few blocks off a major interstate clover -leaf. That location showed 1.2 stalls per unit. @ 8 4411•1100001111:0010, 1001 0 1 SCALE 1" = 0,0•4, 40-o. 24 nos .re wcprty m u V 0 d LL )JECT INFORMATION APARTMENT UNITS HANDICAP SPACES CARPORT SPACES VA> l//A TOTAL PARKING SPACES =1.5 PER UNIT 1, SITE PLAN IN SCALE: 1" = $0'-0" P B 1833 YOrk Strobl Donor, CO 80208 ph: 303 592.2904 Ix: 303 502.2387 em: plpepherc.wn SHAW BULLDERS LLC. 760 Homer Dara Suit® 201 pT. 303 825-4740 Gra"4 40.1101. GO 81858 ix: 303 8256403 GLEN WOOD GREEN GLET'WOOD SPRINGS, CO ISSUED FOR: PERMIT 5.tif DATE: 05/31nz nv PLAN SF¢fFILL SITE PLAN •FLT NUMBER A0.21 HITGLISNKF14CT 1,'Ark 5C1 II00 Glenn Hartmann From; Norman Bacheldor [normbacheldor@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:54 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Seth Hmielowski; Chris Hale; Ken Janckila Subject: Fwd: How many parking stalls does an apartment complex need? New tool gives some answers - Puget Sound Business Journal Glenn, This is a comprehensive parking calculator for apartment projects. This tool came out of a comprehensive study funded by the Federal Highway Administration, and conducted by various agencies including Washing Department of Transportation and others. The calculator uses about 100 factors to determine the correct ratio of parking stalls per unit. I used the city of Kent, because it is a somewhat rural small town with limited public transit. I zeroed in on two different parcels of land in the town of Kent. The calculator allows you to adjust rentals and numbers of units of various types (studio through 3 -bedroom) I used Buffalo Valley product mix, and kept the rents the same as the example. The results 1 got were 1.4 stalls per unit and 1.48 stalls per unit. Next, I used Bellevue because it has the reputation of better public transit. 1 chose some land a few blocks off a major interstate clover -leaf. That location showed 1.2 stalls per unit. I suggest that you would like to check out this tool. It was intended to solve the mystery of adequate parking specifically for apartments. http://www.bizjournals.comiseattlelblog/2013/02/how-many-parki ng-stalls-does-an.html?page=al l 1 Glenn Hartmann From: NormanBacheldor [normbacheldor©gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:49 PM To: Glenn Hartmann; Michael Prehm Cc: Ken Janckila; Curtis Rowe; Chris Hale Subject: Fwd: County Road 154 & Hwy 82 intersection This is from Curtis Rowe, our traffic engineer. He is also the traffic engineer for Skylark School application. Thanks Nora Sent from my 'Phone Begin forwarded message: On Mar 24, 2014, at 7:39 PM. "Rowe, Curtis" <Curtis.Rowe( kimley-horn.com> wTote: it was determined that Skylark School will require a CDOT access permit. Buffalo Valley Apartments will not. Buffalo Valley Apartments is decreasing the traffic from previous. Dan Roussin of CDOT concurred. So, this issue of an access permit application for Buffalo Valley Apartments shouldn't be coming up again. Again, Skylark School will be submitting an access permit application for that project. Curtis Curtis Rowe, P.E., PTOE (P. E. in CO. NE, WY, NM, MT, and NV) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 990 South Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 228-2304 Cell: (720) 480-9036 curtis. rowe©kimley-horn.com www.kimley-horn.com 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers Provided by Curtis Rowe Curtis Rowe, P.E., PTOE (RE, in CO, NE, WY, NM, MT, and NV) Kirley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 990 South Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 228- 2304 Cell: (720) 480-9036 curtis.rowe©kimley-horn.com www.kimley-horn.com "I ran some calculations for you to provide some information at the next hearing. The ULI! parking calculation procedure (as attached) identifies that the demand would be projected at 95 parking spaces. ITE Parking Generation shows the parking demand of apartments as 1.23 spaces per apartment unit. So, that would equate to 70 parking spaces for 57 units. So, you would be fine at 100 parking spaces. The ULI parking calculation is in a separate attachment. Glenn Hartmann From: NormanBacheldor lnorrnbacheldor@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:11 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Ken Janckila; Chris Hale Subject: Traffic engineering Glen and Tamara I have reviewed the February 18 BOCC video and motion. It seems very clear to me that the BOCC has stated that the Applicant does not have responsibility as to road configurations, additional traffic studies and interaction with COOT on CR 154. I believe the motion also supports this conclusion. Based upon the above I protest and do not approve the request from Glenn Hartman to have SGM engaged to review traffic options under third party review to the Applicant. We do not agree to pay for what seems clear is a GarCo issue as represented in BOCC motion and dialogue. The study by Curtis Rowe PE does provide traffic management recommendations within the traffic report. Sincerely Norman Bacheldor Managing Partner Partners III , LLC Sent from my iPhone Glenn Hartmann From: Gretchen E Ricehill [gretchen.ricehill@cogs.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:53 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley - off street parking Glenn Serves me right for trying to do the math between frantic meetings. You are correct - The total number of parking spaces that would be required for this project is 114 +12 (guest) + 12(recreation) = 138. © Regarding the city's comp plan — As you've probably already noted, the future land use map classifies this area for mixed use development. "The Mixed- use land use designation allows for a variety of uses including commercial, retail, office, restaurant, entertainment and multi -family housing co -existing through design either in a horizontal or vertical fashion." (p. 29) If this were developed in the city limits, the city's comp plan contains a number of supportive statements for this type of housing. "The city encourages a variety of housing types, sizes and costs throughout the community and in each neighborhood. A variety of housing types will create the opportunity for households with diverse characteristics." (p.72) "Encourage Greater Variety in Housing Types and Price" (see p, 75 under this heading for a more complete explanation — basically it supports higher density housing and a variety of unit sizes to meet the needs of young adults and the valley's workforce) "Encourage a Mix of Densities and Unit Types within New and Redevelopment Projects — The greatest opportunity for mixed density projects will be in the redevelopment of the secondary commercial centers, the Downtown, and in annexations. In these areas particularly, the City should encourage a mix of densities and unit types". (p. 75) "Ensure Rental and Ownership Opportunities" (see page 75 fora more complete explanation of this goal statement — it encourages construction of apartments. Finally, there is some discussion in the comp plan (p. 74) about providing community (affordable) housing when parcels are annexed into the city limits. The problem is that currently, there is a moratorium on the city's community housing requirements so I'm not sure how these goal statements would apply to this particular project. Hope this helps a little Gretchen From: Glenn Hartmann [mailto:ghartmann@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:12 PM To: Gretchen E Ricehill Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley - off street parking Hi Gretchen: Thanks very much for fitting my question into your schedule. If my math is correct does your code work out to 2.4 spaces per unit (2 + 0.2/guest + 0.2/rv)? Your input is most helpful. Thanks again and please don't let my inquiry complicate/add to your busy schedule. Glenn. Glenn Hartmann Community Development Department 1 From: Gretchen E Ricehill [mailto:gretchen.ricehillkkcogs.us] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 4:52 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Buffalo Valley - off street parking Glenn If the Buffalo Valley apartments were developed to city of Glenwood Springs standards, our off-street parking code would require the following: 160 off street parking spaces 57 unit apartment complex 2 spaces per dwelling unit, plus 1 guest parking space for each 5 dwelling units, plus 1 recreation vehicle space for each 5 dwelling units. No more than 60 of these spaces shall be provided outside of the building footprint. Standard sized spaces are 9 x 19 but up to 20% of the required spaces can be for compact cars — 8 x 16 feet. We require landscaping in the parking lot as well. Basically we require one landscape island for every 8 parking spaces. No parking row can exceed 8 spaces without being interrupted by the landscape island, the size of which is roughly the size of a standard parking space. There needs to be a tree in each island and a ground cover (like turf) to cover at least 50% of the island. Regarding the City's comp plan and this project —1,11 need to send you something tomorrow. I was called into yet another meeting shortly after we spoke on the phone. Crazy Monday. Gretchen 2 Pr.nt Pots: 5/9 K‘0/0,LOOiIV.1 WW ICGC:OI Wag www.glenwoodsouthbridge.net • Where are we now in the process? After 42 months of work and mul- tiple meetings (including 3 public meetings, over 20 public meetings with local elected officials, meeting with local businesses and the involve- ment of a Citizen's Advisory Group), a Preferred. Alternative for the project has been selected. The Preferred Al- ternative, known as Alternative 1013, will connect Airport Road to SH 82 across the south end of the Glenwood Springs Municipal Airport. This con- nection will go under the airport in a cut -and -cover tunnel, cross the Roar- ing Fork River on a dear span bridge and connect to SH 82 just south of the Holy Cross Energy facility near Red Canon Road. The Glenwood Springs City Council and Garfield County Board of Com- missioners endorsed Alternative lOb as the Preferred Alternative earlier this year. What's next? Preparation of the EA is underway by the project consultant, Jacobs Engi- neering. Jacobs is writing the various chapters of the EA, which entails an environmental analysis of the Pre- ferred Alternative and the No Build alternative. Tasks include the follow- ing: • A traffic analysis including levels of service at intersections • A safety analysis Preferred Alternative (Alternative 10b) Location of noose barriers - or barrier/berm. Glenwood Springs Municipal Airport 4 * _. • 0.1 0 mmo 01 Miles SOUTH BRIDGE Figure 19. Preferred Alternative Na. 10b LEGEND Preferred Alternative - RKTA Transilfrrotl Corridor — Retaining Walls - lend %caping 01 0 0141,k,s February 2012 South Bridge, Alternatives Development and Screening Report 65 SOUTH BRIDGE 1 2 Local access along SH 82 in this area 3 would be closed and consolidated with 4 the new intersections. The following 5 local access would be closed: 6 7 Y Between the SH 82/CR 154 8 intersection and new South Bridge 9 intersection, the Holy Cross 10 Electric property on the west, and 11 two accesses on the east side of SH 12 82 would be closed. 13 » South of the new South Bridge 14 intersection, two accesses on the 15 west side of SH 82 to the Lazy H 16 Slash Eleven property would be 17 closed. 18 19 The new consolidated access and 20 intersections include the following 21 enhancements to SH 82: 22 23 24 Figure 25. Right In/Right Out Intersection Right-in/right-out and northbound only left -turn lane intersection at Mountain View Church and Buffalo Valley. 25 > Southbound SH 82, right turn lane deceleration lane. 26 ). Right turn out, acceleration lane onto Southbound SH 82. 27 » Northbound SH 82, right turn lane deceleration lane. 28 Northbound SH 82, left turn lane. 29 > Full movement, signalized intersection with South Bridge alignment, CR 154 30 and SH 82. 31 Y Southbound SH 82, right turn deceleration lane made continuous with the right - 32 out acceleration lane. 33 Y Southbound SH 82 acceleration lane. 34 ; Southbound SH 82 left turn lane. Northbound SH 82, right turn deceleration lane. r Northbound SH 82, left turn lane, with 400 -foot storage. 35 February 2012 South Bridge, Alternatives Development and Screening Report 73 ieTh SOUTH BRIDGE EmiremnizEmarm 1 Y Northbound SH 82, acceleration lane, made continuous with the right -in 2 deceleration lane. 3 r Provisions for a bus queue bypass consistent with RFTA plans. 4 5 The landscaping for the Preferred Alternative would include the landscaping of the 6 roundabout, the area between the back of curb and the sidewalk, and the disturbed 7 areas behind the back of the curb. The landscaping could include formal landscape 8 design, low -maintenance landscape design, and revegetation of disturbed areas. Formal 9 landscaping could include trees, shrubs, perennials, and annuals that require irrigation 10 and regular maintenance. Low -maintenance design could include shrubs, grasses, and 11 perennials that would have low-water and maintenance requirements. Revegetation 12 could include seeding the disturbed areas with native plant material. 13 10.3.1.1 Estimate of Probable Costs 14 An estimate of probable cost for the Preferred Alternative based on the conceptual 15 design was calculated for screening and planning purposes. The estimate of probable 16 cost is intended to provide a magnitude of cost for the Preferred Alternative and will be 17 refined during preliminary and final design. The estimate was based on unit cost per 18 linear foot, square foot, cubic foot, or acre of the alternative as shown in the conceptual 19 engineering layouts and profiles. This cost estimate includes construction of roadway 20 (reconstruction, improvements, and new alignment), traffic calming elements, signalized 21 intersection with SH 82, identified excavations, fill/embankments, retaining walls, cut - 22 and -cover tunnel, bridge structure, and right-of-way costs. An estimate for adjusting the 23 RFTA corridor (as a pedestrian path and commuter rail corridor) to provide a grade - 24 separated crossing with the Preferred Alternative is included in the cost estimate. The 25 conceptual cost estimate includes a 25 percent contingency to account for construction 26 items not included in the conceptual evaluation. An additional 30 percent for design and 27 construction management is added for delivery of the project (see Table 18). 28 Table 18. Estimate of Probable Costs for the Preferred Alternative Element Estimated Probable Cost (Millions) Bridge Structure $10.5 Tunnel (cut -and -cover) $2.0 Roadway (reconstruction/new) $6.6 Right -of -Way $2.4 RFTA Corridor $0.6 Contingency $4.9 Design/Construction Mane ement $7.4 Total $34.4 February 2012 South Bridge, Alternatives Development and Screening Report 74 SOUTH BRIDGE iimiumnituagneraum Figure 23. New Alignment on East Side of the Roaring Fork River IMPROVE CONNECTION BETWEEN RED PROVIDE ACCESS TO EXISTING PARCE 111 EXISTING ACCESS CLOSED ('IOB) RED CANON RD RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT NEW ACCESS NEW ACCESS -WATER QU r Mvu st WATER QUALITY POND CR "6 February 2012 South Bridge, Alternatives Development and Screening Report 71 Transportation Improvement Needs Assessment BOCC Presentation, Feb 8th, 2011 Introductions/ Background/Objectives Premise The system we have now for funding road and intersection improvements isn't working. • Current traffic impact fee program does not allow collected fees to be used for State Highway intersections, does not have a non-residential component and is not applied County -wide • CDOT 20% rule does not address cumulative impacts • occasionally partnering has worked, but often only one motivated partner • those who contribute to the need don't help fund the solution • not having money -in -hand puts us in lower priority for State funding As we look into the future we see the need to improve many different roads and intersections throughout the county. They each have different conditions and growth pressures. Can we devise a method of funding the needed improvements so that • safety is maintained • business and development is not held back • the burden is fairly shared by those who benefit Approach Examine the intersections and identify • potential growth • kinds of improvements needed • jurisdictions • potential partners Intersections 5 intersections represent most of the conditions in the County Growth Two components: • regional traffic increases • local development To test an approach we used 2.6% growth rate to include both conditions The Chart Summarize the operational and safety analysis Conditions vary, needs vary, cost varies, potential partners vary. Partnerships County has been successful in creating several partnerships with gas industry. • CR204 • Various overlays and road section rebuilds • CR 300 Are these models for future? Potential partners include: • Residential developers, residents • Commercial/Industrial developers • Existing residents of the county through taxes (County government)CDOT — (Safety/Hazard elimination grant process - Provide planning and design to engage funding opportunities for intersections) Responsibility (contribution needs) vary by intersection. We've made a first pass allocation using pie charts to illustrate the concept. Issues 1. Not all the potential partners have the same urgency—some don't need improvements until much later. How do we get them to participate? 2. How do we measure relative impact? Impacts range from very small (one house) to under a 20%© increase (CDOT doesn't assess if impact is less than a 20% increase) to large subdivisions with specific impacts. There is no cumulative measure. 3. We don't want to burden economic development, yet they also contribute to the impact 4. How do we accumulate partnership contributions ahead of time, or afterward? Does the County front-end the cost then get reimbursed over time? 5. If you do a partnership over time, how do you account for inflation? 6. Does the County want, or feel the need, to be the "partner -of -last -resort"? 7. Does an Access Management Plan allow the County to regain some control with regard to permitting? Q&A Policy directions On the right track? Keys to a successful solution? Can partners contribute over time? What role should the County play in the funding solution? Public/Stakeholder Input? SCi-IMUESER GORDON MEYER E. N G I N E E R S I S U R V E Y O R S Update: Transportation improvement Needs Assessment BOCC Presentation, June 20, 2011 Background/Objectives Over the next 20 years Garfield County is facing the need to improve many intersections throughout the county. Some of the improvements are needed for safety reasons (such as sight distance), and are therefore more urgent, while others are related to accommodating the traffic associated with growth that may occur over the next 20 years. Some of the needed improvements are modest, involving new or extended turn lanes, while others are more extensive—involving complete intersection remodeling (such as installing a roundabout). Since all the intersections are with state highways under CDOT's jurisdiction, the state's review process, right-of-way acquisitions and construction requirements must be adhered to. The total amount estimated for intersection improvements over the next 20 years is approximately $19.5 million. Many of the improvements will contribute to varying degrees to economic development—such as new industrial development at the airport, or residential development in various locations. By prioritizing County intersections, budgeting for design and having shovel -ready plans, the County will better position itself for State funding. Analysis SGM reviewed 28 County Road / State Highway intersections throughout the County. The intersections were then grouped into 3 categories that represent the primary need justifying the improvement: • County Primary – existing traffic levels and safety conditions warrant the improvement; therefore, the County would be the primary source of funding. • Developer Primary – future growth may warrant the improvement, and therefore developers would be expected to cover a significant portion of the costs. The term "Developer" could also include oil & gas development. • UGA— future growth within the Urban Growth Area where the improvements may be justified by municipal expansion. In this case, a significant portion of the funding might come from the local jurisdiction, which could include land owners or other private interests that would benefit. The term Primary refers to the intention that wherever possible funding would be via partnership, but that one category of partners (County, Developer, UGA) may be expected to carry a larger portion of the cost. The categories also serve to indicate the potential partnering sources that could assist the County in funding these improvements. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS!SURVEYORS Example intersections were further analyzed, looking at existing and future (2030) operational conditions: • A growth rate of 2.6% was applied to the study intersections • Operational analyses of the intersections were conducted including evaluating turn lane queuing • Accident analysis using FHWA's Federal Hazard Elimination Program criteria was performed as per CDOT recommendation • For 5 of the example intersections, a conceptual design was considered and gross costs were estimated • The appropriate gross costs were then applied to all 28 intersections Prioritization The Board directed SGM to review the 28 intersections and provide a prioritization for the top 8 intersections based upon technical opinion. The list of the top 8 and technical reasoning for each priority are provided below: 1. CR 114/154 (CMC) — Accident records and hazard indices show that the frequency/severity of accidents are highest of any County intersection. High speeds, high traffic volumes, sight distance and lack of adequate turning lanes and turning lane length contribute to this problem. 2. CR 110/113 (Cattle Creek) — Although accident records do not indicate an accident pattern; high speeds, high traffic volumes and lack of a traffic signal provide a situation for future severe traffic accidents. The eastern approach layout adds to the safety hazard with lack of lane and vehicle priority definition. 3. CR 100 (Catherine's Store) Accident records and hazard indices show that the frequency/severity of accidents are the next highest of any County intersection. High speeds, high traffic volumes and lack of adequate turning lanes and turning lane length contribute to this problem. 4. CR 115 (Red Canyon) — Accident records and hazard indices show that the frequency/severity of accidents are the third highest of any County intersection. High speeds, high traffic volumes, sight distance and lack of adequate turning lanes and turning lane length contribute to this problem. 5. CR 315 (Mamm Creek) -- Lack of accident records did not allow that analysis. However, lack of sight distance coupled with significant industrial traffic, a commuter park-and-ride and County water hauling station, all at a poorly defined and large intersection, result in a safety hazard. 6. GR 227 (Miller Lane) — Although accident records do not show a problem yet, this designated truck route mixes residential, commercial and industry traffic along a relatively high speed highway that Tacks turning lanes and has narrow shoulders with steep, unprotected side slopes adjacent to the highway. 7. CR 235 (Davis Point) — Lack of accident records did not allow that analysis. Nevertheless, there are several potential safety hazards: poor horizontal and vertical sight distance to the west, rockfall potential, a skewed intersection and lack of turn lanes along a relatively high speed roadway adjacent to Coal Ridge High School. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G F N E E R 3 1 S U R V E Y O R S 8. CR 229 (Ukele Lane) - Although accident records do not show a significant problem, a potential safety hazard exists with residential uses along a relatively high speed highway that lacks turning lanes. The intersections of CR 214 (Peach Valley), CR 223 (Peterson Lane) and CR 311 (River Frontage Road, Silt) would be the next three clear priorities, but were not fully analyzed due to lack of data. This prioritization reflects current conditions. In the future, these priorities may be adjusted as development proposals are submitted or other factors arise that demonstrate a need for improvements at a specific location. Funding Approximately $14M in funding is needed over the next 10 years to address the eight highest priority intersections. The Board provided direction that they prefer a funding solution comprised of County funding, combined with partnering with developers and landowners when justified and possible. This strategy would be implemented without a formal policy due to the dynamics and complexity of possible partnerships over a range of several intersections. Potential funding assistance from CDOT for an intersection improvement will most likely be generated from Safety Enhancement Grants, TPR funding or the recent CDOT Intersection Analysis and Prioritization Study. When the County is able to provide shovel -ready plans for intersections that have identified deficiencies and safety hazards based upon CDOT methodology, it will be more likely to receive funding in our experience. In addition, identification of priority intersections will give County staff time to begin possible negotiations with potential partners for a specific intersection improvement, allowing interaction with the partners during the design process. Next Steps Potential next steps in the process are identified below: • County to adopt (or modify) proposed current intersection priority(ies) and select intersection(s) to proceed to design phase • Selection of the design consultant through RFQ process ('-2 months) • Topographic and Boundary survey and identification of any Right -of -Way issues (-1 month) • ROW acquisitions and environmental permitting (-1-2 years) • Access Permit process through CDOT (-6 months) • Construction Bid and Award process (-2 months) 4- 01) E N w rn N Q 7n en 73 = G} 7+ Z a v- C WY M Z3 e erf1 4'� Eo 7 03 d w °- o Q 1- I- ' W' reo a0 0 o d 6. io u, • trt 4'0 C LL 2 2 71 E 0 S tel 2 0 SAFETY v R R 9 m T 9 v v 0 .- a- R 9 O -0 c q 'r' CCI o Bu! 46n • • • • • • • ■ spix03. hemanpotaulioed • • • • (Ow Str a)auoZ paadg'uthH • • • • • • • 436ua1 aue1 wnl 1 • • I • • • • • • pails JOugry - aOuegsia 4L s s • • • • leans Jofen - aoue4s!O 146s • • • • Ou}eil 4lsnpuj • • OPERATIONAL a,eil Ie1OJawwo3 • • • • • • Oliepj Ie9uaprsa8 • 1 • • • • • • • OueJJ ueulsapad • • • • OCOZ - uOiygppy aue1 • • • • ■ • • • o°cnE - luelyeAA leuB!s • • 01-0K - uoitippy aun • • • OLOZ - ZueJefvy Ieu6rg • AHO Bugsrx3 2 N o N m N in Csb ,R. t] rr Level of Service 2030 With Existing LOS Improvements AM PM AM PM 0 - -_ LO 3 CCS 0 0 I. 0 0 < 07 0 0 V 0 < CO < 0 e N 3 m-) w 0 iW m 0 N CO 0 (N 9 N 9 N Cis 0 N CO ' 0 N 0 N Study Intersection CR 114/154 (CMC) CR 1101113 (Cattle Creek) CR 100 (Catherines Store) CR 115 (Red Canyon) CR 315 (Mamm Creek) CR 227 (Miller Lane) CR 235 (Davis Point) CR 229 (Miele Lane) *laud 3LIaJJn0 N cn 1 co ti co wm i4 C 4m m coco 2 CA 4 0_ E c 0 c o C E L •v co c rovement Details for 5 Example Intersections: c cc N E E. O as a. r U m 2 a a CU at N Cr L V To C Lu m m co ce ae e m c0 o c.= 'Pp? m O Q . •I m a a c v a �D5 coo -n �y c0 m m c� O N 2 g; .N O E fl E t 2 w .2 a E.(ism e m E O_ m R Ca C _,t t N. L al r E a.. L W U s u m L di 2 wwc°a y—ao a N c w a Q m E m ., Q U L0 E N N 2 N a YK co m Q' an d wz.EU w m y m c c a [lel O 'a W i I `—" ,0. N Etis mm m— .� Ti di m Lijcin m m c E v 'm o m a. oa G L-5 m 0 m C = R - m P. m W Ul t. C 7 m O m c m m m = F c .ZM VuJ6p ; W x Y Q a w ' m m w� m 11 1111 E a m E ° E Y CA a 2 m a EU �'oo Um m m ' S a�s�ur m Hazard Elimination Com WHI = Weighted Hazard Ind accident pattern m RS E Q) w 0 v 0 0 41 a. W 0 c 0 U rn CA 0 z H Includes 15% Engineering and CM April 11, 2011 4 4 4 C) 4 o 4 0 0 4 o C7 O CS C] 69646944 o 444 C] 0 Ce 0 000 4 4 0 4 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 0 oo00 Orifi 4 o o o 4 Cl C7 C7 C> C7 0 o u7 9l) 0 ii, Cf) o U) (0 4 (0 era 0a o i0 • T. 69 69 r 44 CD r r N 446449 49 49 6449 W of N Cl' > - - 0 C 0 _ -0 16 Q Le p O 0.7 d CC 4, [�,} = N iota 12 2 (4 m 0 -D -a m I- a•°i v o UmCCCC c CD p a m Ove C] ffi© v 0 Y r) CO C9 CO y CD CD Go 00 OD 000 u)U)DDEDD'COC/7La C 7 C 7 4iV 4C+)C)Cfa0 �Y V (09- 0 = 4) <I N N Cl01 N 01 C•) ir) r_ _O Ua ❑ 0CCCCCCCC CCL'CCC OCCCQ'CC mo O e D0C0U0000U0UU CL 4m yls4T C7 0 C7 4 4 0 0 0 C7 0 4 C74 o 44 o 0 0 0o C7 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 o C] o C7 4 C7 4 4 o 0 0 0 0 0 C7 4o 440 0 0 00 eD er) u) era en u0 Oil 0 era CV CC) r 49 64 49 49 r 4% 49 49 49 0 Y 2 C V J J :�7 al .--. g N 41 N N H M =. c _ W o7 C 0 4C2-�N vU a, co m to to .4 0) 0. e. 0 U) n UJ C/) r 0-' p. ❑a 7 C p O t+) en N Z6 vt J 01 no 0) Cy CW CV r Q C 0 L] a7ecccc aiccDE I— q o 0UC)UC]00 d CL con . < +. R 64CD 4CCD n 4 4 66o 06 940 0 0 9 o o o 0 0 o c v o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 4 0 0 0 0 in (0 (0 0 In 0 4 Ira 69 69 2 0_ C U ▪ 49 CC CD 49 49 49 0) L • ,• C qa C)) J > c 3 0 To. - 9 C o i) C ns0) L' as m m 2 =Uta _125CL 0 CC) CO 4 OD CD COM co 9 u) CN1 p C/)U)Q000V)DDDDD CO 06 CO U) I rTY Z5 N4") 'FQ0 e� ' o C7 • opCCS r e17 r 4 0 N N • CCV r r r r CC CCC [C CC CCC Cr CC 000000000 + Roundabout County (CDOT) Intersections used by Indo • SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS In an effort to create funding models for County Road/State Highway intersections, we've developed three categories for each of these intersections to be grouped under. The categories represent the current partnerships that could be formed to share in the cost of improving an intersection. In all cases, CDOT could be considered a partnering financial contributor as the State's funding sources allow. The categories designated are County Primary, Developer Primary, and UGA (Urban Growth Area). Both the County Primary and Developer Primary categories represent intersections that fall exclusively within the County and serve a mix of residential, commercial, and/or industrial traffic. The categories differ as follows: • County Primary are intersections which do not currently have a primary impacting party and which may or may not currently have a deficiency. • Developer Primary are intersections which have a proposed impact (residential, commercial, or industry) that may trigger intersection improvements at the State Highway access point. • UGA refers to intersections located within the currently defined growth area of a local municipality. UGA intersections often have several potential partners for funding including the city or town, County, and potentially an adjacent developer. As development projects get planned and municipalities grow, the need to re - categorized intersections to account for new conditions may arise. For example, an intersection that currently is categorized as Developer Primary such as Cattle Creek (CR 110 /113 & SH 82), may switch to the County Primary category if the adjacent development application stalls. The categories should be non-binding and flexible, allowing for re -categorization as development plans change. Consideration was made to classify the County's intersections according to operations, safety, or other traffic engineering parameters; however, using the funding source criteria separates the projects by varying degrees of County financial responsibility. In all cases for improvements, the County may be responsible for some portion of the improvement. The level of County responsibility for these improvements should decrease from significant participation for "County Primary" intersections to cooperative participation with developers for "Developer Primary" intersections to more limited participation for "UGA" intersections, where funding is spread between the municipality, County, and potential developer. Following is a list of the intersections with "prototype" or example intersections (highlighted) that will be used to further this study. 6 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS County Primary Intersections (8) • CR 246/US 6 (Landfill) • CR 315 & CR 346/1-70 (Marnm Creek) • CR 262/US 6 (Mid Valley) • CR 263/US 6 (Weare Ln) • CR 137/US 6 (Canyon Creek) • CR 154/SH 82 (Hardwick Bridge) • CR 103/SH 82 (Crystal Spgs) • CR 100/SH 82 (Catharines Store) Developer Primary Intersections (8) • CR 3001U5 6 (Una Bridge) • CR 323/US 6 (Rullison) • CR 227/US 6 (Miller Ln) • CR 229/US 6 (Ukele Ln) • CR 110&CR 1131SH82(Cattle Creek) • CR 154 & CR 1141SH82(CMC) UGA Intersections (14) • CR 244/SH 13 Bypass (Fravert Res) • CR 242/SH 13 (JQS Tr) • CR 210/US 6 (Mile Pond Rd) • CR 223/US 6 (Peterson Ln) • CR 313/River Frontage Rd (Divide Creek) • CR 235/US 6 (Davis Point) • CR 214/US 6 (Peach Valley) • CR 240/US 6 (Bruce Rd) • CR 134/1-70 (S. Canyon) • CR 132/US 6 (Mitchell Creek) • CR 154/SH 82 (Buffalo Valley) • CR 115/SH 82 (Red Canyon) • CR 106/SH 82 (Carbondale Boat Ramp) • CR 107/SH 82 (Red Hill) 6 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS TO: The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners FROM: SGM Re: Transportation Improvement Needs Assessment Update DATE: December 1, 2010 18 WEST SIXTH STREET, SLIME 200 GLENwooD SPRINGS, CO e i 501 970.945.1004 970.945.5948 FAx The purpose of our meeting with the BOCC on December 6th is twofold. First, we are providing a status update of the Transportation Improvement Needs Assessment (TINA). Second, we are asking for concurrence from the Board that the approach we present (attached) is an appropriate methodology for conducting the TINA. Agreement as to approach will allow us to proceed to the next step of completing the individual intersection analyses. The project team conducted individual interviews with each commissioner and the Legal staff a few weeks ago to receive input on intersection selection and overall project approach. During these interviews, we heard a predominant concern that all of the County Road/ State Highway (CR/SH) intersections need to be studied as a part of this project. Since that is not possible within the funding allocated for the study, we have revisited the list of intersections in the original scope of work as well as our original proposed approach to the TINA. Our modified approach is to begin with a comprehensive list of the CR/SH intersections and categorize each based on the likely dominant party for funding future improvements. These categories are named County Primary, Developer Primary and Urban Growth Area (UGA). We then chose representative intersections from each category to study in detail, with the assumption that the chosen intersections will serve as prototypes for those classified in the same category. The prototypes will provide the basis on which to create a formula for partnerships to fund all intersections improvements — based upon operations, safety or other traffic engineering parameters. (The attached document explains the concept further and provides a categorized list of all CR / SH intersections.) Following the analysis of existing conditions, we will apply future growth assumptions based on the land uses outlined in to Comprehensive Plan and growth projections as modified from the Colorado State Demographer. This will help us identify the types and magnitude (relative cost) of improvements needed. It is our intent to present preliminary results to the BOCC in January. Following that meeting, we will hold stakeholder meetings to collect additional input. From input received at the BOCC presentation and stakeholder meetings the project team will bring forth a set of recommendations as to how funding partnerships would occur for various intersection improvement needs. I 0 I FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT IO2 PO Box 2155 ASPEN. Co 8 1 61 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAX 407 FOURTH STREET PO Box 3088 CRESTED BUTTE, Co 012 4 970.349. 5355 970.349.5358 FAx 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE, 320 THIRD STREET BUILDING P . SUITE 205 MEEKER, Co 8 164 I GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81 505 970.878.5180 970.245.2571 970.878.4181 FAx 970.245.2871 FAX 0 I11. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT (TINA) PRIORITIZATION OF INTERSECTION PROJECTS – DIRECTION TO STAFF – BETSY SUERTH UPDATE: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT BOCC PRESENTATION, JUNE 20, 2011 BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Lee Barger, Dan Roussin, Jeff Winston and Betsy Suerth presented. Betsy – We are here to present the results of the Transportation improvement Needs Assessment. Last fall we put out an RFP for the study and SGM and Winston and Associates were awarded that contract. Garfield County is facing the need to improve many intersections throughout the county. Over the next 20 years it is approximately $19.5 million. Many of the improvements will contribute to varying degrees to economic development--such as new industrial development at the airport, or residential development in various locations. By prioritizing County intersections, budgeting for design and having shovel-ready plans, the County wil! better position itself for State funding. Today we are looking for the BOCC agreement on the eight prioritized intersections that we'll taut to you about and secondly we are asking for BOCC action on which one or two intersections you'd like to move forward with and then staff would do several things to move forward with those intersections including budgeting for 2012. ANALYSIS SGM and Winston reviewed 28 County Road / State Highway intersections throughout the County. The intersections were then grouped into 3 categories that represent the primary need justifying the improvement: 9. - County Primary – existing traffic levels and safety conditions warrant the improvement; therefore, the County would be the primary source of funding. 10. Developer Primary – future growth may warrant the improvement, and therefore developers would be expected to cover a significant portion of the costs. The term "Developer" could also include oil & gas development. 11. VGA— future growth within the Urban Growth Area where the improvements may be justified by municipal expansion. In this case, a significant portion of the funding might come from the local jurisdiction, which could include landowners or other private interests that would benefit. 12. The term Primary refers to the intention that wherever possible funding would be via partnership, but that one category of partners (County, Developer, VGA) may be expected to carry a larger portion of the cost. The categories also serve to indicate the potential partnering sources that could assist the County in funding these improvements. 13. Example intersections were further analyzed, looking at existing and future (2030) operational conditions: 14. A growth rate of 2.6% was applied to the study intersections 15. Operational analyses of the intersections were conducted including evaluating turn lane queuing 16. Accident analysis using FHWA's Federal Hazard Elimination Program criteria was performed as per CDOT recommendation 17. For 5 of the example intersections, a conceptual design was considered and gross costs were estimated 18. The appropriate gross costs were then applied to all 28 intersections 19. Prioritization 20. The Board directed SGM to review the 28 intersections and provide a prioritization for the top 8 intersections based upon technical opinion. The list of the top 8 and technical reasoning for each priority are provided below: 21. 1. CR 114/154 (CMC) – Accident records and hazard indices show that the frequency/severity of accidents are highest of any County intersection. High speeds, high traffic volumes, sight distance and lack of adequate turning lanes and turning lane length contribute to this problem. 22. 2. CR 110/113 (Cattle Creek) – Although accident records do not indicate an accident pattern; high speeds, high traffic volumes and lack of a traffic signal provide a situation for future severe traffic accidents. The eastern approach layout adds to the safety hazard with lack of lane and vehicle priority definition. 23. 3. CR 100 (Catherine's Store) – Accident records and hazard indices show that the frequency/severity of accidents are the next highest of any County intersection. High speeds, high traffic volumes and lack of adequate turning lanes and turning lane length contribute to this problem. 24. 4. CR 115 (Red Canyon) – Accident records and hazard indices show that the frequency/severity of accidents are the third highest of any County intersection. 25. High speeds, high traffic volumes, sight distance and lack of adequate turning lanes and turning lane length contribute to this problem. 26. 5. CR 315 (Mamm Creek) - Lack of accident records did not allow that analysis. However, lack of sight distance coupled with significant industrial traffic. a commuter park-and-ride and County water hauling station. all at a poorly defined and large intersection, result in a safety hazard. 27. 6. CR 227 (Miller Lane) - Although accident records do not show a problem yet, this designated truck route mixes residential. commercial and industry traffic along a relatively high speed highway that lacks turning lanes and has narrow shoulders with steep, unprotected side slopes adjacent to the highway. 28. 7. CR 235 (Davis Point) - Lack of accident records did not allow that analysis. Nevertheless, there are several potential safety hazards: poor horizontal and vertical sight distance to the west, rockfall potential, a skewed intersection and lack of turn lanes along a relatively high-speed roadway adjacent to Coal Ridge High School. 29, 8. CR 229 (Ukele Lane) - Although accident records do not show a significant problem. a potential safety hazard exists with residential uses along a relatively high-speed highway that Tacks turning lanes. 30. The intersections of CR 2.14 (Peach Valley), CR 223 (Peterson Lane) and CR 31 I (River Frontage Road, Silt) would be the next three clear priorities, but were not fully analyzed due to lack of data. This prioritization reflects current conditions. In the future, these priorities may be adjusted as development proposals are submitted or other factors arise that demonstrate a need for improvements at a specific location. 31. Funding 32. Approximately $14M in funding is needed over the next 10 years to address the eight highest priority intersections. The Board provided direction that they prefer a funding solution comprised of county funding, combined with partnering with developers and landowners when justified and possible. This strategy would be implemented without a formal policy due to the dynamics and complexity of possible partnerships over a range of several intersections. 33. Potential funding assistance from CDOT for an intersection improvement will most likely be generated from Safety Enhancement Grants, TPR funding or the recent CDOT Intersection Analysis and Prioritization Study. When the County is able to provide shovel -ready plans for intersections that have identified deficiencies and safety hazards based upon CDOT methodology, it will be more likely to receive funding in our experience. In addition, identification of priority intersections will give County staff time to begin possible negotiations with potential partners for a specific intersection improvement, allowing interaction with the partners during the design process. 34. Next Steps 35. Potential next steps in the process are identified below: 36. • County to adopt (or modify) proposed current intersection priority(ies) and select intersection(s) to proceed to design phase 37. • Selection of the design consultant through RFQ process (-2 months) 38. • Topographic and Boundary survey and identification of any Right -of -Way 39. issues (-1 month) 40. • ROW acquisitions and environmental permitting (-1-2 years) 41. • Access Permit process through CDOT (-6 months) 42. • Construction Bid and Award process (-2 months) TINA - Gross Conceptual Intersection Cost Estimate 43. April 11, 2011 Includes 15% Engineering and CM 44. County Primary Developer Primary UGA 45. CR 246/US 6 (Landfill) $0 * CR 300/US 6 (Una) $500,000 CR 244/ST--1 13 Bypass (Fravert Res) $0 46. * CR 262/US 6 (Mid Valley) $500,000 * CR 323/US 6 (Rulison) 5500,000 CR 242/SH 13 (JQS) $0 47. CR 263/US 6 (Weare Ln) $0 *+ CR 315/I-70 (Mamm Crk) $2,500,000 CR 210/US 6 (Mile Pond) $0 48. CR 214/US 6 (Peach Valley) $500,000 * CR 227/US 6 (Miller Ln) $1,500,000 CR 223/US 6 (Peterson Ln) $1,500,000 49. CR 137/US 6 (Canyon Crk) SO CR 229/US 6 (Ukele Ln) $500,000 CR 313/River Frontage Rd (Silt) $1,500,000 50. CR 154/SH 82 (Hardwick Bridge) $500,000 CR 1.54&1141SH 82 (CMC) $1,500,000 CR 235/US 6 (Davis Pt) $1,000,000 51. + CR 110&113/SH 82 (Cattle Crk) $4,000,000 CR 240/US 6 (Bruce Rd) $500,000 52. CR 103/SH 82 (Crystal Spgs) SO CR 134/1-70 (So Canyon) $0 53. CR 100/SH 82 (Catherine's) $500,000 CR 154/SH 82 (Buffalo Valley) $500,000 54. CR 115/SH 82 (Red Canyon) $1,000,000 55. CR 107/SH 82 (Red Hill) $500,000 56. $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,500,000 57. TOTAL $19,500,000 58. Partnering Percentages Partnering Percentages Partnering Percentages 59. 100% County (CDOT) $6,000,000 60% County (CDOT) $4,200,000 30% County (CDOT) $1,950,000 60. 40% Developer $2,800,000 30% Municipality $1,950,000 61.40% Developer $2,600,000 62. + Roundabout * Intersections used by Industry County (CDOT) $12,150,000 Discussion: Jeff Winston from Winston Associates Jeff— Commissioners we have looked closely with your direction that myriad intersections throughout the County and we know we going to need improvement over the next 20 years, the total comes to just under $20.000,000. Then we looked at with you help, focused in and tried to identify the highest priority intersections. We have a short list of eight based on accidents, traffic volume, safety and at a variety of other conditions that are in that matrix and we've identified the top eight. Those are complicated problems; it amounts to about $14,000,000 out of the $20m. We've looked at that in doing that analysis and done some schematic design and various configurations of those intersections with a variety of ways to try and be as realistic as we can at this level so what Dan's is going to describe for you know is walk you through the priority 1 ist of the eight and out of that comes the next steps and recommendation on how we move forward and make sure this is just something that is in a nutshell. **** Dan — Actually, I'm going to have Lee talk about the background and analysis that we've done to come up with the priority list. Lee submitted the priority list included in the Board's packet and explained their analysis of each intersection and how they compare to similar type intersections throughout the state. It compares the accident rates versus the statewide averaged for rural interstates or rural arterials as far what we're looking at for classification of roadway. CMC, Cattle Creek and Catherine's Store are three of the top rated intersections and most of that is what we see as accident experience, the amount of traffic and the potential for nearby development to continue to affect that operational performance in the future. Dan — Generally, the top four are on Hwy 82 corridor and it's due to accident rates and traffic volumes and generally lack of tum lanes lengths. They have problems currently, the top four have existing issues and the next four are all on the Western side of the County and other than Miller Lane, which 1 think has some issue now, the other three are future problems with increased traffic. Mamm Creek has some site distance issues, industrial traffic issues and that could be solved. Chairman Martin — In response to Commissioner Jankovsky's inquiry of where is the Miller Lane intersection stated that was hinged on two different land uses approvals and if those approvals are held they have to do the improvement on that particular issue for the westbound and the turn lane for the other. Dan with CDOT — Correct, they actually, Miller Lane there's a current access permit and they currently are required to put a left turn, deceleration lane into Miller Lane from Hwy 6 and just to give you an update, they have received their notice to proceed and 1 believe they have done their pre -construction. I expect that they will start the work by the next two to three weeks. Chairman Martin — And they need to do an utility relocation or at least protection with the turn lane in that bar ditch and that's a real issue for them as far as expenses. Ukele Lane is just down from there and it's very small and if you make your 90 degree turn and you're going to have to do some property acquisition to make that a thoroughfare so everyone goes to Miller Lane instead of coming down Ukele Lane and that's one of those issues. Unless you're going westbound, you take Ukele to get there so you don't have to go Miller and circle back. 1 would say Ukele Lane is a property acquisition in the future but it's not that intersection, it's at the County Road where there's a 90 degree turn and two different barnyards that you have to deal with and a whole bunch of big trees. Then you have another 90 degree after that one which is the section line you have to take the irrigation system and it becomes very expensive. Davis Point is also being looked at as a development around the corner as that property is annexed into the City that responsibility falls on the developers with the cooperations. Mamm Creek, that is a big issue with economic development and we talked about that with the bio -mass and could be tied with the development of that as well and the industry. Red Canyon is not a primary access it's only for emergency and it's the policy before and that is what it seems to be staying right now. It's a dangerous intersection. Commissioner Jankovsky — Potentially that could be tied into the South Bridge Project if that ever happens. Chairman Martin — That could be realignment. Catherine Store is a huge amount of people turning coming down valley, making a left-hand turn and a controlled intersection making the right hand and crowding everybody over is a real problem because of stacking and I still see that the top two are our real priorities, CMC road is a dangerous situation the misalignment of old Hwy 82, the bike path is there, the commercial operations that are going on there and then the frontage road. Dan from CDOT you have to take care of that. It's a real issue on that frontage road both at Cattle Creek and at the other end. So those are tied together. Commissioner Jankovsky — We potentially have an application in front of us something this year at Cattle Creek. Chairman Martin — That's 110 that you have to deal. 110 Road which comes into Cattle Creek and then also the frontage road comes it about 15 to 20 feet down the road so all three are coming together, then you have to cross over Hwy 82 which is a real dangerous situation. That's going to be very costly fix. Commissioner Jankovsky — And another light on Hwy 82. That's probably the fix, another signal. Chairman Martin — That or else we open up the frontage road all the way to Carbondale. My priorities would be 1 and 2 and then start working on those two issues, that's the biggest potential we have. Commissioner Jankovsky — Are any of these in the 5 -year plan you showed us? Betsy — Yes, we do have Cattle Creek and CMC we don't have on the 5 -year plan but we just plugged in names knowing that you be finalizing which intersection those are in the 5 -year plan so we have both funding and timing for right of way acquisition, utlility relocations and construction for whatever intersection you want in the 5 -year plan. Chairman Martin — And one of my curses of institutional knowledge on Cattle Creek and at the CMC turnoff it was a land use approval process that was a recommendation they had to approve it 120 wide intersection with the design of CDOT etc if that went forward. That was on the west side of Hwy 82 and the relocation of that intersection etc all tied together on that land use approval process. However, 1 believe that organization has declared bankruptcy at the moment and a new investor or it has been sold. So until a new application comes in and that's redone that CMC plan is still in place that is if they want to do the development. Commissioner Jankovsky — That's on the west side. Chairman Martin — lt's on the west side but it deals both with the north and south entrances the historical entrance, which was the farm interest to the south close to Carbondale where the big cottonwoods are, and then they would also have to deal with Witters old place and that particular piece of property and the two exists or entrances to that property across 154. All that is tied together with one land use issue. Commissioner Jankovsky — We were going to have somebody at Cattle Creek back in front of us it is in planning. Chairman Martin — Is it an application in front of us. Commissioner Jankovsky — it isn't yet but it will be. Betsy — Not in front of you yet but it's been submitted to the planning department and 1 want to say July perhaps on the P&Z. Chairman Martin — Going back to our priorities, I think we need to at least give these guys an idea on where our priorities are as individuals and then as a Board. Commissioner Samson — I'd like to see more being done in the west end to be honest with you. 1 think Mamm Creek is a potential powder keg if we don't pay attention to it and do something with it. Chairman Martin — The lower road was chipped and sealed, improved etc and I think it's the pinch point where you have a property acquisition there, Mr. Snyder's small house on that intersection as well as the water pickup area, which is a real dangerous situation as well as the frontage road, a county road that goes east off that intersection. There is a hill, on a curve and it's a haul route. Betsy — Several safety issues. Commissioner Jankovsky — I'd like to see what's going happen with Cattle Creek as we move forward but CMC and Catherine Store are both important. You were talking about seeing something from the developer at CMC but they has signals there, it helps getting across those intersections. I'm glad 1 don't have to go across that Cattle Creek Intersection every day to go south, it's a tough intersection to get across. Chairman Martin — You have H Lazy F, the industrial center. Hwy 82 all on that side as well as a private driveway and parking area for RFTA all in that one section then across the street you have RFTA pick-up place, a lot of commercial, body shop, gas station/convenience store, private entrance to other places and it's a busy place. Dale Hancock — Was that intersection tied to Spring Valley Ranch. Chairman Martin — Yes and that was on the east side and Cottonwood Landing is on the west side. On those land use approvals, they were going to take care of those intersections. Dan Roussin — What we did was to give them a concept approval. That process matter of fact I believe those applications have expired. Chairman Martin —I think Spring Valley has to buy property and realign the entire CMC hill according to the design. Mr. Gamba had done that one as well, which lined everything up. Jeff— These represent the top 8 out of the 28 intersections, so if you're concerns are with Mamm Creek, Davis Point, and. Ukele Lane in the top 80. Do you want to move Mamm Creek higher from number 5, is that correct? Commissioner Samson — That would be my wish, but I travel it all the time just like you travel yours. Commissioner Jankovsky- That's right, I travel CMC all the time. Chairman Martin — I bet I use Davis Point more than both of you combined. We build that entire road with guard rail etc, drainage improvements, worked with the irrigations folks putting in new culverts, Town of Silt has their transfer/pump station there for the water system and it gets narrow. We cut some willows there that were hanging over the road, only took 1 '/2 years to get that one tree taken care of. Jeff— Would Mamm Creek be a higher priority than Red Canyon. Chairman Martin — Oh, yes. Commissioner Jankovsky — I think if I were to prioritize this without looking at developers I'd say Cattle Creek is the number one in my mind. Red Canyon is tough but with that light there it's helped that out some and there not as much traffic there as there is at Cattle Creek. I do feel that CMC; and Catherine's Store they may hither accidents there, I feel that the signal helps those intersections. Unfortunately, Cattle Creek is most expensive of those. Chairman Martin — I think Cattle Creek and CMC. Commissioner Jankovsky — ['d say Cattle Creek is my number one priority. Mamm Creek has a variety of priorities for us including safety and it's also the intersection for the Airport from the east side. That entire commercial area has the potential for commercial development. Chairman Martin — And a designated haul route paid for by Energy Impact Grant Funds twice. That's a higher priority, I'd say number 3, Commissioner Samson — So you would be Cattle Creek as number I, CMC 2 and Mamm Creek 3 is that where we're at. Chairman Martin — I could live with that. Commissioner Jankovsky — I am good with that too. Commissioner Samson — Okay. Chairman Martin — Does that help? Betsy — Do you want us to talk about next steps and how CDOT plays into this. Commissioner Jankovsky — On the five-year plan, you have some funds for intersections. Betsy — Just plug those names in now. Carolyn -- Mr. Chairman Martin, would you like to formalize this discussion into a motion so that your consultants and your public facilities director will know what direction you want to go with your five-year plan? Motion Commisioner Samson — I would move that we put as our priorities number 1 - Cattle Creek CRI 10 CR 113, number 2 CR 114 CR 154 CMC after the recommendation that you two live up here and number 3 Mamm Creek CR 315 intersection. Commissioner Jankovsky — Second Chairman Martin — Also to help out in reference Mamm Creek, the west end has been re -designed etc that goes over the hill, that helps out on that side and it is possible to get that same type of design on the east end. It will be expensive and we may end up buying some property. In favor: Jankovsky — aye Martin — aye Samson - aye Chairman Martin — Who's going to do the design review with the cooperation of Garfield County. Betsy asked Dan to briefly talk about the access control etc and site mitigation. Dan — Region 3 Permit Manager for the region and my primary duties is access along the State Highway System. I've been working with Garfield County for the last 10 years, working towards the cooperation that we have now on looking at intersection that we just talked about. There's a lot of them, they said 27 that are all state highway/county road intersections so there's plenty of job security for me. One of the things is it is very challenging and as organization CDOT wants to work with local governments and try to come up with ways of solving problems. It's not just me looking at that, it's the higher ups at CDOT that are looking for that. One of the things obviously this Board is aware that CDOT will be talking, letting the County know because we are looking something very similar to the traffic improvement and needs assessment that you just did but region wide. That will be coming out probably by July. That will also be funding with FASTER money. That's another way to do funding. Another way more specific is I'm working with other local communities to try and find out where the access point are going to be on the state highway system. Ica!! it an access control plan. What that does and this is something CDOT if committed to doing is actually provide some funding for it, is to look at where all access points are onto the highway system. What's really unique about this and great about it, typically CDOT is not able to look at the [and use planning, we just look at the transportation and that's it. Land use planning is for local governments and how they do it. Well we recognize that land use planning and transportion, they have to be in sinc with each others, if not we have issues. A good example is that we should have been more planning on the CMC intersection. That is now water under the bridge. What we're looking to do is working with the City of Glenwood to do an access plan from Hwy 82 all the way to their portion of the city limits. My recommendation to my boss is actually to go to just pass Holy Cross/ Red Canyon intersection because we know there is development activities and we know there might be South Bridge mentioned. so there's stutTlike that. I've asked Betsy as well as Fred to consider possibly help funding more and go all the way to the County Line on 82. What's great about is we'd be an equal partner, the cost because we have another entity in there, the costs are distributed equally or very similar, that Garfield County would get a great bang for the buck. Typically a plan by itself, the startup cost is the major cost. We've got the city who said they are doing it, so to add a few more miles cost less. What I've asked the city to do to see if the budget's available, to see if this Board is interested in doing an access plan for entire 82 corridor. If we do that we are close to having the entire 82 corridor planed for what kind of accesses are going to be. We done this in Eagle and we're in the process in Pitkin County to finish that, so other communities along this Hwy 82 corridor have begun or finished the access plan. Chairman Martin - Dan, on that wouldn't RFTA have to be a partner as well because they have the crossing of that... Dan - Absolutely, RFTA is a partner in fact of what they are doing, they have their own study that they are working on now. We're talking about access to the highway so it would be county roads or private. There's definitely a pedestrian. Chairman Martin - Their license to cross because the control licenses from west to east on Hwy 82 from Aspen to Glenwood Springs so they definitely have to be at the table because of their access. Dan - Absolutly, I'm not saying they're not, they will definitely be an important role in the development of the plan but in terms of partner funding we weren't thinking them as being a funding partner. Chairman Martin - If you're going west to east to Hwy 82 that Cattle Creek, CMC, 154 on through, who gives licenses to cross just to get to the highway in refi-ence to the land mass, it's going to be RFTA, the same thing if you down the other way which is 154 CMC on that side, their crossing goes across 154. Those are some of the issues that we need to deal with. Dan -- The crossing that you're referring to are historical crossings, now if there's any new crossings obviously they will need to be involved. The transportation tanning because you want to have the good infrasturue in place. You don't want to have all your eggs in one basket o the Hwy 82 corridor. You want to give folks other opportunities to get from point A to point 13. That's where the planning comes and that's where we can look at and see if there needs to be more opportunities for people. You are correct in getting RFTA involved in that. Chairman Martin - That's on the east side, the old access road is gravel and why RFTA needs to take an important role because it can be in the collector to those signalized areas. We need to maximis intead of halving multiple accesses from the east to the west. Dan - We also look is where the frontage road connects to the main highway. Those are the critical points. That's where we have have issues and it's not just in Garfield County 1 can show you places all over my region where we have issues because they're so closely spaced interseciont that we can't get a lot of traffic through these. Those are the challenges and things we have to look at and make good decision on our intersections. Chairman Martin - That's what we call Vail, Eagle, Edwards, all the way with reference to the coordination with the highway department and the land use issues. Access issue is something we need to explore. Fred needs to find the money. Betsy - I didn't want to talk too much time on considerating an access control plan at this time because that will be part of your consideration in 2012 if Mr. Jarman, Ed Green and I decide to present that to you as a budget item. What we wanted to point out today was that is an integral piece of these intersection improvements that you want to pursue in 2012 and beyond because it engages CDOT in the detailed analysis of those particular intersection CMC and Cattle Creek. The hazard mitigation funding, it positions us well. Dan - The more information you have the better decisions you can make and that's for any kind of intersection. These are great foundation blocks and that's how we get things done. Chairman Martin - Like the ones with the City of Rifle and the Town of Silt in reference to access plans etc that we participated in and helped pay for. Same situation for the City of Glenwood Springs, so it's nothing new to the County. Dale Hancock - Commissioners, it may behoove you to review the 5-year plan so that you can put that in what you really want and your capital allocation funds. Jeff- The other important part of this is the thing you brought up originally which is the notion of partnership , partnering whenever possible so the County ends up being the partner representing the existing users and then the developers, entities and other representing the new users. That would be something that we - communities users and continue to review. Chairman Martin— We do this on a daily basis and we're used to it. We want to stop studying and get things done. CDOT Region 3: Intersection Priority Study June 2011 1. INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Under Fehr & Peers' Non -Project Specific Engineering Services Contract for Traffic Engineering with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Region 3 identified the need to prioritize intersection improvements that will be used by Transportation 'Planning Regions (TPR), similar to the project conducted in Region 5. The study investigated safety, geometric, and operational characteristics of 47 intersections within the Region 3 boundaries, which were submitted by the city, town, or county within each TPR. A preliminary investigation of each intersection was conducted by Fehr & Peers and was based upon input provided in the application_ This was followed by an in-depth evaluation of the top three intersections per TPR, plus four other intersections. The major tasks of the prioritization project included: • Review the received intersection prioritization applications, • Develop an evaluation criteria as agreed upon by CDOT, • Collect existing and historical data for each intersection, • Identify the existing intersection deficiencies, • Visit and observe the preliminarily top ranked intersections, • Recommend mitigation strategies, generally including at least one short-term (lower cost) and one long- term (higher cost) alternative, • Estimate costs for the intersection improvement alternatives, • Evaluate the recommended long-term alternative for each intersection based on the developed criteria, • Prioritize each intersection. INTERSECTION LOCATIONS Intersections to be evaluated were identified by CDOT Region 3 based upon requests from the four TPRs, 11 counties, and many local municipalities within Region 3. There were 48 applications; however, one intersection was not within the boundaries of Region 3. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of all the intersections and Table 1 lists basic information of each intersection. FEHRtPEERS 1 S I33 01H3,I Note: The list is in an arbitrary order. It is not the rankings of the intersections P S...@ A A A A A w w w w w w w www N N N N N h1 N N j N ..... (0 0) ti d5 0) A w 1..1 -J 0) 0) 1'.) +0 00 -.l O1 th. w N 4 (000-101 U1.D. W 0(0(0610) 0, A wN-.La . •iRtil U n CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCNNNNNVNUINN i=S S 2 ii--J� LA[ANV7V)2 A V)NNNNNNNNNUWVIONNNV)NNN{ANSSSSSSSSSISZSSSj.��,�a mw 0)0) 014010)0)0 0)0)0)(7) 0 til t)10)Ate. Ja AA A 350u0(00J 000) 00w tP W (001wwwwwwwwww Ji 01 01 01 w 01 01 01 !b 0 0) 01 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 J N 0 d IV N N NJ N N N I.) A �A 0 0A i1 0) 5P, w w w 3 3 3 i' 7 3 Ooml w w w w d m a1 C1 a1 517 a1 a U) 01 01 Q1 a1 01 m d 07 co 111 al 01 01 01 0 0 a a a a a La a a 5]. a1 01 p7 3=== a 3 3 7 3 a 3 == 3 7 3 3 3 3 a+ 01 al 3= 3 3 3 3 7 = CC3Q Srt1Dw11v�R = 3 0 aaaa.an.aaaal0.0i.naaaa.aaaaa3 3 > aaaaaaawa y tv =um 7ovaaa gW0-'tAm_pnt' 02LonmmnommwNnn aaNnnwomn72n ,<7:3>m---oo0 -. (D xz0)0) 01l ro �. m v,o,„23 J1_1 aawww o_um to O¢ x LEA; N nm oe5oo ?s No u1m 0-0,— c402. &) m= C rnno omit, m FinaN 7 ga =A7) -n- a n n� xa@ om.-1 70 0 ca x Q g,o g k - a Q R. o � m y N J 4 N CDQT Region 3: Intersection Priority Study June 2011 TABLE 1: LIST OF INTERSECTIONS TPRCounty Highway Route Milepost Intersection Grand Valley Mesa 006A 19.955 US Highway 6 and 17 Road/Coulson Street 006A 23.657 US Highway 6 and 20 Road 340A 1.839 State Highway 340 and Kingsview Road 340A 9.526 State Highway 340 and Redlands Parkway 141E 161.361 US Highway 141E and E Road 070E 9.501 Interstate 70 (Business Loop) and 30 Road 006C 42.706 US Highway 6 and Elberta Avenue 006C 42.957 US Highway 6 and Iowa Avenue 006C 42.464 US Highway 6 and 37.1 Road Gunnison Valley Delta 133A 8.008 State Highway 133 and Samuel Wade Road/Pitkin Road 050A 70.766 US Highway 50 and Gunnison River Drive 065A/092A 0 / 3.814 State Highway 65 and State Highway 92 Gunnison 050A 156.873 US Highway 50 and 10" Street 135A 0.740 State Highway 135 and Spencer Avenue 135A 20.704 State Highway 135 and County Road 740 (Cement Creek Road) 135A 25.468 State Highway 135 and County Road 738 (Brush Creek Road) N/A 156.302 US Highway 50 Frontage Road and County Road 17 (Antelope Creek Road) Montrose 550E 128.243 US Highway 550 and Niagara Road 050A 93.558 US Highway 50 and San Juan Avenue/Grand Avenue 5508 128.418 US Highway 550 and 12th Street/Columbia Way 090E 89.304 State Highway 90 and Chipeta Road 348A 14.38 State Highway 348 and 5700 Road 050D/348A 16.8321 0.931 US Highway 50B and Highway 348 Intermountain Eagle 082A 19.044 State Highway 82 and El Jebel Road 006E 164.070 US Highway 6 and Hillcrest Drive 082A 23.080 State Highway 82 and Basalt Avenue 006E 142.608 US Highway 6 and Valley Road 006E 142.717 US Highway 6 and Oak Ridge Drive Garfield 082A 1.714 State Highway 82 and 27t" Street 006K 0 US Highway 6 and Devereux Road 082A 1.405 State Highway 82 and 23`' Street 082A 7 870 State Highway 82 and County Road 113 (Cattle Creek Road) 082A 6 655 State Highway 82 and County Road 154/County Road 114 (Colorado Mountain College) N/A N/A County Road 346 and County Road 315 (Mamm Creek Road) FEH RPEERS 3 Intersection Priority Study TABLE 1: UST OF INTERSECTIONS TPRCounty Highway Route Milepost Intersection 133A 67.494 State Highway 133 and Hendrick Drive/Sopris Avenue 133A 67.044 State Highway 133 and Snowmass DrivellRiver Valley Ranch Road Pitkin 082A 37.630 State Highway 82 and Baltic Avenue 082A 35.283 State Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road Northwest Grand 040A 226.188 _ US Highway 40 and County Road 5 040A 217,970 US Highway 40 and County Road 54 009D 136.608 State Highway 9 and County Road 1 Moffat 040A1013A 89.3221 88.635 US Highway 40 and State Highway 13/County Road 7 (Great Divide Road) Rio Blanco 064A 56.243 State Highway 64 and County Road 5 Routt 040A 130.285 US Highway 40 and Downhill Drive/Riverside Drive 040A 130.773 US Highway 40 and County Road 129 (Elk River Road) 040A 128.340 US Highway 40 and County Road 42 131B 42.655 State Highway 131 and County Road 8/County Road 17/Main Street Source: CDOT DATA COLLECTION Depending on the identified improvement deficiencies and the preliminary ranking of the intersections, various data was collected. The following data was collected for the top ranked intersections: • Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and/or Average Daily Traffic (ADT) • Turning movement counts (AM and PM peak hours) • Accident history • Existing intersection geometry • Aerial photos Certain intersections required other types of data to be collected based on their deficiencies. Other data that was collected for specific intersections was: • Pedestrian and bicycle counts • Signal timing (for studied intersection and at adjacent signal(s)) ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A review was performed for the intersection submitted, including the existing conditions, field observations, and collected data. Based on this analysis, short- and long-term improvements were recommended at each intersection, In most cases, both types of recommendations were able to be made, but for some intersections improvements applied to only one of the scenarios. FEHRf PEERS 4 Garfield. County Transportation Master Plan Preliminary Plan TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Garfield County Transportation Master Plan Preliminary Plan Prepared For: Garfield County 108 East 8th Street, #107 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 Prepared By: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 516 North Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868 In Association With: URS Corporation 9960 Federal Drive, Suite 300 Colorado Springs, CO 80921 LSC #045010 Revised: March 17, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .. ES -1 INTRODUCTION I-1 Description of the Study Area 1-2 Planning Process 1-5 Summary of the Issues 1-5 II STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS II -1 Garfield County II -1 2000 Census II -1 Population Projections 11-5 Population 11-5 Economy and Employment 1I-6 Major Employers II -7 III TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INVENTORY III -1 Roadway System III -1 Bridges 1I1-9 Other Modes of Transportation III -17 IV CURRENT TRAVEL PATTERNS IV -1 Origin -Destination Patterns IV- 1 Census Journey to Work Information IV -1 County -to -County Commute Patterns IV- 1 Mode of Transportation to Work IV -2 V FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE V-1 Functional Classification Definitions V-1 Arterial V-1 Collector V-1 Non -Residential Local Road V-1 Residential Local Roads V-2 Proposed Functional Classification V-2 Level of Service Definitions V-5 Existing Level of Service V-5 Proposed Level of Service Standard V-6 Proposed Roadway Cross -Section Standards V-7 VI TRAFFIC VOLUMES VI- 1 Introduction VI- 1 Existing Traffic Volumes ... VI -1 Roadways VI -1 Bridges VI -2 Traffic Volume Projections VI -7 Future Traffic Volumes VI- 13 Summary VI -19 VII ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES VH -1 Introduction "VII -1 Functional Classification Capacities VII -1 Capacity Methodologies VII -1 Volume to Capacity Ratio V1I-3 Existing Deficiencies VII -4 Capacity Deficiencies VII -4 Condition Deficiencies VII -1O Future Deficiencies VII -15 Capacity Deficiencies VII -15 Condition Deficiencies VII -23 Summary VII -23 VIII PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY .... VIII -1 Criteria VIII -1 Level of Service VIII -2 Cost VIII -2 Facility Type VIII -2 Feasibility of Implementation VIII -2 Safety Issues VIII -3 Existing Needs VIII -3 Link to the State Transportation Plan VIII -3 Preliminary Project Priority VIII -4 IX IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES IX -1 Introduction IX -1 Transportation. Alternatives IX -1 No Build IX -1 Maintenance IX -5 Existing Need IX -11 Future Level of Service Improvements IX -15 Modal Choice IX -21 Preferred Improvement IX -22 Summary IX -27 X OFF-SITE STREET IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY X-1 Purpose X-1 Background X-1 Limitations of Transportation Impact Fees X-3 Legal Authority X-3 Important Concepts X-4 Rational Nexus X-4 Rough Proportionality X-4 No Double -Counting of Fees X-5 Pre -Adoption Clause X-5 Waiver Available for Low- or Moderate -Income Housing X-5 Types of Traffic Impact Fees X-5 Density Method X-5 Consumption -Based Approach X-6 Improvements -Driven Model X-7 Impact Fees in Colorado Jurisdictions X-7 North Front Range MPO X-8 Pitkin County X-9 City of Rifle X-9 Mesa County X-10 Eagle County X-11 Current Garfield County Traffic Impact Fee Program X-12 Garfield County Proposed Street Impact Fee Methodology X-13 Assumptions X-13 Methodology X-14 Growth in Housing Units X-15 Trip Generation X-19 Cost of Proposed Transportation Improvements X-23 Cost per Trip X-24 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule X-24 Estimated Revenues X-25 Non -Residential Impact Fees X-27 Recommendations X-27 Comparison Issue X-31 Bibliography X-33 XI TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION XI -1 Introduction XI -1 Existing and Future Funding XI -1 Fiscally -Constrained Project List XI -2 Fiscally -Constrained Recommended Projects XI -10 Growth Adjustment XI -24 APPENDIX A: Capacity Manual APPENDIX B: Level of Service APPENDIX C: Turn Lane Analysis APPENDIX D: Gas Well Impact Fee APPENDIX E: Douglas/Larimer Counties LIST OF TABULATIONS Table Title Page ES -1 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule ES -2 II -1 2000 General Population Characteristics II -2 11-2 Garfield County - Seasonal Population Projections 11-6 11-3 Employment by Sector of the Economy 11-6 11-4 2025 Regional Projected Employment 11-7 11-5 Major Employers in Garfield County 11-7 IV -1 Journey to Work Patterns IV -2 IV -2 Mode of Transportation to Work for Workers in Garfield County IV -2 V-1 Roadway Standards V-10 V1-1 2000 General Population Characteristics VI -8 VI -2 Population Growth Rate Characteristics VI -14 V1I-1 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service VII -3 VII -2 Existing Deficient Garfield County Roadways and Bridges V11-9 V11-3 Deficient Bridges 2000 VII -10 V11-4 Existing Roadways Deficient by Surface Condition VII -1 1 V11-5 2025 Deficient Roadways with Deficient LOS VII -16 V11-6 Deficient Bridges 2025 VII -23 IX -1 Maintenance Alternatives IX -6-8 1X-2 Existing Need Alternatives for Garfield County Roads 1X-12 IX -3 Future LOS Improvements IX -17 IX -4 Modal Split Alternative Production 1X-2 I X-1 North Front Range MPO Traffic Impact Fee Schedule X-8 X-2 Pitkin County Traffic Impact Fee Schedule X-9 X-3 City of Rifle Traffic Impact Fee Schedule X-10 X-4 Mesa County Traffic Impact Fee Schedule X-1 1 X-5 Eagle County Traffic Impact Fee Schedule X-12 X-6 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation X-14 X-7 Housing Unit Growth (2000-2025) X-17 X-8 Trip Generation Rates X-19 X-9 New Trip Generation by Land Use X-21 X-10 Estimated Expenditures X-23 X-11 Transportation Capacity Needs X-24 X-12 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule X-25 X-13 Estimated Revenues X-26 XI -1 Garfield County Expenditures XI -2 XI -2 Maintenance Alternatives X1-4-6 XI -3 Existing Need Alternatives for Garfield County Roads XI -7 XI -4 Future Improvement Alternatives XI -9 XI -5 2025 Project List XI -11-15 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 1-1 study Area 1-3 11-1 Population Density 11-3 11-2 2025 Population Projections 11-5 II1-1 Road System III -3 111-2 Existing Road Surfaces 111-5 111-3 Existing Road Conditions III -7 111-4 Average Daily Traffic Volumes II1-11 III -5 Existing Bridges 111-13 111-6 Deficient Bridges III -15 V-1 Proposed Roadway Functional Classification V-3 V-2 Cross Sections V-8 V -2A Cross Sections V-9 V1-1 Average Daily Traffic Volumes VI -3 VI -2 Existing Bridges VI -5 VI -3 2025 Population Growth - Garfield County VI -9 VI -4 2025 Population Growth - Major Urban Areas VI -11 VI -5 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes VI -15 VI -6 Future Average Daily Traffic Volumes VI -17 VII -1 Existing Deficiencies VII -5 VII -2 Existing Deficiencies VII -7 V11-3 Existing Intersection Level of Service VII -13 VII -4 Future Deficiencies VII -17 VII -5 Future Deficiencies VII -19 VII -6 Future Intersection Level of Service V11-21 IX -1 No Build Alternatives Deficiencies in Year 2025 IX -3 IX -2 Maintenance Alternative Deficiencies in Year 2025 IX -9 IX -3 Existing Alternative Deficiencies in Year 2025 IX -13 IX -4 Future Alternative Deficiencies in Year 2025 IX -19 IX -5 Preferred Alternative Deficiencies in Year 2025 IX -25 X-1 Impact Fee Districts X-29 X1-1 Fiscal Constraint Final PIan XI -19 XI -2 Transportation Deficiencies in Year 2025 XI -21 Executive Summary The Garfield County Transportation Master Plan will set the direction for devel- opment of county roadways over the next 20 to 25 years. The Preliminary Plan provides the background information, inventory of existing transportation facilities, existing and future deficiencies, and planned improvements. Chapters I through IV provide the background information for development of the Plan. Chapter V presents the recommended functional classification definitions and designations for Garfield County roads. A Level of Service standard is proposed which is: Level of service is the qualitative measure of traffic service provided by a road under a particular volume condition and prevailing roadway conditions as described in the current edition of the Highway Capacitzl Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. An adequate level of service in Garfield County exists when the roadway system operates at Level of Service C, and intersections operate at Level of Service D or better during peak hours. Roadway cross sections and standards are also recommended for each roadway classification. Chapter VII describes the existing and future roadway deficiencies on county roads. The prioritization methodology for programming improvements is described in Chapter VIII, and improvement alternatives are presented in Chapter IX. An off-site street impact fee methodology is recommended in Chapter X. The legal authority, concepts, and examples of other impact fee programs in Colorado are described. The development of the impact fee program and corresponding calcu- lations are presented in detail. The recommended fee schedule is shown in Table ES -1. The fee program should include an annual adjustment based on the Colorado Construction Cost Index. Garfield County Transportation Master Plan, Preliminary Plan LSC ES -1 Executive Summary Table ES -1 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule County Road Impact Fee East Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $209 $1,002 TownhomeslCondos 2.93 $209 $613 Multi -Family 3.36 $209 $703 Mobile Home 2.5 $209 $523 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $209 $523 Central Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $551 $2,640 TownhomesiCondos 2.93 $551 $1,615 Multi -Family 3.36 $551 $1,852 Mobile Home 2.5 $551 $1,378 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2,5 $551 $1,378 State Road Impact Fee East Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $504 $2,416 Townhomes/Condos 2.93 $504 $1,478 Multi -Family 3.36 $504 $1,694 Mobile Home 2.5 $504 $1,261 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $504 $1,261 Central Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $59 $281 Townhomes/Condos 2.93 $59 $172 Multi -Family 3.36 $59 $197 Mobile Home 2.5 $59 $147 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $59 $147 Source: LSC, 2005. The financially -constrained transportation improvement plan is presented in Chapter XI. Projects are prioritized based on the methodology described in Chapter VIII. Projected revenues are identified for the various projects. LSC ES -2 Garfield County Transportation Master Plan, Preliminary Plan Roadway Deficiencies Table VII -3 Deficient Bridges 2000 Bridge Location TYPE Length (ft) Width Deck Square ft State Insp I Divide Creek Divide Creek Steel Steel 290.00 140.00 33.00 35.00 9.570 4,900 YES YES Source: Garfield County 2003, LSC 2004. Condition Deficiencies Certain roadways and bridges are deficient due to the condition of the infra- structure or surface. The worse the condition of the structure or surface, the greater the safety issues. Details on these roadways and bridges are provided in Chapter III (Figure II1-3 and Figure III -6). Table V1I-4 lists the roadways that are classified as deficient due to poor surface condition. These roadways either are unimproved or have a gravel surface. The LSC team has also analyzed 13 intersections throughout the county. The analysis was based upon the existing ADT counts conducted by the county. The LSC team used the Highway Capacity Software which is based upon the Highway Capacity Manual. The analyzed intersections were located on arterials (as classified in Chapter III). Figure VII -3 presents the locations and level of service (LOS) of the intersections based upon existing conditions. The LSC team found that one inter- section has a LOS B. The remaining 12 intersections have a LOS A. Detailed output is presented in Appendix B. LSC Page V1710 Garfield County Transportation Master Plan, Preliminary Plan Roadway Deficiencies The following bullets show the daily general capacities that the LSC team used in the determination of the deficient roadways for the present and future: • Arterial two-lane roadway 14,900 • Collector two-lane roadway 10,100 • Local (residential) roadway 2,000 Volume to Capacity Ratio The volume to capacity (V/C) ratio is a mathematical relationship between the volume of vehicles per day traveling on the roadway and the total daily capacity that the roadway can carry. Table VII -1 presents the various LOS capacities for the three roadway classifications. Table VII -1 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Functional Class A B C D E Arterial ** 2,200 11,000 13,900 14,900 Collector ** ** 1,900 7,600 10,100 Local ** ** 1,000 1,500 2,000 Source. HCM 2003, CDOT 2004, FOOT 2003,LSC 2004, Using Table VII -1, the LSC team was able to calculate the V/C ratio and, hence, the LOS for each roadway that has an existing traffic count. The V/C ratio is broken down into the break-points between each LOS rating. A V/C ratio greater than 100 percent is a failing LOS. Thus, the roadway is functioning over capacity at forced flow of traffic and needs a capacity improvement. A WC C ratio between 80 and 99 percent is a "D" or "E" LOS, which means the traffic flow is approaching unstable or is already unstable. Thus, the traffic is moving at a reduced speed. A V/C ratio below 80 percent is an "A" to "C" LOS, which means the traffic is free- flowing or has a stable flow. LSC Garfield County Transportation Master Plan, Preliminary Plan Page V113 Appendix C: Turn Lane Analysis • • • IL [ RANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Appendix C TURN LANE ANALYSIS The major intersections throughout Garfield County (presented in Chapter VII) were evaluated in order to determine if turning lanes were needed at the inter- sections. Turn Lane Analysis Methodology The Colorado State Highway Access Code contains the State of Colorado require- ments for regional highways classified as R -A. LSC used the Colorado State High- way Access Code to evaluate vehicle movements and determine which intersections would need turn lanes in the future based on the projected growth in Garfield County. The turn lane requirements were then used to determine which of the intersections presented in Chapter VII would be deficient in the year 2025. According to the Colorado State Highway Access Code (Subsection 3.8), auxiliary turn lanes should be installed according to following criteria: (a) "A left -turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any access with a projected peak -hour left ingress turning volume greater than 10 vph. The taper length will be included within the required decelera- tion length. (b) A right -turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any access with a projected peak -hour right ingress turning volume greater than 25 vph. The taper length will be included within the required decelera- tion length. (c) A right -turn acceleration lane and taper length is required for any access with a projected peak -hour right -turning volume greater than 50 vph when the posted speed on the highway is greater than 40 mph. (d) Right -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes are generally not required on roadways with three or more travel lanes in the direction of the right turn except as provided in subsection 3.5. (e) A left -turn acceleration lane may be required if it would be a benefit to the safety and operation of the roadway or as determined by subsection 3.5. A left -turn acceleration lane is generally not required where the posted speed is less than 45 mph, or the intersection is signalized, or the acceleration lane would interfere with the left -turn ingress movements to any other access? LSC Garfield County Transportation Master Plan Page C-1 According to the Colorado State Highway Access Code (Subsection 3.5), "The auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20"' year predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following minimum volume thresholds. The right -turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is predicted to be below 150 DHV. The left -turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the opposing traffic is predicted to be below 100 DHV. The right -turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the adjacent traveled lane is predicted to be below 120 DHV. The left -turn acceleration Lane may be dropped if the volume in the inside lane in the direction of travel is predicted to be below 120 DHV." Tables 4-5 through 4-9 in the Colorado State Highway Access Code detail the design lengths for auxiliary lanes and taper rates for various posted speed limits. Turn Lane Analysis Results Table C-1 presents the turn lane analysis results for the intersections from Chapter VII based on the Colorado State Highway Access Code requirements, As shown in the table, 11 intersections would have to be improved with turn lanes based on the above methodology. LSC assumed that a right -turn lane costs $50,000 to $100,000 including the cost for the corresponding acceleration and deceleration lanes. LSC assumed that a left - turn lane costs $100,000 for each intersection. It was also noted that two of the intersections need both left- and right -turn lanes. The total future cost of the turn lane improvements at the 11 intersections is estimated at $1.2 million. LSC Page C-2 Garfield County Transportation Master Plan LSC Garfield County Transportation Master Plan Page C-3 uture Condition Southbound s W a+=zz Er zzzzz zzz JC 3 F- Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Northbound r mC ,j R r Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z g c J Z Z z z z z z Z Z z z z )ound C .„jzjzzIzj:z RI r t3m 0 4 F aC z ZZ ZZZZZZ ZZ ca 0 L a, a J $ cies 0 la K N lL cc T.3 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Left Turn zzzzzzzzzzzzz Existing Condition Southbound ZE r Gn j z Z -7 7 7 7 z z 7 7 7 it r cl FZzzzzzz zzzzzz Northbound t C 2' Z 2 2 2 2 7 7 Z Z 7 7 7 7 El-, gE 0 j Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z r 'L7 o 1 N m onzzzzzzzzZZZZZ Qr' Left Turn N N N N , N N N N N N N N Eastbound 1-= m j z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z i-21- Left Turn N N N N N N N Ni Ni N NI N Intersection AirportJMamm Creek Colorado River / Alkali Creek Colorado River 1 Bruce Colorado River / Divide Creek Dry Hollow/ Rifle -Silt Colorado River 1 Garfield Creek Rifle-Rulison / Airport Rifle-Rulison / Hunter Mesa Rifle-Rulison f Mamm Creek Rifle-Rulison /Village Rifle-Rulison / West Mamm Creek Thompson Creek / Hardwick Bridge West Bank / Hardwick Bridge LSC Garfield County Transportation Master Plan Page C-3 The improvement costs for each intersections are shown in Table C-2. In addition to these improvements, cost have been included for signalization of one inter- section and grade separation at CMC Road and SH 82 for a total cost of $6.6 million. Table C-2 Intersection Turn Lane Cost Airport/Mamm Creek WL $89,000 Colorado River Alkali Creek WR $89,000 Colorado River 1 Bruce SR $89,000 Colorado River 1 Divide Creek WL $89,000 Dry Hollow / Rifle -Silt WR $89,000 Ride-Rulison / Hunter Mesa WR $89,000 Rifle-Rulison / Mamm Creek NL, SR $200,000 Rifle-Rulison / Village WR $89,000 Rifle-Rulison / West Mamm Creek ER -L, $200,000 Thompson Creek / Hardwick Bridge WR $89,000 West Bank / Hardwick Bridge SR $89,000 Total Cost $1,201,000 Source: LSC. 2005 LSC Page C-4 Garfield County Transportation Master Plan Executive Summary The Garfield County Transportation Master Plan will set the direction for devel- opment of county roadways over the next 20 to 25 years. The Preliminary Plan provides the background information, inventory of existing transportation facilities, existing and future deficiencies, and planned improvements. Chapters I through IV provide the background information for development of the Plan. Chapter V presents the recommended functional classification definitions and designations for Garfield County roads. A Level of Service standard is proposed which is: Level of service is the qualitative measure of traffic service provided by a road under a particular volume condition and prevailing roadway conditions as described in the current edition of the Highwau Caoacitu Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. An adequate level of service in Garfield County exists when the roadway system operates at Level of Service C, and intersections operate at Level of Service D or better during peak hours. Roadway cross sections and standards are also recommended for each roadway classification. Chapter VH describes the existing and future roadway deficiencies on county roads. The prioritization methodology for programming improvements is described in Chapter VIII, and improvement alternatives are presented in Chapter IX. An off-site street impact fee methodology is recommended in Chapter X. The legal authority, concepts, and examples of other impact fee programs in Colorado are described. The development of the impact fee program and corresponding calcu- lations are presented in detail. The recommended fee schedule is shown in Table ES- 1. The fee program should include an annual adjustment based on the Colorado Construction Cost Index. Garfield County Transportation Master Plan, Preliminary Plan LSC ES- 1 Executive Summary Table ES -1 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule County Road Impact Fee East Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $209 $1,002 Townhomes/Condos 2.93 $209 $613 Multi -Family 3.36 $209 $703 Mobile Home 2.5 $209 $523 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $209 $523 Central Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $551 $2,640 Townhomes/Condos 2.93 $551 $1,615 Multi -Family 3.36 $551 $1,852 Mobile Home 2.5 $551 $1,378 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $551 $1,378 State Road Impact Fee East Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $504 $2,416 Townhomes/Condos 2.93 $504 $1,478 Multi -Family 3,36 $504 $1,694 Mobile Home 2.5 $504 $1,261 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $504 $1,261 Central Benefit and Service Area Total Impact Land Use Trip Rate Trips Cost Fee Single -Family, Detached 4.79 $59 $281 Townhomes/Condos 2.93 $59 $172 Multi -Family 3.36 $59 $197 Mobile Home 2.5 $59 $147 Boat, Van, RV Spaces 2.5 $59 $147 Source: LSC, 2005. The financially -constrained transportation improvement plan is presented in Chapter XI. Projects are prioritized based on the methodology described in Chapter VIII. Projected revenues are identified for the various projects. LSC ES -2 Garfield County Transportation Master Pian, Preliminary Plan. Executive Summary Supporting material is included in several appendices. A gas well drilling impact fee is proposed in Appendix D. The recommended fee is based on the proportion of pavement life used by heavy vehicle activity associated with each well. The recommended fee is $1,577 per well based on current costs with an adjustment to be made annually based on the Colorado Construction Cost Index. Following approval of the Preliminary Plan, specific corridor improvement plans will be developed and presented as part of the Draft Final Plan for adoption by the County. LSC Garfield County Transportation Master Plan, Preliminary PIan ES -3