Summary of January 21, 2005
Corridor Consensus Committee (CCC) Meeting

Return to the main page of Public Involvement

Corridor Consensus Committee

Jan. 21, 2005

12 – 4 p.m.

Action Items:

The study team will look into adding ramps at US 6 for modeling purposes.

At the Table:

In the Gallery:

Introductions

There are a number of new CCC members who have joined the group since the last meeting. They are:

Jim Congrove — Jefferson County Commissioner, replaces Michelle Lawrence
Edie Bryan — Replaces Bert Melcher as Environment Representative
Pam Hutton — CDOT Region 6 Director replaces John Muscatell

Project Status

Merger Agreement with US Army Corps of Engineers

• The merger agreement has been finalized—it will be on the CDOT external Web site as soon as possible.
• It says how the principals of the study can work together to ensure that given different NEPA guidelines among the lead agencies that the FHWA NEPA process results in the Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA), as required by the Corps of Engineers NEPA process.
• If you screen on natural or social environment, the process should demonstrate that impacts to the aquatic resources are considered for best outcome.
• Alignments that abut the Great Western Reservoir may be a LEDPA question.

FHWA Memo on Tolling

• CDOT requested the memo in reference to C-470.
• CDOT observed that a Record of Decision (ROD) is not possible without an expectation of funding.
• The memo outlines three times when tolling can be the selected alternative by an EIS:
1. If a tolling proposed action comes out of the planning process—this has not yet been an issue.
2. If Purpose and Need is written so that only tolling can be the satisfactory alternative. Courts say it is difficult to define so narrowly.
3. If tolling is not part of Purpose and Need, and all alternatives are considered and evaluated but the only way to build an alternative is through a tolling option. This is the only scenario that could potentially apply to our case, but the memo includes many cautions with this possibility.

Schedule: Because DRCOG data was delayed, results of 3C will be delayed to the end of March.

Results of 2030 Modeling and Level 3A Screening

The results of Levels 3Ai, 3Aii, and 3Aiii were reviewed for CCC members based on the packet distributed to them and a PowerPoint presentation.

3Aii Evaluation and Screening Results

• 3Aii – eliminated five alternatives that don’t meet minimal transportation performance measures. These include:

• RA (SH 128 to SH 93 west of Rocky Flats) does not draw as many trips as other alternatives and is higher in environmental impacts than most alignments.
• RD (RD along Wadsworth) does not address many trips on western side of study area, has low connectivity and does not address Purpose and Need well.
• NW Quadrant Feasibility Study alternative.
• As per previous discussions, modeled as suggested in final report of NWQFS without modifications. Did not fit Purpose and Need well.
• Two stand alone Transit Alternatives.
• The Transit Alternatives show only 1,400 daily additional riders, and are modeled as serving on the order of 1% of trip demand and do not perform well as stand alone alternatives.

3Aiii Evaluation and Screening Results

• 3Aiii – eliminated an additional four alternatives. These were screened on considerations such as transportation performance, significant property takes and impacts to natural environments.

• FG and FH – these alternatives have the same alignment as the FB and FC options, but were screened due to a narrower footprint that does not provide an envelope for future transit expansion.
• FF – there are a large number of building takes (245).
• FI – there are a large number of building takes (244).

Remaining Alternatives

Six alternatives, in addition to the No Action alternative, remain after the level 3Aii and 3Aiii screening. They include a freeway (FB), tollway (TB) and regional arterial (RB) alternatives on the Indiana/SH 93/US 6 alignment and a freeway (FC), tollway (TC) and regional arterial (RC) alternatives on the Indiana/McIntyre alignment.

• FB—alignment close to Great Western Reservoir will cross to the west for LEDPA reasons.
• RB is a regional arterial that uses the Rocky Flats buffer. The functional classification “regional arterial” means similar to Santa Fe Drive with a combination of at-grade intersections and grade-separated interchanges. 3C evaluation will look at the regional arterials in detail to delineate where the interchanges and intersections go and can be improved. 3A modeling and screening did not require determining where intersections and interchanges will be.

Steve Holt Reviewed Tables T-1 through T-5 in the CCC Packets. These tables demonstrated the use of modeling based on DRCOG 2030 data to screen alternatives in 3A.

Key points were:

• The TSC agreed that Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) should be one of the screening measures.
• The speed of the facility and its incumbent capacity is defined by the functional classification.
• System Connectivity is a qualitative measure related to driver expectancy. Freeways and tollways score higher because of the expectation of interregional traffic to have unencumbered flow of traffic. The “C” alignments got a poorer rating than the “B” alignments because they would require taking exit ramps to get from point A to point B.
• 2030 RTP (with the exception of some transit build out beyond FasTracks) demonstrates a version of “unconstrained” modeling to determine if there is latent traffic demand that is not being met by No Action or specific stand alone alternatives.
• TB and RB modeling was revised to more accurately show volume/capacity ratios.
• Models may need to be further refined as the team finds inconsistencies.
• The remaining alternatives are just variations on two alignments. The performance discernment is the difference among the alternatives for the two alignments.

The study team will look into the need to add ramps at the I-70/US 6 interchange to the eastern alignment alternatives.

The CCC members were asked if they would like to have any specific screened alternatives explained. No CCC members responded with a desire to have specific explanations for screening.

Level 3B Merging and Packaging

The Technical Study Committee developed a series of sketch ideas using the framework guidelines and using portions of previously evaluated alternatives that were carried forward from 3Aiii.The sketches were graphically portrayed on the wall. The CCC was asked to review the options, to add to them if necessary and then to eliminate ones that did not seem necessary or ones that were duplicative.

CCC members were asked to give their feedback on the sketches proposed. As they were giving their feedback, they were asked to state what options they preferred and why they preferred them. The CCC gave their preferred options along with their key interests. As each CCC member was asked to give input, they highlighted the following packages:

• If you have to have a toll road, MP-10 makes sense because when it hits SH 93 it is no longer a toll road.
• Tolling could go south to just outside the limits of Golden and still satisfy Golden’s need for local access in a MRA.

• It gives locals access with little cost.
• Would serve the same purposes as analyzing the two regional arterial packages.

• Modify M-8 to include 4 lanes down McIntyre.

Interests/Concerns:

CCC members were asked to state their key interests for the study and relate the interests to the sketches presented. The following is a summary of priority interests given by CCC members:

• Community cohesion (related to the elimination of Ward Road alternatives).
• Respecting the wishes/needs of Golden residents and minimizing impacts on their quality of life.
• Protecting Westminster’s water supply.
• Being able to pay for additional capacity.
• Meeting of the needs of the metro area for an interregional facility.
• Getting regional traffic off of local streets.
• Access through Interlocken for local traffic.
• SH 128 and Simms would have to be engineered to provide access.
• This facility should not draw construction money from other important projects ( US 36).
• Decrease VMT and VHT.
• Minimize environmental impacts including sprawl, air pollution, and toxics.
• Include alternative forms of transportation in the study and the ultimate preferred alternative.
• Job creation through better access to the remaining developable land in Jefferson County.
• Connecting A-B.
• Reach a doable solution that has the support of major communities in the study area.
• McCaslin Boulevard needs to stay a two lane facility.
• Address safety issues on SH 93.

On Tolling:

A toll facility is one of the clear ways to finance a new facility in the study area. Budget constraints show few other obvious options. It is possible that funds from tolling might be used for mitigation, making the broader project more acceptable to affected communities. Toll funds will not be used to build other facilities outside of the study area. It is not expected that the toll road would have surplus revenue. The state expects that it would have to contribute funds in order for the tolling facility to be viable. Overall costs with a toll road would still be considerably less.

Results of Discussion:

Two merged/packaged alternatives were identified by the CCC.

One was a blend of MP-10 and MP-8, because of its ability to address interests represented by the two packages."MP-8a blended" would include a regional arterial at Interlocken/Flatirons to provide access. It would also include a regional arterial through the Golden city limits at the southern end, and a tollway in between along the “B” alignment. It would also include a principal arterial (meaning with at-grade intersections only, no grade-separated interchanges) down Indiana and McIntyre.

The other preferred package was P-2.

The CCC recommended that these two merged/packaged proposals be included as alternatives which best address the collective community interest.

Therefore, it was jointly agreed that eight alternatives (these two packages plus the six stand-alones) could be modeled and further evaluated in Level 3C evaluation. Some discussed the ability of P-2 to effectively represent the benefits of the regional arterial alternatives (RB and RC). The Project Management Team will consider this possibility.

Michael Zinna —Only ten minutes allotted for public comments. That is insulting. If I’m not mistaken you have spent $8 million. That is a joke but I am not laughing. Four years ago I planned a project at the Jefferson County Airport. I sat down with my partner and drew on a napkin where the highway would go. The further this study progresses, the closer it gets to what I drew on the napkin. This is a gigantic waste of money.

Dick Sugg—We all know that building around the Jefferson County Airport is going to create jobs. The presumption that all of these new jobs are going to Jefferson County residents is flawed. People live in Jefferson County because it is a great place to live.

Return to the main page of Public Involvement

Agency Scoping Meetings

Summary of the January 21 agency scoping meeting.

Public Meetings

Public Meeting Summaries

Corridor Consensus Committee (CCC) Meetings

CCC Meeting Agendas and Summaries

Technical Study Committee (TSC) Meetings

TSC Meeting Agendas and Summaries

Citizen Working Group (CWG) Meetings

CWG Meeting Summaries