planning and environmental linkages study public meeting · environmental linkages study a planning...
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome
Public MeetingA P R I L 2 5 & 2 6 , 2 0 1 7
to the
SH 66Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
Thank you for attending! We are pleased you are here to hear more about the SH 66 Corridor! We are eager to hear your ideas
to help shape the future vision for the corridor!How to get the most out of this meeting:
• View the displays and talk with our project team members to learn more and share your ideas
• Participate in the interactive activities
• Fill out a project comment card and drop it in the box
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study
A Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study is an approach to transportation decision-making that considers community, environmental and economic goals early in the
planning stage and carry them through project development, design, and construction.
A PEL Study:• Identifies transportation
issues and environmental concerns
• Defines a clear purpose and need
• Results in useful information that can be carried forward into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process
The SH 66 PEL will identify existing conditions, anticipated problem areas, safety, and operational needs to determine the short-term and long-term transportation priorities.
Purpose The purpose of transportation improvements along the SH 66 corridor is to improve safety, reduce existing and future traffic congestion, provide efficient access for existing and future development, and improve mobility and connectivity for all transportation modes that match the context of the adjacent communities.
NeedsSAFETY PROBLEM The corridor has experienced a number of safety concerns.
VEHICULAR Several intersection and mainline locations along the SH 66 corridor have a high number of crashes, when compared to other similar roadways.
BICYCLE Areas along the corridor have experienced bicycle safety concerns, from recorded incidents, physical characteristics, and cross-street connections.
PEDESTRIAN There are a number of pedestrian destinations in the corridor, which do not have sidewalks connecting them and can cause unsafe pedestrian movements.
MOBILITY PROBLEM The movement of people, goods, and services along the corridor has resulted in a number of mobility problems that can be rooted in various transportation modes.
VEHICULAR Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections that fail to accommodate users’ needs, highway design, and unreliable travel times substantially impact the ability of people to move across and along the corridor.
BICYCLE A majority of the SH 66 corridor is a heavily utilized for bicycles (recreational, commuter, and events). There are many areas of the corridor that have insufficient shoulders that can accommodate bicycles or non-advanced riders.
PEDESTRIAN There are a number of pedestrian destinations in the corridor, many of which do not have sidewalks between the destinations.
TRANSIT Transit service in the corridor is primarily focused on north-south connections and not local east-west service. There is currently a non-continuous connection of transit service providers in the corridor.
ACCESS PROBLEM The current number, locations, and design of public roadway accesses have contributed to traffic operational and safety deficiencies along the corridor. There are individual private driveways, business accesses directly onto SH 66, and inconsistent access spacing, which leads to mobility and safety problems.
What is a PEL?
Project Purpose and Need
Planning(State, MPO, TPRRegional Plans, County, Local
Agency)
Identify Transportation
Needs and Environmental
Concerns
Determine Reason for PEL
Study and Desired
Outcome
Identify Stakeholders
Define Roles/ Responsibilities(Charter Agreement)
Evaluate and Screen Alternatives and Identify Impacts and Potential
Mitigation
Document Evaluation Process
Finalize PEL Document
Define/Refine Travel Corridor
Develop Purpose &
Need, Goals, and Objectives
Develop Performance
Measures (Evaluation Criteria)
Develop Alternatives
• Age
ncy
/ Sta
keho
lder
/ P
ublic
Inpu
t
NEPA
FHWA Concurrence Point
FHWA Concurrence Point
FHWA Concurrence Point
Design Construction
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study Process Flowchart
1 2
4
5 7
68
9
10
11
Stakeholder Interviews
Purpose & Need
FHWA CONCURRENCE POINT
Public Meeting
Data Collection
3bRoadwayCapacity
PrioritizationACP Development
Identify Funding,Conduct NEPA Analysis
3aRoadwayClassification
Intersection Alternatives
Screen AlternativesPreserveRight-of-Way
Design,Construction
PEL NEPA/Design ImplementationSubsequent Steps
PEL QuestionaireSummary SheetsFHWA CONCURRENCE POINT
Documentation
Visioning WorkshopSections/Constraints/Goals
Current DemandFuture Demand (information from stakeholders & visioning)
Choose alternatives that best fit the current and future transportation system, current surrounding land use and future land use contextEvaluate environmental impacts/constraintsFHWA CONCURRENCE POINT
Public Meeting
*TODAY
EARLY 2018
JULY 2017
WINTER 2017
MID 2018
MID 2018
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study
FIRESTONEMEAD
MEAD
LONGMONT
LONGMONT
LYONS
BNSF RailroadS 21st Ave
75th
St
87th
St
95th
St
Hov
er S
t
Spen
cer
St
Fran
cis
St
Gay
St
115t
h St
Pace
St
66th
St
N 5
1st
St
Ston
e Ca
nyon
Dr
McC
onne
ll D
r
Prat
t St
BNSF
Rai
lroa
d
Coun
ty L
ine
Rd
CR 3
CR 5
3rd
St
CR 9
.5
CR 1
1
CR 1
3
CR 1
7
CR 1
9
Elm
ore
Rd
Gre
at W
este
rn R
ailw
ay
Planning Context & SH 66 Community Values
36
28725
Multi-modalRoundabout
GatewayLocation
New Bike Side Path
Expand to 4 Thru Lanes
Expand to 4 Thru Lanes
Future BusTransfer Station
Future Bike &Ped Underpass
GatewayLocation
Future TrailCrossing
GatewayLocation
IntersectionImprovement
Existing Plans Reviewed in the Context of SH 66 PELTown of Lyons Primary Planning Area Master Plan (2016)Town of Lyons Comprehensive Plan (2010)City of Longmont Envision Longmont (2015)Town of Mead Comprehensive Plan (2009)Town of Mead Transportation Plan (2013)Carbon Valley Transit Service Feasibility Study (2011)Firestone Master Plan (2013)Boulder County Transportation Master Plan (2011)Boulder County Mountain Town Transit Feasibility Study (2011)Weld County Transportation Plan (2011)DRCOG Metro Vision Plan (2017)CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (2011)Saint Vrain Trail Master Plan (2004)
Boulder County Mountain Town Transit Feasibility Study
Submitted by: Charlier Associates, Inc.
January 2011
MULTIMODAL & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted June 28, 2016
TOWN OF MEAD TRANSPORTATION PLAN
11/15/2013 2013 Transportation Plan Update
Mission Statement: “To plan and program a safe and efficient
transportation system for the Mead area that increases access and
mobility through multimodal options, improves the environment and
supports economic development, thereby enhancing quality of life.”
Lyons Primary Planning Area (LPPA) Master Plan3-Mile Plan and Proposed Amendment to the Lyons Comprehensive Plan
Boulder CountyTransportation Master Plan
A D O P T E D :
D E C E M B E R 1 1 , 2 0 1 2
WELD COUNTY DRAFT
Weld County
2035 TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
2011
Weld County Public Works Department
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study Existing and Future Operations
75th
St
87th
St
95th
St
Hov
er S
t
Lake
Par
k D
r
Spen
cer
St
Fran
cis
St
Gay
St
115t
h St
Erfe
rt S
t
Pace
St
Sund
ance
Dr
66th
St
N 5
1st
St
Ston
eCa
nyon
Dr
McCon
nell
Dr
tS ttarP
Coun
ty L
ine
Rd
CR 3
CR 5
3rd
St
CR 9
.5
CR 1
1
Mea
d St
CR 1
3
CR 1
7
CR 1
9
Elm
ore
Rd
S 21st Ave
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
Existing2040
No Action
009,11001,41001,42053,32003,12000,72005,41000,41 23,600000,51052,12003,13009,82003,82004,63007,12009,81 32,100
12,00015,100
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFICBoth Directions of Travel
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
LEGEND
AM/PM SignalizedIntersection LOS
XX = Stop Controlled approach
with LOS of E or F =
Existing and Future Operations
LEVEL OF SERVICE
75th
St
87th
St
95th
St
Hov
er S
t
Lake
Par
k D
r
Spen
cer
St
Fran
cis
St
Gay
St
115t
h St
Erfe
rt S
t
Pace
St
66th
St
N 5
1st
St
Ston
eCa
nyon
Dr
McCon
nell
Dr tS ttarP
Coun
ty L
ine
Rd
CR 3
CR 5
3rd
St
CR 9
.5
CR 1
1
Mea
d St
CR 1
3
CR 1
7
CR 1
9
Elm
ore
Rd
S 21st Ave
75th
St
87th
St
95th
St
Hov
er S
t
Lake
Par
k D
r
Spen
cer
St
Fran
cis
St
Gay
St
115t
h St
Erfe
rt S
t
Pace
St
66th
St
N 5
1st
St
Ston
eCa
nyon
Dr
McCon
nell
Dr tS ttarP
Coun
ty L
ine
Rd
CR 3
CR 5
3rd
St
CR 9
.5
CR 1
1
Mea
d St
CR 1
3
CR 1
7
CR 1
9
Elm
ore
Rd
S 21st Ave
Sund
ance
Dr
Sund
ance
Dr
EASTBOUNDEASTBOUND
WESTBOUNDWESTBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUNDSpeed Limit
80%60%40%20%
Stopped
Speed Limit80%60%40%20%
Stopped
Speed Limit80%60%40%20%
Stopped
Speed Limit80%60%40%20%
Stopped
EASTBOUNDEASTBOUND
WESTBOUNDWESTBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
BA B
C DF
FF
DF
FF
FF
EF
BB
CC
DF
AC
FF
BA B
B BC
DF
CC
DC
ED
CC
BB
CC
CC
AA
CFExisting
LEVEL OF SERVICE2040 No Action
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study
= Property Damage Only = Fatal
LEGEND
= Injury = Signalized Intersection
Safety
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study Existing Transit
SH 66 West of County Line Road is within the RTD service boundary.
BNSF Railroad
Y
323
324
FLEX
326
327
LX
Route
LEGEND
LNX
J, L (express trips), LSX, BOLT
Bustang
Select Trips
Bus Stop
RTD ParknRide & FLEX Bus Stop
RTD Boundary
FIRESTONEMEAD
LONGMONT
LONGMONT
LYONS
MAT
CHLI
NE
MAT
CHLI
NE
75th
St
87th
St
95th
St
Hov
er S
t
Spen
cer
St
Fran
cis
St
Gay
St
115t
h St
Pace
St
Coun
ty L
ine
Rd
CR 3
CR 5
3rd
St CR 9
.5
CR 1
1
CR 1
3
CR 1
7
CR 1
9
66th
St
N 5
1st
St
Ston
e Ca
nyon
Dr
McC
onne
ll D
r
Prat
t St
BNSF
Rai
lroa
d
Elm
ore
Rd
Gre
at W
este
rn R
ailw
ay
S 21st Ave
23rd Ave
25
36
287
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study Existing and Planned Bike Network
15-255 04.25.2017
SH 66 Planning andEnvironmental Linkages Study Pedestrian Facilities
= No Sidewalk
= Existing Sidewalk
= Proposed Grade Separated Crossing= Bus Stop
= Pedestrian Intersection Crossing
= Pedestrian Destinations (includes commercial areas, public facilities, & multifamily housing)
LEGEND
Environmental Resources and Other Context
Existing Floodplains and Floodways
Existing Wetlands and Waters of the US
Existing Wildlife Resources
Existing Major Utilities
Traffic Noise Sensitive Areas
Hazardous Material Concerns
Minority Population Percentage
Low-Income Population Percentage
Visual Resources
Existing and Potential Historic Resources
Railroads