Summary Analysis
Private partners are most interested in projects that can apply some type of user pay system (tolls) to recover the initial capital investment.

Additional funding issues in regards to the selection of an alternate route were discussed, and are detailed in a handout that was distributed, and is attached to these notes.  Some of the issues are as follows:

Swapping lane mileage Rural Transportation Authority Proposal NFRT & AQPC and Upper Front Range boundaries

Federal funding stability Shortfall in State Legislative budgets Funding shortfall in planning regions

Comments (not necessarily statements of fact)

V.   Non-Route Based Strategy Recommendations
A handout detailing the non-route based strategy recommendations was distributed to the group.  These recommendations emerged out of input from the different committees and trucking industry workshops.  The non-route based strategy recommendations were as follows:

Ø       Prioritized media (developed through trucking industry workshops)

A copy of the non-route based strategy recommendations is attached to these notes.

Comments (not necessarily statements of fact)

VI.   Comparative Evaluation of Alternate Routes
The Wellington Alternatives have been eliminated from further consideration based on typical section width constraints.  The Project Management Team comprised of the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, CDOT and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission unanimously voted for the elimination of the Wellington routes.

Evaluation Methodology

Individual Criteria were designated least favorable, moderate, or most favorable, represented by an open circle, half circle, and full circle, respectively.  Each value is compared to other values within the same category to determine the affectiveness of the route meeting the specific evaluation criteria.  The legend describes the values used to determine whether a value is most favorable, moderate, or least favorable.  For example, capital cost values greater than or equal to 90 million are considered least favorable, values between 63 and 90 million are considered moderate, and values less than or equal to 63 million are considered most favorable.  Handouts for evaluation of cost, traffic operations, route utilization, right-of-way/relocations, environmental relocations, directly affected properties, community planning/land use, length of route, and the overall symbol matrix are attached to these notes.

Cost
A handout was distributed that detailed the cost evaluation.  R.A. went over the cost evaluation.  CR 76 A and CR 72 A were much greater than other routes so they were designated least favorable.  CR 70/72 B, CR 70 B and CR 58 A were substantially less so they were all designated most favorable, while the remaining routes were designated moderate.

Traffic Operations
A handout was distributed that detailed the traffic operations evaluation for each of the routes.  R.A. explained that any route with a change of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) greater than 15,000 was designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate.  The clarification was made that VMT is a daily value for the entire area as a whole and traffic volumes are for 2020.  Travel time was not evaluated because all the times are within 4.3 minutes. 

 

Route Utilization
A handout was distributed that detailed the route utilization for each of the alternate routes.  The weighted average of the traffic utilization numbers was used for CR 70/72 A, 70/72 B, CR 70 B, CR 58 A, and CR 58 B due to the large amounts of traffic on each of these routes near I-25.  Through trucks on proposed route was not evaluated because the amount of through trucks is the same on each route.  R.A. explained that routes with more than 9,000 vehicles per day were designated most favorable, while routes with less than 7,000 vehicles per day were designated as least favorable.  All other routes were designated as moderate. 

Environmental Resources
A handout was distributed that detailed the environmental resources evaluation.  The modified LESA analysis was used to evaluate the farming resources.  The Land Evaluation (LE) portion was based solely on soil type and ability to grow crops.  The Site Assessment (SA) portion was based on farm size and distance to annexed boundary.  A larger farm that is further from the nearest annexed boundary is given a higher score.  The modified LESA score represents the combination of the LE and SA score.  R.A. explained that the routes with a modified LESA score greater than or equal to 130 were designated as least desirable while routes with a score less than 115 were designated as most desirable.  All other routes were designated as moderate.

Federal and state protected species were evaluated based on acres of potential effect.  All routes with more than 50 acres of potential effect were designated as least desirable while all routes with less than 25 acres were designated as most desirable.  All other routes were designated as moderate.  CNHP conservation areas were designated least desirable if they had greater than or equal to 15 acres of potential effect.  Routes with no effect were designated most favorable and all other routes were designated as moderate.

Routes with more than three acres of potential effect to riparian areas were designated as least favorable while routes with no effect were designated as most favorable.  All other routes were designated as moderate.  Wetlands were evaluated based on the national wetlands inventory.  All routes with greater than or equal to ten acres of potential effect were designated as least favorable while routes with less than three acres of potential effect were designated as most favorable.  All other routes were designated moderate. 

Noise analysis was conducted using a time-related stamina model that used average values for the FHWA criteria.  All routes with ten or more affected residences were designated as least favorable, while all other routes were designated as moderate.  No routes were designated as most favorable because none of the routes had zero affected residences.  Noise impacts to businesses were not evaluated because all of the routes had no effect on businesses.  The clarification was made that the noise analysis was based on 2001 numbers of households and businesses.

Air quality was evaluated using the additional CO on route.  All routes with more than 0.30 tons per day additional were designated least favorable while all other routes were designated moderate.  Diesel emissions were not evaluated because they are a direct representation of CO on route.  CO on SH 14 after relocation was not evaluated because the focus of the evaluation is on the effects to the proposed routes, not to the existing route.

Alternate routes with ten or more ditch/canal crossings were designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate.  Routes with 15 or more acres of potential effect on FEMA floodplains were designated as least favorable while routes with less than five acres of potential effect were designated as most favorable.  All other routes were designated as moderate.

Historic resource site impacts were based on sites that are currently listed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).  Routes with listed sites were designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate.  Potentially significant site resource impacts were based on sites where significant resources have been found in the past.  All routes with three or more potential impacts were designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate since additional historic resources could be found on each route in the future. 

Right-of Way/Relocations
A handout was distributed that detailed the right-of-way/relocations evaluation.  No additional ROW was assumed on the south edge of CR 58.  Any route with 300 or more acres of additional ROW was designated as least favorable while any route with 200 or less additional acres of ROW was designated as most favorable.  All other routes were designated as moderate.  Residential, business, farming and ranching relocations were evaluated in one combined category.  Any route with ten or more relocations was designated as least favorable while all of the other routes were designated as moderate.  The most favorable designation would only apply to an alternate route with no relocations. 

Directly Affected Properties
A handout was distributed detailing the evaluation of the directly affected properties.  A directly affected property was assumed to be any property with current (2001) direct access to one of the proposed routes.  Any route with 45 or more residences with direct access was designated as least favorable while any route with less than 20 residences with direct access was designated as most favorable.  All other routes were designated as moderate.  Any route with directly affected businesses was designated as moderate while all other routes were designated as most favorable. 

Community Planning/Land Use
A handout was distributed detailing the evaluation of community planning and land use.  Larimer County present and future road designations were used to determine compatibility with County and regional transportation planning.  Roadway designations include highways, freeways, arterials, major and minor collectors, and local roads.  There are many other road classifications.  Any route with local roads or minor collectors was determined to be non-compatible, while combinations involving major collectors or portions of state highway were determined to be compatible with.  None of the routes were found to be consistent with the roadway classifications.  Non-compatible roadways were designated as least favorable while any route consisting of roadways considered compatible were designated as moderate.  None of the routes were considered most favorable.  Percent of total land use was not evaluated because all routes are similar in relation to existing land uses.

Length of Route
A handout was distributed detailing the evaluation of length of route.  Length of proposed route, length of proposed route compared to existing route, length of proposed route, length of proposed route compared to shortest route, and proposed route lane miles were not evaluated because most provided information only, and the range of some values is close to the existing route.  Additional state highway lane miles were used to evaluate length of route.  Greater than ten additional lane miles was considered least favorable, and moderate was considered less than ten additional lane miles.  None of the alternatives were most favorable due to the fact that all routes have additional highway lane miles.

VII.   Alternate Route Recommendations
A handout detailing the alternate route recommendations was distributed to the group along with an alternate route map.  These recommendations emerged out of input from the different committees and affected agencies.  The alternate route considerations and recommendations were as follows:

Alternate Route Considerations
Alternate route considerations were discussed and are included in position statements from CDOT and Larimer County that were handed out.  After the comparative evaluation of routes was completed, it was found that a more detailed analysis is needed to assess the potential impacts of the remaining alternate routes.  This increased level of detail would be an environmental analysis based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  This level of analysis would be required based on the need for federal funding.  Under a NEPA analysis, all reasonable alternatives must be considered including a no-action alternative and potential routes south of the CR 58 boundary.  The current conflict between the language of the Ballot Initiative and the requirements of NEPA would need to be resolved within the City before the environmental analysis could begin.  The question was asked as to whether or not if an alternate route was chosen and approved in the past if the next step would have been to go through the NEPA process.  R.A. responded that NEPA would have been the next logical step, and that all alternatives would have to be re-evaluated, including a no action alternative.

An alternate route solution would require the full cooperation of CDOT, Larimer County, and Fort Collins.  As stated in the letter received from CDOT:

Larimer County must also be in full cooperation, and their position is as follows:

Joint submission of the project to Upper Front Range and North Front Range by Larimer County and Fort Collins would be a likely first step to move an alternate route forward.  To solidify support for the pursuit of an alternate route, CDOT’s Project Priority Planning Process should be used including establishing the project as a high priority in both Upper Front Range and North Front Range Transportation Planning Regions.

Alternate Route Recommendations
Although the initial goal of the study was to develop a single alternative, given the nature of the issues and need for further analysis as part of an environmental evaluation, selection of one alternative is not feasible.  The following alternatives were removed from further consideration during the comparative screening process:

·         County Road 76A is eliminated from further consideration based on the high cost and issues with access through the Colorado Lien plant

·         County Road 72A is eliminated from further consideration based on the high cost and issues with access through the Colorado Lien plant

·         County Road 72B is eliminated from further consideration based on its potential impacts in relation to other County Road 70/72 and County Road 70 alternatives including; cost, right-of-way, directly affected properties, and compatibility with planning and the proximity of new interchange to existing interchange

·         County Road 70/72A is eliminated from further consideration based on its potential impacts in relation to other County Road 70/72 and County Road 70 alternatives including; cost and right-of-way and issues with access through the Colorado Lien plant

Based on the remaining routes after the comparative screening process and if a NEPA study convened, the following corridors should be considered among the full range of alternatives:

Ø       County Road 70 and 70/72 corridor

Ø       County Road 66 corridor

Ø       County Road 58 corridor

A copy of the alternate route recommendations, alternate route map, and evaluation matrix are attached to these notes.

Comments (not necessarily statements of fact)

·         What is the next step in this current process, who can resolve the conflict with the ballot language and NEPA?

·         Full buy-in is needed from all affected jurisdictions before funding is secured

·         Federal and State funding may not be possible with the current funding shortfalls

·         Does a state highway require NEPA if no federal funding is acquired?

·         The three year update was recently completed for the NFR

VIII.    Other Business
WYDOT proposing to widen US 287 to 4 lanes to the Colorado border, funding bills being proposed including a specific bill for the US 287 section. 

The next meeting will be set up via e-mail in the coming weeks for after December 18^th. 

A handout detailing the upcoming schedule was distributed to the group.

The public open houses are scheduled for November 13^th and 14^th as seen previously in these notes.

Distribution: Stakeholder Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, and Project Management Team

Attachments: Agenda, getting a project funded and built, potential funding sources (4), additional funding issues, non-route based strategy recommendations, alternate route recommendations, alternate route map, Wellington letter, CDOT letter, Larimer County letter, comparative evaluation matrix for routes, schedule update, and stakeholder notes.