Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study

Environmental Overview

Truck Origin and Destination Study

Non-Route Based Strategy Comparative Screening Process

Alternate Route Comparative Screening Process

Technical Analysis

Environmental Overview

A cursory investigation of the study area was conducted to determine the location of critical environmental resources. The limits of the environmental overview included: US 287 on the west, I-25 on the east, County Road 58 on the south, and County Road 82 on the north. A short discussion of the major environmental resources identified is provided below.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Based on review of the habitat types in the area, literature searches, and review of the previous studies, the study has two potential Federally protected species. The Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonious preblei, and the Ute Ladies'-tresses, Spiranthes diluvialis, are both listed as a Threatened species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. No critical habitat in the project vicinity has been identified.

Historic Resources: Based on an internet search and review of the past studies, one historic site is in the project area. The First National Bank Building in Wellington is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Numerous historic resources exist in the immediate vicinity of the City of Fort Collins, but they are located south of the project area.

Wetlands/Water Quality: Potential alternate routes could affect lakes, streams, seasonal wetlands, and irrigation ditches in the study area. A closer look at the quantity and quality of wetlands affected by the project will be conducted in the alternatives analysis.

Grant Family Farms Farmlands: Land use in the study area is primarily agricultural in nature. Each alternative will be analyzed to determine the extent of direct and indirect impacts to farmlands. The National Resource Conservation Service will be contacted to determine the locations of any "Prime or Unique" farmlands.

Other resources: Impacts based on other environmental issues including noise and air quality will be evaluated as necessary to support the evaluation criteria developed for alternative evaluation.

More detailed information about potential environmental impacts will be gathered during the data collection, stakeholder involvement, and agency coordination phases.

Truck Origin and Destination Study

Truck Origin and Destination Study
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins is conducting the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/State Highway 14 (SH 14) Relocation Study to address truck issues in the City of Fort Collins and northern Larimer County. As part of the overall study, a Truck Origin and

Destination Study was conducted in the study area. The intent of this study was to determine the proportion and number of through, long haul, through truck trips that could be accommodated by either a non-route based strategy or alternate route. This data collection effort addressed both traffic volumes and travel patterns. Traffic volume information helped identify how many trucks travel within the study area, while travel pattern data helped define whether truck trips are local or regional....read more!
Read the Truck Origin and Destination Study!

Non-Route Based Strategy Comparative Screening Process

Following unrealistic strategy screening, the remaining strategies were refined to provide the necessary detail to complete the comparative screening process. The comparative screening process was conducted to determine the strategies that best meet the goals of the study. This level of analysis was based on cost and strategy utilization evaluation criteria as shown below.

Cost

The evaluation of cost issues for the non-route based strategies included three different measures of effectiveness. Cost information on the remaining strategies is compiled in a matrix format as shown in the following table and a description of each measure is explained below in more detail. The measures included implementation cost, maintenance cost, and the cost per truck removed.

Implementation Cost: The implementation cost for the non-route based strategies is the initial cost in 2001 dollars to get the strategy started. For financial strategies, the implementation cost of $50,000 includes acquiring resources to develop taxing mechanisms. An implementation cost of $40,000 was added to each of the marketing strategies for the development of a marketing committee, and other costs over the initial $40,000 are for additional required equipment. Regulatory enforcement strategy costs include expenses for additional officers and equipment, and the implementation cost for the physical strategies includes both materials and equipment.

Maintenance Cost: The maintenance cost is the annual cost in 2001 dollars to continue using the strategy. For financial strategies, the maintenance cost of $6.5 million per year was found by multiplying the number of through trucks per year by the additional miles to use the existing route by the cost per mile of truck operation.

The current cost to drivers/shippers is approximately $1.75 per mile. Taking the Interstate route is 17 miles longer than the existing SH 14 route. Thus, one driver making one roundtrip a day would need to be subsidized by approximately $59.50. With an estimated 600 trips a day from the truck origin and destination study, the subsidy rate would be approximately $17,850 per day or $6.5 million a year.

The yearly maintenance cost for marketing strategies assumes the range of costs for the different media, and the costs for regulatory enforcement strategies include salary and expenses for two additional officers and equipment. For physical strategies, the cost includes standard industry maintenance costs for either replacement or repairs.

Cost per Truck Removed: The first year cost per truck removed is a combination of the implementation cost and the first year maintenance cost divided by the number of through trucks removed per year and is seen in the following equation for City Contribution. The number of through trucks removed per year is discussed in the following section, strategy utilization.

Cost Comparative Evaluation (2001 dollars)

Strategy Utilization

In addition to cost measures, the effectiveness of the strategy at removing trucks from the existing route was also evaluated. Information on the number of through trucks that would utilize the Interstate based on the non-route based strategies was also compiled in a matrix format as shown in the table below. A detailed discussion of the strategy utilization evaluation is provided below.

Percent of Through Trucks Removed: The percent of through trucks removed from the existing SH 14/US 287 route is an estimated percentage of through trucks that would be removed based on the strategy. These percentages were developed through one of the trucking industry workshops. For example, financial strategies have the greatest chance of keeping through trucks on the Interstate and could divert 80 percent of through trucks from the existing route, while changing the signage on I-25 may only divert five percent.

Number of Through Trucks Removed: The number of through trucks removed from the system is the percent of through trucks removed multiplied by 600 through trucks per day found in the Truck Origin and Destination Study.

Strategy Utilization Comparative Evaluation

Alternate Route Comparative Screening Process

Following the refinement of the alternate routes remaining after the unrealistic screening process, the second phase, comparative screening was completed. The comparative screening analysis was conducted to determine the relative benefits and potential impacts of the alternate routes in relation to one another. The analysis was based on cost, traffic operations, route utilization, environmental resources, right-of-way and relocations, directly affected properties, and community planning and land use comparative screening criteria as shown below.

The data that was collected as part of the comparative screening evaluation was then rated against one another by each criteria. Categories were established to determine whether the alternate route is least favorable, moderate, or most favorable based on each criteria. A least favorable category is represented by an open circle, a moderate category is represented by a half circle, and a most favorable category is represented by a full circle.

Some of the criteria were not used in the matrix because they did not reflect a clear difference between alternate routes or if they restated another evaluation measure. The matrix evaluation of the different criteria is shown in the following sections.

Alternate Route Cost

Various costs were developed for each alternate route including capital cost and cost per traffic utilization measures. Conceptual cost estimates for the alternate routes were developed based on total construction cost in 2001 dollars including engineering, construction management, environmental studies (EA, EIS), legal fees, right-of-way requirements, and potential relocations. Similar assumptions were used for each alternate route, and a 30 percent contingency was added to the overall cost in determining the capital cost.

Cost per total traffic utilization represents the capital cost divided by the future (2020) projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the various alternate routes. ADT volumes came from the travel demand model and include all types of vehicles. The cost per through truck represents the capital cost divided by the number of through trucks per day on the various alternate routes, based on the future (2020) projected traffic volumes. The future (2020) traffic projections assume 1,300 through trucks per day on all of the proposed alternate routes. Cost per through truck on proposed route was not evaluated in the matrix because the same amount of through trucks will use all of the routes so cost per through truck is a direct representation of capital cost.

Alternate Route Cost Matrix Evaluation (2001 dollars)

Traffic Operations
Traffic operations for each alternate route was evaluated using level of service, change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and travel time from I-25 and SH 14 to US 287 and I-80. All traffic volumes are based on future (2020) projections generated by the travel demand model.
Based on projected future (2020) traffic volumes, the number of lanes required to support the volumes was determined. The number of lanes was based on maintaining a level of service (LOS) C as recommended by CDOT for all routes. LOS refers to the congestion and operation of a roadway or intersection. LOS ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst. The number of lanes required was not evaluated in the matrix because it provided information only.
The daily change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was calculated for the entire region (including Longmont, Fort Collins, Greeley, and north to Wyoming) using the travel demand model. The change in VMT for each route is based on the change in regional vehicle miles traveled for future (2020) traffic volumes with the route minus total projected vehicle miles traveled in 2020 without the route. The total projected vehicle miles traveled for 2020 is 23,575,000 miles.
Projected travel time for each route was calculated assuming the speed of travel was equal to the designated speed limit and was based on the length of the various routes. Travel time was not evaluated in the matrix because all times were within 4.3 minutes.
Traffic Operations Comparative Evaluation

Route Utilization
Route utilization for each alternate route was evaluated by the number of through trucks on the proposed route and the number of total vehicles on the proposed route. Traffic volumes were generated by the travel demand model. A travel demand model is a widely accepted planning tool used to gauge the relative effectiveness of alternative roadway scenarios in terms of estimated traffic volumes and travel patterns. For the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study, the TransCAD travel demand model maintained by the City of Fort Collins was used to develop future (2020) traffic volumes. The primary inputs of the travel model were forecasts of year 2020 population and employment, distributed geographically, and a planned future roadway network based on the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (NFRT & AQPC) adopted 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. The travel model takes into account a variety of factors, including:

Trip purpose
Number of trips made per day
Trip length
Roadway speed and capacity
Availability of transit
Time-of-day travel characteristics (peak-period travel verses off-peak travel)
Roadway congestion
Almost all of the through trucks would be expected to use any of the alternate routes. In addition, other local and regional trucks (non-through) would also use the alternate route. Total traffic volumes are higher on the more southern alternate routes due to population in the City of Fort Collins, Wellington, and Laporte areas using the route to access north I-25 and other areas.
For the comparative evaluation, the number of through trucks on each proposed route was assumed to be 1,300 trucks per day based on the range of 1,200 to 1,300 trucks found to use the route based on the results of the travel demand model. The number of through trucks on the proposed route was not evaluated because all of the numbers are the same.
Route Utilization Comparative Analysis

Environmental Resources
Potential environmental resource impacts for each alternative were evaluated based on established evaluation criteria including farming resources, threatened or endangered species (T&E) and wildlife, wetlands and riparian areas, noise, air quality, water resources, and historic resources. The acres of potential effect were developed using the proposed right-of-way (200 foot minimum) minus the existing right-of-way (60 feet for county roads and 100 feet for SH 1).
Farming Resources: An analysis of potential impacts to farming resources was completed based on the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) approach developed by the Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board. LESA is a tool developed by American Farmland Trust that is helpful in determining soil area compatibility for farming. A modified LESA score was developed for each route. The Land Evaluation (LE) portion of the analysis involved putting a weighted value on the benefits of various soil types based on the ability to grow crops. The site assessment (SA) portion of the analysis used the minimum distance from the parcel to the nearest annexed boundary and the parcel size to assess its value. A larger farm further from the nearest annexed boundary receives a higher score. The other components of the standard LESA site assessment analysis were not used for this analysis. The LE and SA analyses were combined to develop the overall modified LESA score with a maximum possible score of 200. The higher the number, the better the farming resource. The land evaluation and site assessment scores were not evaluated separately because they show a similar comparison as the total LESA score.
Farming Resources Comparative Analysis

Threatened/ Endangered Species and Wildlife: Potential impacts to T&E and wildlife was evaluated for each alternate route. T&E lists were obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Habitat was mapped for State and Federally listed species that potentially occur within the project study area. In some cases, information obtained from the CDOW and USFWS revealed known occurrences for threatened and endangered species. According to USFWS, there is no "Critical Habitat" (physical or biological features associated with an area that are essential to the conservation of a species) for any listed species in the study area.
Potential T&E species habitat, T&E known occurrences, and Colorado National Heritage Program (CNHP) conservation sites were also evaluated based on the acres of potential effect. More information about protected species impacts would become available as field surveys are initiated as part of a detailed environmental resource assessment.
Threatened/ Endangered Species and Wildlife Comparative Analysis

Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Potential impacts to wetlands were evaluated for each alternate route. Riparian ecosystems are vegetated areas found between wetlands and uplands, and were identified based on information from CDOW. These areas are important for their flood control function and habitat value.
Wetlands and deepwater habitats were identified based on information from the National Wetlands Inventory. Deepwater habitats include lakes, creeks, and rivers, while wetlands include areas like marshes that are generally vegetated with willows, rushes, and sedges. The acres of potential effect were developed for wetlands and deepwater habitat. More information about potential wetland, deepwater habitat, and riparian impacts would become available as field surveys are initiated as part of a detailed environmental assessment.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas Comparative Evaluation

Noise: Potential noise impacts were evaluated for each alternate route. Traffic noise levels are affected by traffic volume, traffic speeds, and vehicle types. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established guidelines defining noise abatement criteria for the upper limits of acceptable traffic noise levels based on land use and activities. These levels represent a balance between a desirable noise level and an achievable noise level. Noise levels are measured in Leq, which represent the average noise level fluctuations over one hour. The units are in decibels (dB) on the "A" weighted scale (dBA). The "A" weighted scale approximates the range of sound frequencies humans can hear.
FHWA's maximum allowable noise level (23 CFR 772) is 67 dBA for residential use, hotels, and museums (Category B) and 72 dBA for commercial business land use (Category C). CDOT defines noise levels 1 dBA below FHWA's maximum allowable levels (66 dBA for residential use, hotels, and museums and 71 dBA for commercial use) as approaching noise abatement criteria and mitigation must be evaluated. An increase of 10 dBA or more from the existing noise level also requires the evaluation of mitigation. Note: Mitigation is required by FHWA where it is "reasonable and feasible".
FHWA's computerized noise prediction model, STAMINA 2.0 (using Colorado emission data) was utilized to determine the extent of traffic noise impacts. This program evaluates the noise energy produced by traffic in a segment of roadway based on the traffic volume, speed, and type of vehicles using the roadway. Future (2020) projected traffic volumes were obtained from the travel demand model and were used to predict where noise levels would equal or exceed the 66 dBA and 71 dBA impact thresholds. The number of residences and commercial businesses were then identified within these impact areas. More information about involvement with noise will become available once detailed noise modeling is initiated in the next phase of the project. Commercial businesses were not included in the matrix comparative analysis because there were no potential impacts to businesses.
Noise Comparative Evaluation

Air Quality: Potential impacts to air quality were evaluated for each alternate route using year 2015 carbon monoxide (CO) and diesel emissions obtained from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Detailed air quality models were not used in this analysis, but predictions of CO and diesel pollution were estimated using the future (2020) project area travel demand model forecasts. For example, if the model predicts 16 percent of the traffic will relocate to CR 58 A, so will 16 percent of the CO/diesel pollution. More information about air quality will become available once detailed air quality modeling is initiated in the next phase of the project. The amount of CO on the route existing after relocation was not evaluated in the matrix because it is not a comparison of the proposed alternate routes. The evaluation of the amount of diesel on the existing route and the additional diesel on the proposed routes was not evaluated in the matrix either because it provided the same information an comparison as the evaluation of CO.
Air Quality Comparative Evaluation

Water Resources: Potential impacts to water resources were evaluated for each alternate route. Water resource information was obtained from the Larimer County Land Use and Site Inventory Assessment (LUSIA), the U.S Census Bureau, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In particular, this study gave attention to two water resources: ditch/canal crossings and floodplains.
As part of the route selection process, roadway construction impacts to irrigation ditches and canals was calculated. This was important to factor into this route determination process since agriculture plays a major role in the economy of the study area. Impacts (numbers of ditches/canals) were determined wherever an alternate route bisected an irrigation resource.
Impacts to floodplains were also investigated. This study analyzed impacts to FEMA's 100 year floodplain which corresponds to Zone A on FEMA maps. The acres of the proposed route in the FEMA floodplain was developed using the proposed right-of-way (200 foot minimum) minus the existing right-of-way (60 feet for county roads and 100 feet for SH 1).
Water Resources Comparative Evaluation

Historical Resources: Potential impacts to historical resources was evaluated for each alternate route. Information regarding known historic resources was obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Resources include: archeological sites, paleontological sites, and historic structures. These resources are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. SHPO provided information on historic resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and for National Register "eligible" resources. Both categories (listed resources and eligible resources) were treated with the same importance and SHPO also disclosed information about historic resources in the study area that need more research before a formal determination on historic status can be made. More information about involvement with historic resources will become available once field surveys are initiated in the next phase of the project.
Historic Resources Comparative Evaluation

Right-of-Way and Relocations
Right of way and relocation impacts were evaluated for each alternate route based on the additional right of way needed, and the number of potential relocations for residential, business, farming, and ranching properties.
Additional required right-of-way (ROW) required represents the difference between the existing ROW and the proposed 200-foot minimum ROW required for a new route. Existing ROW is typically 60 feet on county roads and 100 feet on SH 1.
Potential relocations included any structure within the proposed ROW. Property records and aerial photography were used to identify farms and ranches. Businesses were identified based on site visits. Residences with only barns or sheds within the ROW were not considered as potential relocations. The individual relocations for residential, business, farming, and ranching properties were not evaluated separately in the comparative matrix.
Right-of-Way and Relocations Comparative Evaluation

Directly Affected Properties
Potential impacts to directly affected properties for each alternate route was evaluated by the impacts to residential, business, farming, and ranching. Directly affected properties refer to any property that will have direct access or a driveway along the proposed route. Driveways were identified on site visits and checked with aerial photography. Properties with direct access to proposed routes on new alignments were identified using aerial photography along with the proposed routes. Farming and ranching properties were not evaluated in the matrix on their own, they are combined.
Directly Affected Property Comparative Evaluation

Larimer County Road Designations and Route Compatibility
Potential community planning and land use impacts were evaluated for each alternate route. Community planning and land use for each alternate was evaluated by comparing Larimer County present and future road designations to determine route compatibility.
Larimer County present and future road designations, found in the Larimer County Transportation Plan, were used to determine compatibility with County and regional transportation planning. Roadway designations include highways, freeways, arterials, major and minor collectors, and local roads. Road designations were not evaluated due because the information was used to come to the compatibility determination.
Parcel data was obtained from Larimer County Assessor records in the Land Use Site Inventory and Assessment (LUSIA) database. Based on the parcel data, the percentages of the routes adjacent to specific land uses were developed. Land use categories are based on Larimer County designations. Percent of land use data was not evaluated because all routes were similar in land uses.
Larimer County Road Designations and Route Compatibility Comparative Evaluation

Alternate Route Length
The length of each alternate route was evaluated by comparing the length of the proposed route to the length of the existing route between I-25 and US 287, between SH 14 and US 287 and US 287 and I-80, and the additional State Highway lane miles required.
Total length of route (from I-25 and SH 14 to US 287 and I-80 in Laramie, Wyoming) was evaluated in comparison to each alternate route and to the 69-mile length of the existing SH 14 and US 287 route.
The proposed alternate route length from I-25 to US 287 was evaluated in comparison to the other alternate routes, based on the shortest alternate route (CR 58 A alternative, 9.4 miles). The proposed route length was also evaluated in comparison to the total lane miles, and additional state highway lane miles. Lane miles represent the number of miles on a proposed route times the number of lanes on the proposed route. Additional state highway lane miles were evaluated to determine the additional CDOT lane miles that each route required.
The total length of proposed route, length of proposed route, and proposed route lane miles were not evaluated in the matrix because it would provide information only. Length of proposed route compared to existing route and compared to shortest route were not evaluated in the matrix because of the small range between the routes.
Total Route and Alternate Route Lengths Comparative Evaluation

Overall Matrix Evaluation
The categorized evaluation criteria for each route is combined into an overall comparative evaluation matrix as shown below. This table shows the complete evaluation for all criteria used in the comparative evaluation.