Final EIS August 2011

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIS COMMENTS

This appendix provides responses to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and received during the Draft EIS public comments period, including comments on effects to historic properties from Section 106 consulting parties. An index of the comments can be found after the public comment summary and description of the general comment response.

Public Comment Summary

Public comments for the Draft EIS were received from October 31, 2008 to December 31, 2008. Comments were received through email, the project web site, signatures on a public petition, at the three public hearings (Longmont 11/18/2008, Fort Collins 11/19/2008, and Loveland 11/20/2008), phone calls to the project hotline, written form, and letters. Verbal comments given at the public hearings were taken from the official transcript collected at each of the three public hearings. The comments are organized by the sources of the comment (method of submittal) then alphabetically by commenter’s last name.

During the Draft EIS comment period, a total of 1025 comments were received from the public in the following manners:  352 comments were submitted through the project web site  152 written comments were submitted during a public hearing or mailed to CDOT  70 verbal comments were made at public hearings (11 at Longmont, 13 at Fort Collins, and 17 at Loveland)  16 comments came in by phone call to the project hot line  10 comments were received via email  425 individuals signed a petition with the title “Front Range on Track,” which was submitted to CDOT. The text of the petition is: We, the undersigned, express our support for Commuter Rail, along Hwy 287 from Fort Collins to Denver Metro FasTracks connections as described in Package A of CDOT’s North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We support the mass transit components of Package A and necessary safety upgrades on I-25.

The comments received on the Draft EIS reflected the following community sentiment:  194 supported commuter rail  166 supported Package A because of commuter rail  34 provided support for Package A without stating why specifically  30 supported all the components in Package A  50 supported transit of any kind. Most of them indicated that they support the use of bus until rail can be developed.  15 comments were received in support of rail along I-25  21 comments stated opposition to rail along I-25

Appendix A Index‐1 Final EIS August 2011

 5 indicated that they do not support rail at all  21 stated that they are opposed to any highway improvements at all  8 supported only highway improvements  4 stated they support rail but only if monorail is the technology selected  4 supported both packages  3 did not support either package  3 wanted whatever safety improvements can be made Comment Index

The following is an index of the submitted comments from Agencies and the public on the Draft EIS during the public comment period. This index presents the agencies (federal, state, and local) first, then the public comment index. The public comment index is organized by the source of the comment and then by last name of the individual and identifies if they represent an individual or organization. This index also presents the comment number and page number where the response can be found in this appendix.

Agency Comment Index Response Name Comment Number Provided on Page(s) Federal Agencies US Army Corps of Engineers USACE #1--#4 2-3 US Environmental Protection 4-18 Agency USEPA #1--#25 US Department of the Interior USDOI #1--#6 18-20 State Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic ACHP #1 21-22 Preservation State Historic Preservation Officer SHPO Comment #1--#6 23-25 Local Agencies North Front Range Metropolitan 26-32 Planning Organization NFRMPO Comment #1--#14 Denver Regional Council of 33-34 Governments DRCOG Comment #1--#6 Larimer County--General Comment Larimer County 35-47 #1--EAB Comment #3 City of Fort Collins Comment #1-- City of Fort Collins 48-68 Staff Comment #40 Town of Timnath Town of Timnath Comment #1--#2 69-70 City of Loveland City of Loveland Comment #1--#3 71-73 Town of Berthoud Town of Berthoud Comment #1 74-75 Weld County Weld County Comment #1 76 City of Greeley City of Greeley Comment #1 77-78 Town of Frederick Town of Frederick Comment #1 79-80 Appendix A Index‐2 Final EIS August 2011

Agency Comment Index Response Name Comment Number Provided on Page(s) Boulder County Boulder County Comment #1--#2 81-83 City of Longmont Comment #1-- City of Longmont 84-94 Staff Comment #16-8 Town of Erie Town of Erie Comment #1 95 City and County of Broomfield City and County of Broomfield 96-97 Comment #1

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page General Comment 0 General Comment and Response Organization 99-103 Comments Submitted via Email 1 Bolton, Chris & Jeanne Individual 104 2 Duncan, Carolyn Individual 104-105 3 Fortune, Irene Individual 105-106 4 Katers, Tim Individual 106 5 Kearney, Elizabeth Individual 107 6 King, Evelyn Individual 107-108 7 Rees, Scott Individual 108 8 Rosquist, William Individual 108 9 Stevens, Earl & Twila Individual 108 Wockner, [first name not provided] Organization 108-110 10 (Clean Water Action) Comments Submitted via Project Web Site 11 Ackerman, Timothy Individual 110 12 Adamson, Bonnie Individual 110 13 Albertson-Clark, Sherry Individual 110 14 Alexander, Roger Individual 110-111 15 Andersen, Kristen Individual 111-112 16 Anderson, Tj Individual 112 17 Anderton, Ray Individual 112 18 Anhorn, Sharon Individual 112-113 19 Anonymous Individual 113 20 Apt, Alan Individual 113 21 Apt, Alan Individual 113 22 Ayraud, Tiffany Individual 113 Appendix A Index‐3 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 23 Bailey, Kate Individual 113-114 24 Bailey, Mark Individual 114 25 Bailor, Susan Individual 114 26 Baker, Thomas & Rosika Individual 114-115 27 Baker-Easley, Valerie Individual 115 28 Ball, Deanna Individual 115 29 Ball, LuAnn Individual 115 30 Barlow, Robert Individual 115-116 31 Barnes, Tangier Individual 116 32 Bartmann, Lila Individual 116-117 33 Bartmann, Louis Individual 117 34 Barton, Anna Individual 117-118 35 Beecher, Tim Individual 118 36 Benedict, Kathleen Individual 118 37 Bennett, Teresa Individual 118-119 38 Bennett, Helene Individual 119 39 Bersch, Linda Individual 119 40 Berzins, Maris Individual 119 41 Bienvenue, Bobby Individual 119 42 Binckes, Robert Individual 119 43 Birdsall, Jim Individual 119-120 44 Bittner, John Individual 119 45 Blake, Brad Individual 120 46 Boggs, Helen Individual 121 47 Boni, Elaine Individual 121 48 Bonifazi, Frank Individual 121 49 Boughton, Gary Individual 121 50 Bretthauer, Lori Individual 121-122 51 Bricker, Susan Individual 122 52 Brinkerhoff, Pauline Individual 122 53 Brinkhoff, Carole Individual 122-123 54 Bromley, Harrison Individual 123 55 Bromley III, William Individual 124 56 Broste, Sally Individual 124 57 Broste, Nels Individual 124 58 Bruyere, Brett Individual 124-125 59 Bryan, Nancy Individual 125

Appendix A Index‐4 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 60 Buckridge, Chris Individual 125 61 Buczynski, Beth Individual 125 62 Burton, Robert Individual 125 63 Butler, Flo Individual 125 64 Cada, Frank Individual 126 65 Callahan, Gerald Individual 126 66 Cape, Richard Individual 126 67 Carney, Eliza Individual 126 68 Carraher, Mary Individual 126 69 Casale, Debbie Individual 126-127 70 Caswell, Margie Individual 127 71 Charles, Stephen Individual 127 72 Chorak, Steven Individual 127 73 Chorak, Dann Individual 127 74 Clark, Jane Individual 127-128 75 Clauson, Allen Individual 128 76 Coen, Richard Individual 128 77 Colony, Andrew Individual 128 78 Conley, Dolores Individual 128 79 Constantine, Kosta Individual 128 80 Coogan, Dan Individual 129 81 Cook, Kevin Individual 129 82 Crain, Donald Individual 129 83 Croke, Ryan Individual 129-130 84 Cronenberg, Bill Individual 130 85 Cummins, Jeff Individual 130-131 86 Cupples, June Individual 131 87 Dalton, Julie Individual 131-132 88 Dalton, Chester Individual 132 89 Danforth, James Individual 132 90 Davis, Debbie Individual 132 91 DeBell, Linsey Individual 132 92 Decker, John Individual 132 93 DeCoursey, M. Individual 132-133 94 Del Grosso, Stephen Individual 133 95 DeMartini, James Individual 133 96 DeMott, Paul Individual 133

Appendix A Index‐5 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 97 Dickson, Beth Individual 133-134 98 DiPentino, Lexi Individual 134 99 Dirks, Marisa Individual 134 100 Donnellan, Stephen Individual 134 101 Douthit, Patricia Individual 134 102 Downey, Donald Individual 134 103 Drage, Robert Individual 134-135 104 DSilva, Ed Individual 135-136 105 Dsilva, Andrea Individual 136 106 Duncan, Colleen Individual 136 107 Duncan, Pamela Individual 136 108 Duncan, Kenneth Individual 136 109 Dunn, Dave Individual 136-137 110 Durell, Matthew Individual 137 111 Dwight, Eleanor Individual 137 112 Eakins, Lisa Individual 137-138 113 Eastman, Stuart Individual 138 114 Eberle, Peter Individual 138 115 Ehrenstein, Ray Individual 138-139 116 Eikleberry, Carol Individual 139 117 Elliott, Doug Individual 139 118 Eriksen, DDS, Donald E. Individual 139-140 119 Ewy, Leonard Individual 140 120 Faaborg, Roger Individual 140 121 Fagan, Sandra Individual 140 122 Fedak, Ginger Individual 140 123 Finkelstein, Joshua Individual 141 124 Fissinger, Kaye Individual 141 125 Fitzgerald, Paula Individual 141-142 126 Foisy, Sebastien Individual 142 127 Foley, Ann Individual 142 128 Foley, Dana Individual 142 129 Forbes, Jeni Individual 142-143 130 Forbes, Patricia Individual 143 131 Franklin, James Individual 143 132 Frazier, Thomas Individual 143 133 Freier, D Individual 143-144

Appendix A Index‐6 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 134 Funke, Teresa Individual 144 135 Furman, D Individual 144 136 Gabriel, Todd Individual 144 137 Gardner, Deb Individual 145 138 Gaughan, Chris Individual 145 139 Gescheidt, Nancy Individual 145 140 Gierard, John Individual 145 141 Gilliland, Lucin Individual 145-146 142 Glad, Norma Individual 146 143 Gomez, Theresa Individual 146 144 Gottschalk, Linda and Kim Individual 146 145 Gould, Dan Individual 146-147 146 Graham, Jim Individual 147 147 Graham, Dave Individual 147 148 Grant, Tom Individual 147-148 149 Gregory, Warren Individual 148-149 150 Griggs, Tom Individual 149 151 Hall, Beverly Individual 149 152 Hallowell, Don Individual 149-150 153 Hamilton, Mary Individual 150-151 154 Hanks, Donna Individual 151 155 Hanson, Jean Individual 151 156 Harkness, Lynne Individual 151 157 Harris, Aaron Individual 151 158 Harrison, Jillian Individual 151-152 159 Harrison, Patrick Individual 152 160 Harroun, Ann Individual 152 161 Hayes, Kathy Individual 152 162 Heckman, Cathy Individual 152 163 Hedquist, Paul Individual 153 164 Heimbrook, Margaret Individual 153 165 Heitman, Carol Individual 153-154 166 Heller, Marilyn Individual 154 167 Henry, Sarah Individual 154 168 Hodge, David Individual 154-155 169 Hoekstra, Raymond Individual 155 170 Hoffman, Sara Individual 155

Appendix A Index‐7 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 171 Hoof, Gerhard Individual 155 172 Hossan, Carole Individual 155 173 Houston, Ben Individual 155 174 Howard, Nathan Individual 156 175 Humstone, Mary Individual 156 176 Hunt, Nancy Individual 157 177 Hutmacher, Meredith Individual 157 178 Jacobson, Keith Individual 157 179 Jenkins, Bill Individual 157 180 Jensen, Trixie Individual 157-158 181 Johnson, Arthur Individual 158 182 Jones, Casey Individual 158 183 Jones, Waldo Individual 158 184 Jones, Bill Individual 158-159 185 Jurin, Richard Individual 159 186 Kaplan, Susan Individual 159-160 187 Karspeck, Ann Individual 160 188 Keene Hobbs, Sherry Individual 160 189 Kerling, Larey Individual 160 190 King, Ace Individual 160-161 191 Kirsch, Fred Individual 161 192 Klockeman, David Municipality 161 193 Knowles, Mike Individual 161 194 Kolbe, Elizabeth Individual 161 195 Koloski, Dee Individual 162 196 Komives, Bob Individual 162-163 197 Kroeger, Jan Individual 163 198 Kunze, Sharon Individual 163 199 Kurnik, Chuck Individual 163 200 Lavender, Amy Individual 164 201 Leach, Larry Individual 164 202 Leck, Christopher Individual 164 203 Lehn, Judy Individual 164-165 204 Leissa, Arthur Individual 165 205 Lemming, Marolyn Individual 165 206 Lewin, Edward Individual 165 207 Liddell, Marilynn Marsi Individual 165

Appendix A Index‐8 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 208 Liebing, Jordan Individual 165 209 Little, James and Sue Individual 166 210 Locker, Georgia Individual 166 211 LoJeske, Camilla Individual 166 212 Looney, James Individual 166 213 Ludlow, Greg Individual 166 214 Lutkin, Lynn Individual 166 215 Luttrell, Jo Individual 167 216 Lynch, Anita Individual 167 217 Macarelli, June Individual 168 218 Macbeth, Chris Individual 168 219 MacDonald, Louis Individual 168 220 Madden, Fred Individual 168 221 Maga, Andrea Individual 168 222 Mahoney, Keith Individual 169 223 Mangelsen, Mary Individual 169 224 Margolis, Jack Individual 169 225 Marr, Elizabeth Individual 169 226 Marsden, Debra Individual 169-170 227 Marshall, Christopher Individual 170 228 Martin, Terrie Individual 170 229 Maslowski, Patricia Individual 170 230 Massaro, Carla Individual 171 231 McDaniel, Stephanie Individual 171 232 McDonell, Bridget Individual 171 233 McLuckie, Sandra Individual 171 234 McNaught, Kevan Individual 172 235 Michieli, Gene Individual 172 236 Miller, Ryan Individual 172 237 Milner, Jennifer Individual 172 238 Mita, Carolyn Individual 172 239 Mitchell, Art Individual 173-174 240 Mitchell, Art Individual 174 241 Mitchell, Art Individual 174-175 242 Mitteis, Barbara Individual 175 243 Moeller, Dianne Individual 175 244 Money, Daniel Individual 175

Appendix A Index‐9 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 245 Montagu, Denise Individual 175 246 Moorcroft, Bill Individual 175 247 Moors, Debbie Individual 176 248 Morisette, Elizabeth Individual 176 249 Moulton, Dabney Individual 176 250 Moulton, James Individual 176 251 Myers, Michelle Individual 176 252 Myers, Ben Individual 177 253 Neid, Stephanie Individual 177 254 Nevison, Joel Individual 177 255 Nichols, Cheri Individual 178 256 Norris, Bob Individual 178 257 ONeill, Peter Individual 178-179 258 Palmer, Patricia and Gordon Individual 179 259 Parkhurst, Catherine Individual 179 260 Patton-Mallory, Marcia Individual 179 261 Peak, G. Wayne Individual 179 262 Petty, Kirk Individual 179-180 263 Pickert, Brad Individual 180 264 Plummer, Kathryn Individual 180 265 Polk, Kate Individual 180 266 Rae, Zachary Individual 180-181 267 Redd, Kim Individual 181 268 Reeves, William Individual 181 269 Reikofski, Michael Individual 181 270 Renner, Traudl Individual 182 271 Reynolds, Laura Individual 182 272 Riecke, John Individual 182 273 Robe, Gwyneth Individual 180 274 Roden, Martha Individual 183 275 Rohnke, Angie Individual 183-184 276 Rohrbaugh, John Individual 184 277 Rolston, Holmes Individual 184 278 Rowe, Michael Individual 184-185 279 Rush, Carol Individual 185-186 280 Rutstein, Barbara Individual 186 281 Ryan, Bill Individual 187

Appendix A Index‐10 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 282 Sabin, DeeDee Individual 187-188 283 Safstrom, Harry Individual 188 284 Sanders, Ruth Individual 188-189 285 Santamaria, Susana Individual 189 286 Sarbaugh, Scott Individual 189 287 Schmid, Bob Individual 189-190 288 Seawalt, Susan Individual 190 289 Segul, Ronald Individual 190 290 Sell, Frank Individual 190 291 Shannon, Rich Individual 191 292 Shannon, Richard Individual 191 293 Shernick, Michael Individual 191 294 Shinkle, Douglas Individual 191-192 295 Shinn, Randall Individual 192 296 Shirley, Susan Individual 192 297 Shirley, Bill Individual 192 298 Shortridge, Randy Individual 192 299 Siebenthal, Erika Individual 192 300 Silverthorn, Linda Individual 192 301 Smith, Kelly Individual 193 302 Smith, Darren Individual 193 303 Smith, Andy Individual 193 304 Smith, Karen Individual 193 305 Sneider, Thomas Individual 193-194 306 Solt, Kent Individual 194 307 Spearman, Sylvia Individual 194 308 Spoor, Holly Individual 194 309 Springer, Elizabeth Individual 195 310 Springer, Robert Individual 195 311 Steen, Garry Individual 195 312 Steger, Michael Individual 195-196 313 Stegner, Carolyn Individual 196 314 Steidle, Carol and Bill Individual 196 315 Stepp, Richard & Janice Individual 196 316 Stevens, Twila Individual 196 317 Stewart, Patricia Individual 196-197 318 Stewart, Betty/John Individual 197

Appendix A Index‐11 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 319 Stults, Jenni Individual 197 320 Stutheit, Lynn Individual 197 321 Thieszen, John Individual 197 322 Thomas, Gary Individual 197-198 323 Tinsman, Sandra Individual 198 324 Tivona, Elissa Individual 198 325 Tokerud, Shelly Individual 198-199 326 Tracy, Teri Individual 199 327 Trenary, Ralph Individual 199 328 Tucker, Phyllis Individual 199-200 329 Tucker, Marianne Individual 200 330 Van Ackern, Cheryl Individual 200 331 Ver Steeg, Barbara Individual 200 332 Voytko, Nora Individual 201 333 Waddell, Ashley Individual 201 334 Wagner, Karen Individual 201-202 335 Wagner, Ann Individual 202 336 Wallace, George Individual 202 337 Wallenstein, Matthew Individual 202 338 Walsh, Pat Individual 202 339 Walsh, Ralph Individual 202-203 340 Walton, Jennifer Individual 203 341 Watts, lorna Individual 203-204 342 Wayker, Doug Individual 204 343 Wayland, Vincent Individual 204 344 Weber, Philip and Betty Individual 204-205 345 Wells, Marion Individual 205 346 Wemple, Marian Individual 205 347 Wemple, Ronald Individual 205 348 White, Phillip Individual 205-206 349 Widdekind, Lisa Individual 206 350 Wiley, Marcus Individual 206 351 Wilken, Karen Individual 206 352 Wilks, Helen Individual 206 353 Will, Ryan Individual 206-207 354 Wolf, Kathleen M Individual 207 355 Wood, Ken Individual 207

Appendix A Index‐12 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 356 Woolhiser, Kathryn Individual 207 357 Woolhiser, David Individual 207 358 Wright, Sara Individual 207-208 359 Yahna, Leo Individual 208 360 Zeller, Karl Individual 208-209 361 Zeuzem, Victor Individual 209 362 Zimmerer, Robert Individual 209 Front Range on Track Citizens Petition 363 Petition: Petition 209 364 Ackerman, Greg Individual 210 365 Adams, Daniel Individual 210 366 Adams, Kate Individual 210 367 Adams, Kurt Individual 210 368 Aiharp, Deborah Individual 210 369 Anderson, LeRoy Individual 210 370 Aneas, Michael Individual 210 371 Archer, Larry Individual 210 372 Arvidson, Veronica Individual 210 373 Aslami, Mohammed Individual 210 374 Atkinson, Sharon Individual 210 375 Axon, Elaine Individual 210 377 Bage, James Individual 210 376 Bage, Teri Individual 210 378 Bagley, Michael Individual 210 379 Bain, Angela Individual 210 380 Baker, Ron Individual 210 381 Ball, Deanna Individual 210 382 Ball, Jane Individual 210 383 Barnett, Jennifer Individual 210 384 Barnhardt, Michael Individual 210 385 Bass, Gwyn Individual 210 386 Batzke, Justin Individual 210 387 Baumgorder, Greg Individual 210 388 Beal, Sean Individual 210 389 Beck Giffon, Michael Individual 211 390 Bennett, Sarah Individual 211 391 Benton, Clayton Individual 211

Appendix A Index‐13 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 392 Benvengz, Risa Individual 211 393 Benz, Joyce Individual 211 394 Berquist, Eleni Individual 211 395 Bidlake, Lynda Individual 211 396 Bieger, Katie Individual 211 397 Billinger, Jill Individual 211 398 Black, Clint Individual 211 399 Blaesing, Blaine Individual 211 401 Blair, Carolyn Individual 211 400 Blair, Mark Individual 211 402 Blakely, Bryan Individual 211 403 Blaluly, Sonia Individual 211 404 Bldgett, K Individual 211 405 Bolton, Chris & Jeanne Individual 211 406 Bowen, Adam Individual 211 407 Bowman, Linda Individual 211 408 Boyne, Paul Individual 211 409 Brammer, Jill Individual 211 410 Broccoli, Amy Individual 211 411 Brockway, Christi Individual 211 412 Brown, Lori Individual 211 413 Brown, Thomas Individual 212 414 Buchal, Janne Individual 212 415 Bulik Hocurn, Kristina Individual 212 416 Bunce, Karel Individual 212 417 Burch, Amy Individual 212 418 Burnett, Susan Individual 212 419 Butler, Alycia Individual 212 421 Caffrey, Julie Individual 212 420 Caffrey, Kevin Individual 212 422 Callow Mosher, Angela Individual 212 423 Campbell, Jill Individual 212 424 Cantrell, John Individual 212 425 Carney, Eliza Individual 212 426 Carraher Kewter, Mary Individual 212 427 Carrleri, Mike Individual 212 428 Case, Barbara Individual 212

Appendix A Index‐14 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 429 Case, John Individual 212 430 Caufman, Joyce Individual 212 431 Chandler, Kevin Individual 212 432 Child, Ana Individual 212 433 Christianson, Caroline Individual 212 434 Circle, Amy Individual 212 435 Cittone, Marc Individual 213 436 Cline, Jenifer Individual 213 437 Coffey, Jan Individual 213 438 Coleman, Martha Individual 213 439 Collins, Janet Individual 213 440 Croley, Lori Individual 213 441 Cross, Mary Janet Individual 213 442 Crump, Irma Individual 213 443 Cummings, John Individual 213 444 Dale, Matt Individual 213 445 Dallas, Ryan Individual 213 446 Darter, Julie Individual 213 447 Davenport, Greg Individual 213 448 Davis, Linda Individual 213 449 Debaor, Dave Individual 213 450 DeBout, David Individual 213 451 Dembrun, Karen Individual 213 452 Dermopy, Leslie Individual 213 453 Devaney, Ceryse Individual 213 454 Deylr, Paul Individual 213 455 Dinkel, Gary Individual 213 456 Dowling, Julia Individual 213 457 Dowling, Leo Individual 213 458 Doyle, Dan Individual 213 459 Drase, Susan Individual 213 460 Ducas, Mary Individual 214 461 Duncan, Sarah Individual 214 462 Duniven, Sally Individual 214 463 Dunlap, Sam Individual 214 464 Dunn, Taylor Individual 214 465 Dupre, Jim Individual 214

Appendix A Index‐15 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 466 Durham, Amy Individual 214 467 Durham, Amy Individual 214 468 Ecker, Franz Individual 214 469 Edwards, Michele Individual 214 470 Edwards, Candi Individual 214 471 Edwards, Matt Individual 214 472 Elgoth, David Individual 214 473 Engle, Julia Individual 214 474 Essling, Jeannie Individual 214 475 Evans, Mark Individual 214 476 Evans, Mark Individual 214 477 Ewing, Garrett Individual 214 478 Fagan, Elizabeth Individual 214 479 Felker, Danny Individual 214 480 Felker, Danny Individual 214 481 Fialkowski, Veronica Individual 214 482 Finck, Arthur Individual 214 483 Fitt, Sally Individual 214 484 Fjgld, Louise Individual 214 485 Fletcher, Jill Individual 215 486 Freeman, Nola Individual 215 487 Freyer, Larry Individual 215 488 Fritz, Jeremy Individual 215 489 Gale, Sharon Individual 215 490 Gantenbrin, Jimmy Individual 215 491 Garza, Angela Individual 215 492 Gergdy, Frank Individual 215 493 Gibson, Daniel Individual 215 494 Gibson, Elileen Individual 215 495 Gillespie, Elizabeth Individual 215 496 Golden, Connie Individual 215 497 Golden, David Individual 215 498 Goll, Kay Individual 215 499 Gomez, Erick Individual 215 500 Green, Michael Individual 215 501 Griess, Carmen Individual 215 502 Guerrero, Gebrida Individual 215

Appendix A Index‐16 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 503 Gutierrez, Kay Individual 215 504 Harrell, Sheryl Individual 215 505 Harrington, Penny Individual 215 506 Harris, Kelli Individual 215 507 Harroun, Ann Individual 215 508 Hart, Rene Individual 215 509 Hawn, Jan Individual 215 510 Headrick, Lewis Individual 216 511 Hennessy, Tom Individual 216 512 Henry, Sally Individual 216 513 Herter, Nancy Individual 216 514 Hill, Mary Individual 216 515 Hills, Jeffery Individual 216 516 Hipp, Naomi Individual 216 517 Hoffman, Arlene Individual 216 518 Hollins, Olga Individual 216 519 Honstein, Janet Individual 216 520 Hood, Scott Individual 216 521 Hooper, Janice Individual 216 522 Horton, Pat Individual 216 523 Hossan, Carole Individual 216 524 Houstein, Larry Individual 216 525 Hoxeng, Amber Individual 216 526 Hubbard, Christine Individual 216 527 Huges, Sean Individual 216 528 Inscore, Melissa Individual 216 529 James, Kathleen Individual 216 530 Jasmann, Jeramy Individual 216 531 Jenkins, Darnel Individual 216 537 Johnson, Christi Individual 216 536 Johnson, Ellyn Individual 216 534 Johnson, Laura Individual 216 535 Johnson, Randy Individual 217 533 Johnson, Scott Individual 217 532 Johnson, Sheryl Individual 217 538 Jungemann, Steve Individual 217 539 Kain, Nancy Individual 217

Appendix A Index‐17 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 540 Kapsinow, Lindsay Individual 217 541 Karen Individual 217 542 Kelsen, Steve Individual 217 543 Kennedy, Brian Individual 217 544 Kent, Ryan Individual 217 545 Kincanon, Lynn Individual 217 546 Kisselbach, Sally Individual 217 548 Knapp, Ashleigh Individual 217 547 Knapp, Megan Individual 217 549 Korte, Abby Individual 217 550 Kruegr, Wayde Individual 217 551 Kubik, Nancy Individual 217 552 Kubik, Tim Individual 217 553 Kyptor, Stephanie Individual 217 554 LaBelle, Laura Individual 217 555 Lafferty, Peggy Individual 217 556 Laky, Patricia Individual 217 557 Lange, Cindy Individual 217 558 Leamons, Pam Individual 217 559 Leeper, Erin Individual 217 560 Leon, Linda Individual 218 562 Lewis, G. Mark Individual 218 561 Lewis, Laura Individual 218 563 Liams, Genella Individual 218 564 Liebler, Barbara Individual 218 565 Lillis, Sharon Individual 218 566 Lisi, Julius Individual 218 567 Lobato, Brenda Individual 218 568 Lowe, Ginny Individual 218 569 M, Barbara Individual 218 570 Magruder, Mary Individual 218 571 Mahoney, Marianne Individual 218 572 Makath, Art Individual 218 573 Mamak, Diane Individual 218 574 Manes, Taylor Individual 218 575 Mansfield, Jeffrey Individual 218 576 Markham, Letha Individual 218

Appendix A Index‐18 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 577 Markwood, Ronald Individual 218 578 Massaro, Carla Individual 218 580 Massaro, Carla Individual 218 581 Massaro, Carla Individual 218 582 Massaro, Ed Individual 218 584 Massaro, Jocelyn Individual 218 585 Massaro, Karen Individual 219 583 Massaro, Morgan Individual 219 579 Massaro, Robert Individual 219 587 McBride, Jim Individual 219 586 McBride, Terri Individual 219 588 McCahan, Johanna Individual 219 589 Mcclery, Kristin Individual 219 590 McConnell, Jessica Individual 219 591 McCoy, Derek Individual 219 592 McCullough, Valerie Individual 219 593 McDonough, Steven Individual 219 594 McGee, Sharon Individual 219 595 McGuire, Shanda Individual 219 596 McMullen, Ryan Individual 219 597 McQuillan, John Individual 219 598 McVey, Pat Individual 219 599 Medeiros, Laura Individual 219 600 Mekwen, Cathleen Individual 219 601 Mello, Andrea Individual 219 602 Merrill, Ruth Individual 219 603 Michael Justice, Mary Individual 219 604 Michiels, Karen Individual 219 605 Middleton, Dawn Individual 219 610 Miller, Aaron Individual 219 609 Miller, Alicia Individual 219 607 Miller, Charlotte Individual 219 608 Miller, Steve Individual 219 606 Miller, Tiffanie Individual 220 611 Miner, Debi Individual 220 612 Minto, Heanep Individual 220 613 Mitchelle, Linda Individual 220

Appendix A Index‐19 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 614 Moffitt, Robert Individual 220 615 Mollohem, Judith Individual 220 616 Mollohen, Earl Individual 220 617 Moorlag, Albertha Individual 220 618 Morales, Marcos Individual 220 619 Morello, Kathleen Individual 220 620 Moritz, Michelle Individual 220 622 Mosher, Frances Individual 220 621 Mosher, Veronica Individual 220 623 Nagle, Erik Individual 220 624 Nesland, Sharon Individual 220 625 Neubecker, Jim Individual 220 626 Norman, Edward Individual 220 627 Obark, Ben Individual 220 628 Olivas, Lening Individual 220 629 Olson, Ramona Individual 220 630 Orman, Caroline Individual 220 631 Orman, Jack Individual 220 632 Ortega, Richard Individual 220 633 Ortega, Stephanie Individual 220 634 Ortega, Ashleah Individual 221 635 Ostby, Gwen Individual 221 636 Oster, Warren Individual 221 637 Oswalt, William Individual 221 639 Padden, Rick Individual 221 638 Padden, Rocky Individual 221 640 Paenr, Richard Individual 221 641 Paulson, Mel Individual 221 642 Perkins, Sarah Individual 221 645 Phillips, Linet Individual 221 644 Phillips, Nancy Individual 221 646 Phillips, Nancy Individual 221 643 Phillips, Wayne Individual 221 648 Pollock, Freda Individual 221 647 Pollock, Maynard Individual 221 649 Portugal, Gerald Individual 221 650 Portugal, Gerald Individual 221

Appendix A Index‐20 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 651 Portugal, Ruth Individual 221 652 Powers, Cathleen Individual 221 653 Pringle, Edwin Individual 221 654 Pritchard, Kaitlin Individual 221 655 Proctor, Trudy Individual 221 656 Purvis, Matthew Individual 221 657 Quinonez, Esther Individual 221 658 Quist, Sariah Individual 221 659 R Oscar, Jose Individual 222 660 Radler, Michael Individual 222 661 Ramirez, Helen Individual 222 662 Randolph, Scott Individual 222 663 Rascco, Todd Individual 222 664 Rasch, Cassie Individual 222 665 Rector, John Individual 222 666 Reed, Dave Individual 222 667 Remole, John Individual 222 668 Rhodes, Riley Individual 222 669 Richardson, Vernon Individual 222 670 Riechmann, Pat Individual 222 671 Riehl, Melissa Individual 222 672 Riggins, Russell Individual 222 673 Ringis, Kathy Individual 222 674 Rivera, Marlana Individual 222 675 Robbins, Maria Individual 222 676 Roderick, Carol Individual 222 677 Rodriguez, Laurl Individual 222 678 Roeses, Tina Individual 222 679 Rogers, Robert Individual 222 680 Royce, Diana Individual 222 681 Ruffatti, Joseph Individual 222 683 Russell, Sandy Individual 222 682 Russell, Tamela Individual 223 684 Russell, William Individual 223 685 Sand, Royal Individual 223 686 Sandahl, Brent Individual 223 687 Sandahl, Linda Individual 223

Appendix A Index‐21 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 688 Sandahl, Brandon Individual 223 689 Sandahl, Linda Individual 223 690 Sander, Shanon Individual 223 691 Sanders, Michael Individual 223 692 Saxton, Jack Individual 223 693 Sayre Geim, Judy Individual 223 694 Schaal, Donald Individual 223 695 Schaal, Donald Individual 223 696 Schanke, Ben Individual 223 697 Scheddon, Carl Individual 223 698 Scherer, Elizabeth Individual 223 699 Scherr, Christine Individual 223 702 Schoen, Alex Individual 223 700 Schoen, Andrea Individual 223 704 Schoen, Chris Individual 223 703 Schoen, Maddie Individual 223 701 Schoen, Max Individual 223 705 Schoolcraft, Carolyn Individual 223 706 Schwader, Serene Individual 223 707 Scott, Peg Individual 223 708 Shabalis, Natasha Individual 223 709 Shaffer, Mary Individual 224 710 Shakon, Al Individual 224 711 Sherrod, Linda Individual 224 712 Silfven, Nancy Individual 224 713 Smith, Laura Individual 224 714 Smith, Kim Individual 224 715 Smith, Brittany Individual 224 716 Sobolewski, Christine Individual 224 717 Solt, Gail Individual 224 718 Sommars, Jan Individual 224 719 Stackeln, Deborah Individual 224 720 Stamp, Perry Individual 224 721 Standiford, Peter Individual 224 722 Starlin, Kenneth Individual 224 723 Steele, Susan Individual 224 724 Stewart, Rob Individual 224

Appendix A Index‐22 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 725 Stewart, Rob Individual 224 726 Stockwell, Sharon Individual 224 727 Stone, Randa Individual 224 728 Stoner, Craig Individual 224 729 Stouffer, Teger Individual 224 731 Swanson, Cynthia Individual 224 730 Swanson, Lisa Individual 224 732 Taitsel, Mark Individual 224 733 Taylor, Carolyn Individual 224 734 Taylor, Melissa Individual 225 735 Taylor, Melissa Individual 225 736 Taylor, Monty Individual 225 737 Tellez, Nancy Individual 225 738 Templin Hladky, Chelsea Individual 225 739 Tennant-Dean, Cindy Individual 225 740 Teresa Shaffer, Voan Individual 225 741 Thomas, Melissa Individual 225 742 Thompson, Mike Individual 225 743 Thor, Gary Individual 225 744 Tobey, Wayne Individual 225 745 Tower, Max Individual 225 747 Trenary, Holly Individual 225 746 Trenary, Ralph Individual 225 748 Trujillo, Ruth Individual 225 749 Tuder, Stefanie Individual 225 750 Turner, Irine Individual 225 751 Tuttle, Terri Individual 225 752 Vissat, Linda Individual 225 754 Volk, Dan Individual 225 753 Volk, Kelsey Individual 225 755 Volk, Terri Individual 225 756 Waddell, Ashley Individual 225 757 Wagner, Vic Individual 225 758 Walker, Diane Individual 226 759 Walls, Patricia Individual 226 760 Walton, Jennifer Individual 226 761 Waratuke, Douglas Individual 226

Appendix A Index‐23 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 762 Washam, Shawna Individual 226 764 Weber, James Individual 226 763 Weber, Janell Individual 226 765 Wells, Katherine Individual 226 766 West, Katherine Individual 226 767 Westervelt, Diane Individual 226 768 Whitacre, Melinda Individual 226 769 White, Tony Individual 226 770 Williams, Dolores Individual 226 771 Wilseck, Anne Individual 226 772 Wilson, Thomas Individual 226 773 Wolfe, Alisha Individual 226 774 Wolfe, Helen Individual 226 776 Wolfe, Keith Individual 226 775 Wolfe, Laura Individual 226 777 Wood, Altyun Individual 226 778 Woollen, Irma Individual 226 779 Worthington, Kathleen Individual 226 780 Worthington, Lee Individual 226 781 Wray, Linda Individual 226 782 Wricht, Tara Individual 226 783 Ylarraz, Alice Individual 227 784 Younce, Sharla Individual 227 785 Zahounek, Von Individual 227 786 Zahourek, Renee Individual 227 787 Zielinski-Guherrez, Emily Individual 227 Verbal Comments at Public Hearings 788 Anonymous Individual 227 789 Arnold, Janice Individual 227-228 790 Austin, Gloria Individual 228 791 Austin, Gloria Individual 228 792 Banzhaf, Scott Individual 228 793 Bartlett, Andrew Individual 228-229 794 Batz, Russ Individual 229 795 Bennett, Ken Individual 229-230 796 Bolton, Chris & Jeanne Individual 230 797 Brewster, Bob Individual 230-232

Appendix A Index‐24 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 798 Claycomb, Mona Individual 233 799 Creager, Caroline Individual 233 800 Crowell, Greg Individual 233-234 801 Dameron, Keith Individual 234-236 802 Dameron, Keith Individual 236-237 803 Dixon, Nora Individual 237-238 804 Enos, Mark Individual 238 805 Febvre, Paul Individual 238-239 806 Feldman, Buzz Individual 239 807 Fortune, Irene Individual 239-241 808 Gregg, David Individual 241 809 Gutierrez, Cecil Individual 241 810 Harroun, Ann Individual 241-242 811 Hoffmann, Roger Individual 242-245 812 Holcombe, Brian Individual 245-247 813 Hovatter, Blue Individual 247-248 814 Jay, Becky Individual 248-249 815 Jay, Becky Individual 249 816 Jelsma, Lawrence & Muriel Individual 249-250 817 Johnson, Tim Individual 250-251 818 Kain, Nancy Individual 252 819 Karspeck, Milan Individual 252-253 820 Kearney, Elizabeth Individual 253-254 821 Keller, Andy Individual 254 822 Kincanon, Lynn Individual 254-255 823 King, Evelyn Individual 255-256 824 King, Evelyn Individual 256-258 825 King, Evelyn Individual 258-259 826 Knostman, Tom Individual 259-260 827 Larson, Prudence Individual 260 828 Lemberg, Sandy Individual 260-261 829 Mackay, Hugh Individual 261-262 830 Maggi, Wynne Individual 262-263 831 Mason, Scott Individual 263 832 Mayberry, Wanda Individual 263-264 833 McCulloch, David Individual 264 834 McCulloch, David Individual 264

Appendix A Index‐25 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 835 Mitchell, Art Individual 264-265 836 Mitchell, Art Individual 265-267 837 Mitchell, Art Individual 267-269 838 ONeill, Matthew Individual 269 839 Philbrick, Bruce Individual 269-270 840 Putman, Gene Municipality 270 841 Ross, James Individual 270-271 842 Rush, Dick & Carol Individual 271 843 Schmidt, Robert Individual 271-272 844 Schneiders, Karen Individual 272-273 845 Socher, Ralf Individual 273 846 Spotanski, Lanette Individual 273 847 Stockley, Karen Individual 273-274 848 Vaughan, Tom Individual 274 849 White, Jim—Town of Berthoud Municipality 274-275 850 White, Jim—Town of Berthoud Municipality 275 851 York, [first name not provided] Individual 275-276 Verbal Comments via Project Hotline 852 Allen, Fred Individual 276 853 Barnett, James & Peggy Individual 277-278 854 Benker, Karen Individual 278 855 Cittone, Marc Individual 278-279 856 Dsilva, Andrea Individual 280 857 Dsilva, Gabrial Individual 280 858 Hall, Rudy Individual 280 859 Jasmine, Jeremy & Christine Individual 280 860 Klausmeyer, Nancy Individual 280 861 Maass, Larry & Louise Individual 280 862 Mita, Carolyn Individual 280-282 863 Nystrom, Karen Individual 282 864 Pollock, Bernice Individual 282 865 Sanderson, Jean Individual 282 866 Vrooman, Linda Individual 282-283 867 Willard, Mary Individual 283 Written Comments 868 Adams, Papan Individual 283 869 Allen, James & Harriett Individual 283

Appendix A Index‐26 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 870 Anonymous Individual 283-284 871 Aqpsadde, David Individual 284 872 Banducci, Adam Individual 284 873 Barrett, Camilla Individual 284 874 Bauckman, Dorothy Individual 284 875 Bayard de Volo, Shelley Individual 284 876 Beerhorst, Alexander Individual 284-285 877 Benedict, Kathy Individual 285 878 BenHur, Asa Individual 285 879 Berry, Cameron Individual 285 880 Bigg, Travis Individual 285-286 881 Bisenius, Erin Individual 286 882 Bray, Janet Individual 286-287 883 Breemen, Jessica Individual 287 884 Brokish, Marcia Individual 287 885 Bruned, Lucilla Individual 287 886 Caldwell, Luke Individual 288 887 Carey, Anne Individual 288 888 Cassis, Katie Individual 288 889 Castle, William Individual 288 890 Chappelle, Kate Individual 288 891 Clark, Maggie Individual 288-289 892 Cole Janonis, Catherine Individual 289 893 Conck, Rardon Individual 289 894 Croak, Esther Individual 289 895 Crothers, Ed Individual 289 896 Dameron, Keith Individual 290-291 897 Davies, Lynn Individual 292 898 Day, Cheryl Individual 292 899 Deligio, Kelly Individual 292 900 Dickey, Kyle Individual 292 901 Dickson, Alison Individual 292-293 902 Drum, Coby Individual 293 903 Earl, Anthony Individual 293 904 Easter, Mark Individual 293 905 Ericksun, Heidi Individual 293 906 Estle, Rachel Individual 293-294

Appendix A Index‐27 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 907 Falloon, Lisa Individual 294 908 Floyd, Allison Individual 294 909 Folsom, Jane Individual 294-295 910 Forrester, Cory Individual 295 911 Friedlander, Ariana Individual 295 912 Friedman, Joni Individual 295 913 Friedman, Phil Individual 295-296 914 Gibbens, Barbara Individual 296 915 Glenn, Jim Individual 296 916 Graham, Margaret Individual 296-297 917 Greer, Diana Individual 297-298 918 Grieser, Sabrina Individual 298-299 919 Griffith, Kevin Individual 299 920 Hager, Leah Individual 299 921 Hanford-Smith, Elisha Individual 299 922 Hanna, Brisa Individual 299 923 Harstmann, Kimberly Individual 299 924 Hartman, Steven Individual 300 925 Havens, Keira Individual 300 926 Hernandez, Alex Individual 300 927 Hershcopf, Richard Individual 300-301 928 Hevenor, Peter Individual 301 929 Hoffman, Nate Individual 301 930 Hoggnh, Darcy Individual 301 931 Holmes, Arne Individual 301 932 Homan, Deborah Individual 301-302 933 Honeycutt, Paul Individual 303 934 Horak, Gerry Individual 303 935 Huntley, BT Individual 303 936 Jenkins, Bill Individual 303 937 Jeron, Pordelia K. Individual 303 938 Jones, David Individual 303 939 Jordan, Kim Individual 303-304 940 Kantz, Ross Individual 304-305 941 Kaplan, Les Individual 305-306 942 Karspeck, Milan Individual 306 943 Kefalas, John Individual 307-308

Appendix A Index‐28 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 944 Klatt, Larry Individual 309 945 Klebes, Bob Individual 309 946 Knievel, Kenneth D.& Marjorie Individual 309-310 947 Knowlton, Linda Individual 310 948 Krueger, Ray Individual 310 949 Kruta, Jason Individual 310 950 Kunze, Maggie Individual 310 951 Kurtz, Michael Individual 311 952 Laleta, Andrea Individual 311 953 Lamberz, Monica Individual 311 954 Laughlin, Lynda Individual 311 955 Leck, Christopher Individual 311 956 Lee, Cristie Individual 311-312 957 Lesmeister, John Individual 312-313 958 Lizak, Susan Individual 313-314 959 Long-Saxe, Marilee Individual 314 960 Lopez, Melissa Individual 314 961 Lupezowetz, Terri Individual 314 962 Lynam, Julie Individual 314-315 963 Macphee, David Individual 315 964 March, David Individual 315 965 Martin, Jamisen Individual 315 966 Mauck, Justin Individual 315 967 Mayo, Elizabeth Individual 315-316 968 McCulloch, Janet Individual 316 969 McGuire, John Individual 316 970 McLullach, Stephen Individual 316-317 971 McMcinus, Karen Individual 317 972 McNutt, Brad Individual 317 973 McVey, Pat Individual 317-318 974 Melena, Sara Individual 318 975 Nash, Horton Individual 318 976 Nixon, Kent Individual 318 977 Noble, Rob Individual 318-319 978 Opdahl, Casey Individual 319 979 Palm, Buff Individual 319 980 Pardo, Jonmikel Individual 319

Appendix A Index‐29 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 981 Philer, Jane Individual 319-320 Pollock, [first name not provided] Organization 320 982 (Citizens for Smart Transportation) 983 Pool, Bill Individual 320 984 Richard, Owen Individual 320-321 985 Ryan, Jesse Individual 321 986 Ryan, Doug Individual 321-322 987 Scherbarth, Laura Individual 322 988 Scheurman, Tessa Individual 323 989 Schow, Marie Individual 323 990 Schruebel, Eliza Individual 323-324 991 Schweitzer, Andrea Individual 324 992 Scott, Catherine Individual 324 993 Seed Trujillo, Lisa Individual 324-325 994 Serlieb, Faith Individual 325 995 Sharp, Beth Individual 325 996 Sherna, Ed Individual 325-326 997 Socher, Ralf Individual 326-328 998 Speer, Gregory Individual 329-330 999 Stevens, Joe Individual 330 1000 Stites, Tiffany Individual 330 1001 Storey, Roy Individual 330-331 1002 Streator, M Individual 331 1003 Stutheit, Geri Individual 331 1004 Sutter, Jeanie Individual 331 1005 Taff, Derrick Individual 331 1006 Torri, Ronald Individual 331-332 1007 Vesty, Jill Individual 332-333 1008 Volckes, John Individual 333 1009 Wackerman, April Individual 333 1010 Walters, Denise Individual 334 1011 Waters, Sean Individual 334 1012 Webb and Burrucks, Preston and Ashley Individual 334-335 1013 Webber, Lawrence Individual 335 1014 Weeks, Zachariah Individual 335 1015 Wera, Anne Individual 335 1016 White, Mia Individual 335-336

Appendix A Index‐30 Final EIS August 2011

Public Comment Index

Response Comment Name Represents Provided Number on Page 1017 Wilhelm, Anthony Individual 336 1018 Willard, Stephen Individual 336 1019 Wire, Christine Individual 336 1020 Wolfe, Jack Individual 336-337 1021 Wozniak, Paul Individual 337 1022 Wozniak, Sarah Individual 337 1023 York, Nancy Individual 337 1024 Zimmerman, Toni Individual 337-338 1025 Zoss, Dennis Individual 338

Appendix A Index‐31 Final EIS August 2011

Agency Comments From:

Federal Agencies US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) US Department of the Interior (USDOI) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

State and Regional Agencies State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)

Local Agencies Larimer County City of Fort Collins Town of Timnath City of Loveland Town of Berthoud Weld County City of Greeley Town of Frederick Boulder County City of Longmont Town of Erie City and County of Broomfield

Page 1 Final EIS August 2011

Agency Comments Agency/Comment # Comment Response US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Responses to USACE Comments

Response to Comment #1: Comment # 1 Comment noted. This has been stated in the FEIS.

Response to Comment #2: The FEIS and the Wetlands Technical Report both refer to the Mitigation Rule. The Section 404 permit application was submitted Comment # 2 to the Corps of Engineers so the Public Notice for the Section 404 permit could be concurrent with the public review period for this FEIS. The mitigation plan that is in the 404 permit application is consistent with the requirements in the Mitigation Rule.

Page 2 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USACE (cont.) Responses to USACE Comments

Comment # 3 Response to Comment #3: Comment noted.

Response to Comment #4: Comment # 4 The FEIS contains information about the wetland impacts of all alternatives. The Preferred Alternative, as noted in the FEIS, has the least impacts to aquatic resources.

Page 3 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Page 4 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.)

Responses to USEPA General Comments The alternative descriptions provided in the comment letter are accurate; indicating USEPA understands the elements/components of each alternative.

Response to General Comment # 1: A paragraph has been added to the FEIS that provides information about oil and gas wells, agricultural sources and non road mobile General Comment #1 sources and their contributions to ozone precursors within the regional study area.

General Comment #2 Response to General Comment # 2: A new paragraph has been added to Section 3.26.3.4 that states: "Of the approximately 300 acres that could be impacted by reasonably foreseeable future development (with our without a transportation improvement), Package A and the Preferred Alternative have the most potential to result in more concentrated growth near a commuter rail station. This could decrease the acreage of wetlands impacted."

Page 5 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (Cont). Responses to USEPA General Comments

General Comment #3 Response to General Comment # 3: Additional information has been added to FEIS Section 3.5.4 describing the regulatory requirements for protecting visibility in Rocky Mountain National Park. Also included in this section is the status of visibility degradation in Rocky Mountain National Park, including a new table providing haze index metric. A list of mitigation measures that can be considered by others to reduce ammonia emissions also has been added.

Page 6 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.)

Page 7 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Response to Detailed Comment # 1: The first several paragraphs of section 3.5.2 now state: Detailed Comment #1 The North I-25 regional study area includes the cities of Boulder, Brighton, Broomfield, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Northglenn, Thornton, and northern Denver, plus numerous other small towns. The core of the regional study area is experiencing urban growth resulting in increased conversion of farmland and open ranchlands to residential development and urbanization.

Ozone is formed as a by-product of combining the precursor pollutants of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with sunlight. Air quality modeling has established emission levels for the 2005 base year and 2010 attainment year.

Effective November 20, 2007, the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the North Front Range as a non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3). In March 2008, EPA lowered (strengthened) the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality data for the years 2005 to 2007 were collected from monitoring stations within the EAC. In July 2007, there were exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard recorded which violated the NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. Therefore, EPA designated this area as a non-attainment area.

Weld County contains over 10,000 active oil and gas wells and production facilities. Revisions to Colorado AQCC Regulation No. 7 provide more stringent emissions controls for these facilities that produce flash hydrocarbon and VOC emissions. Agricultural sources, such as fertilizers, animals, and off-road mobile sources, are also important sources of ozone precursor emissions in Weld County.

Page 8 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Response to Detailed Comment # 1 (cont.) Detailed Comment #1 Four areas in the regional study area are in CO attainment/maintenance: Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont. Denver is also in (cont.) attainment/maintenance for particulate matter under 10 micrometers in size

(PM10). In 2004, EPA determined particulate matter under 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5) within the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range area had met the 1997 air quality standards; therefore, designating the Denver metro area and north Front Range as an attainment area. In 2006, EPA

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m³) to 35 g/m³. Due to the lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollutions, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006. Modeling of PM2.5 emissions was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are designated as attainment areas. Precursors of PM2.5 include NOx and VOC which were modeled for this project.

Detailed Comment #2 Response to Detailed Comment # 2:

The FHWA has revised the MSAT guidance language which is included in the air quality technical report addendum.

Detailed Comment #3 Response to Detailed Comment # 3: The 2018 estimate is from the Taipale 2006 reference and has been referenced as such in the FEIS text (Section 3.5.2.4). This reference has been added to the FEIS Chapter 11 – List of References.

Section 3.5.3.7 includes text about ammonia and links ammonia emissions to VMT, which will be increasing with each of the build alternatives. We acknowledge EPA’s concerns about increasing ammonia emissions.

Page 9 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #4 Response to Detailed Comment # 4: MOBILE 6.2 does not account for re-entrained road dust; only tire wear and brake wear emissions. The emissions modeling (performed by APCD) showed a trend of decreasing criteria pollutant emissions (including PM10) with increasing VMT in future years. VMT measured over the regional study area would increase approximately 80 percent between 2001 and 2030. Regional analyses of total criteria pollutants show reductions in total emissions between 2001 and 2030: PM10 decreases 32 percent. The decrease

of PM10 emissions with future increases in VMT is due to increasing controls on vehicle sources and low-sulfur fuels, which would be in place by 2011.

A new paragraph has been added specifically addressing re-entrained road dust in Section 3.5.3.4 Project-Level PM10 Analysis on Page 3.5-32.

Response to Detailed Comment # 5: Detailed Comment #5 Text has been added on page 3.5-1—“The Denver metro area is also in attainment/maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in size (PM10) and the north Front Range is also designated as an attainment/maintenance area for CO. In 2004, USEPA

determined PM2.5 concentrations had met the 1997 air quality standards; therefore, designating the Denver metro area and north Front Range as an attainment area. In 2006, USEPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 35 ug/m3. Due to the lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollutions, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006. In 2008, USEPA designated areas as non-attainment and unclassifiable/attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The Denver Metro Area and the North Front Range have been designated as an attainment area for PM2.5.

Modeling of PM2.5 emissions was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are in attainment. Precursors of PM2.5 include NOx and VOC which were modeled for this project. Table 3.5-7 summarizes the emission estimates for the project and the total area mobile emissions budget for 2025. Emissions of NOx and VOC as a result of the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed the area mobile emissions budget for 2025.

Page 10 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #6 Response to Detailed Comment # 6: The methodology used during the DEIS related to induced growth is described in the Land Use section of the DEIS and included a Delphi technique with an expert panel. This panel agreed to the fact that since development has been occurring over the last 10 years without any major transportation improvements, it is clear the incremental difference in overall growth caused by the transportation improvement is not substantial. The FEIS address (in Section 4.2.7) land use changes tied to the transportation improvements assumed as a part of the Preferred Alternative.

Chapter One of the FEIS includes the reasons transportation improvements are needed. Economic development is not one of those reasons.

Detailed Comment #7 Response to Detailed Comment # 7: Regulatory requirements for protecting visibility in Federal Class I areas are included in Section 3.5.2.4. Also included in this section is the status of visibility degradation in Rocky Mountain National Park, including a new table providing haze index metric. Mitigation measures have been added that lists actions that can be taken by others to reduce ammonia emissions.

Page 11 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #8 Response to Detailed Comment # 8: The Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) has over 3 million visitors per year. Majority of these travels arrive by gasoline and diesel powered vehicles which contributes to the NOx emissions deposited in the Park. In addition, the community of Estes Park borders the RMNP which also attracts many visitors.

The transport of NOx and NH3 is typically from the west. However, large snowfall events east of the Continental Divide, associated with easterly upslope flow, can bring pollutants from the Front Range urban corridor and eastern plains. Further, localized upslope flows from the morning heating of the east-facing slopes can also transport pollutants from the Denver-Boulder-Fort Collins urban area. The morning heating can trigger convective rain showers leading to precipitation events in the park which contributes to wet deposition. Therefore, emissions from the Front Range are also a large contributor to nitrogen deposition in the RMNP. The Colorado Front Range area experienced a rapid population growth from 1980 to 2000. Emissions from point and mobile sources were responsible for most of the emission increases.

Total nitrogen deposition in the RMNP is approximately 75 percent wet and 25 percent dry deposition. Nitrate and ammonium contribute approximately equal amounts to wet nitrogen deposition. However, ammonium is increasing at a more rapid rate than nitrate. Ammonium deposition has a greater potential than nitrate for producing harmful changes in ecosystems because ammonium by-products cause greater changes in plant growth and insect vulnerability and they produce an extra acidifying effect in soils during the biological conversion from ammonium to nitrate which may explain why ammonium is increasing at a faster rate than nitrate.

While we acknowledge EPA’s concerns about growing ammonia emissions, EPA does not currently regulate these emissions from mobile sources.

Page 12 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #9 Response to Detailed Comment # 9: See response to “Cumulative Effects” comment #7.

Mitigation measures have been added for others to consider to reduce ammonia emissions. These are: Choose a nitrogen fertilizer appropriate for a given cropping system that will have the lowest nitrogen volatilization on the soil type to which it is applied.

Incorporate fertilizer or manure as soon as possible into the soils Detailed Comment #10 will greatly reduce ammonia volatilization, minimize the loss of ammonia, and make more applied nitrogen available for plants. Properly store and manage commercial fertilizer to minimize emissions of ammonia from leaks, spills, or other problems. The use of feed additive and supplemental hormones in animal production has proven to greatly improve nutrient utilization, resulting in more efficient milk and meat production. Use of these products may decrease nitrogen excretion per day and/or reduce the total number of days on feed, thereby reducing overall nitrogen excretion and subsequent ammonia volatilization. Ammonia volatilization occurs soon after manure is deposited on barn floors. BMPs should be implemented such as scraping and flushing the floors and alleyways, drying manure and cooling barn temperatures, install filters/scrubbers on air exchange systems, etc. Areas such as lawns, open spaces, parks, and golf courses require large amounts of water as well as significant amounts of fertilizers to help them stay lush green. Therefore, appropriate fertilizers should be applied and BMPs for re-treatment of wastewater run-off should be implemented.

Response to Detailed Comment # 10: The following text has been added to the end of the first paragraph: “Implementation of a vehicle purchase/recycle program would also help to reduce air pollution within the study area by reducing highly polluting vehicles off the road.”

Page 13 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #11 Response to Detailed Comment # 11: The following text has been incorporated on page 3.5-4 (Section 3.5.2 Affected Environment) of the FEIS.

“Effective November 20, 2007, the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the North Front Range as a non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3). In March 2008, EPA lowered (strengthened) the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality data for the years 2005 to 2007 were collected from monitoring stations. In July 2007, there were exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard recorded which violated the NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. Therefore, EPA designated this area as a non attainment area.”

Detailed Comment #12 Response to Detailed Comment # 12:

The following text has been incorporated on page 3.5-4 (Section 3.5.2 Affected Environment) of the FEIS.

“Effective November 20, 2007, the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the North Front Range as a non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3). In March 2008, EPA lowered (strengthened) the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality data for the years 2005 to 2007 were collected from monitoring stations. In July 2007, there were exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard recorded which violated the NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. Therefore, EPA designated this area as a non attainment area.”

Page 14 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #13 Response to Detailed Comment # 13: The sentence has been replaced with— “Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional study area returned to levels below the 8-hour 0.08ppm ozone standard after the 2003 peak; however, 8-hour ozone levels again increased above the standard based on 2005 to 2007 data.”

Detailed Comment #14 Response to Detailed Comment # 14:

The existing Table 3.5-1 has been updated

Response to Detailed Comment # 15: Detailed Comment #15 The following text has been added at the end of the sentence “over a specific interval of time.”

Detailed Comment #16 Response to Detailed Comment # 16: The second sentence has been replaced with— “Dispersion and point source air quality modeling, in support of the attainment demonstration, have established emission levels for the 2006 base year and 2010 attainment year.”

Detailed Comment #17 Response to Detailed Comment # 17: Comment noted. Thank you.

Page 15 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment #18 Response to Detailed Comment # 18: The last sentence has been replaced with— “Therefore, EPA designated this area as a non-attainment area.” Detailed Comment #19

Response to Detailed Comment # 19: Comment noted.

Detailed Comment #20 Response to Detailed Comment # 20:

A statement in the Mitigation Measures section has been added to

discuss that as part of the design process, CDOT will coordinate with other MS4 entities regarding compliance with each individual MS4 permit. This coordination will include design specifics, as well as maintenance responsibilities and potential cost sharing opportunities.

Detailed Comment #21 Response to Detailed Comment # 21: Comment noted. There remains a possibility that during the final design phase of the project, 100 percent of the water quality capture volume may be achieved. Additionally, in areas where sufficient area exists, some water quality ponds may be expanded to accommodate a greater than 100 percent water quality capture volume, which could bring the entire project closer to 100 percent water quality capture volume. If this cannot be achieved, then additional BMPs will be considered for inclusion in the design.

Page 16 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment Response to Detailed Comment # 22: #22 As part of this merger process, CDOT will apply for a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit. The merger process has been designed such that the public comment period for the Final EIS will also serve as the public comment period for the Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit. Additionally, coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (including alternative development and screening) has been documented and presented in Section 2.1.1 of the Final EIS. The coordination has included meetings in 2008 to discuss the procedure for identifying the LEDPA, involvement of the USACE in TAC and RCC meetings to identify a Preferred Alternative, and meetings in September 2010 and throughout the summer of 2011 to discuss avoidance and minimization as well as Detailed Comment the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. #23 Response to Detailed Comment # 23: The difference in wetland impacts now shows: Package A (21.87 acres), Package B (21.29 acres) and Preferred Alternative (18.18 acres). This project is being undertaken under the NEPA/Section 404 merger process and agreement. According to this agreement, the factors to be considered to determine whether or not an alternative does not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences include impacts to T& E species, other impacts to the aquatic ecosystem(streams and lakes, fisheries, water quality, riparian areas) or other significant impacts to the natural environment. The Preferred Alternative has the least impact to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters, the least impact to potential Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat, the least impact to aquatic habitat and the least impact to sensitive wildlife habitat that includes riparian areas. No substantive air quality impacts are anticipated for any of the three alternatives. Acres of impervious surface added are slightly more than Package A (1982 vs. 1946) but less than Package B, which is 2001.

Page 17 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USEPA (cont.) Responses to USEPA Detailed Comments

Detailed Comment Response to Detailed Comment # 24: #24 A new paragraph has been added to Section 3.26.3.4 that states: "Of the approximately 300 acres that could be impacted by reasonably foreseeable future development (with our without a transportation improvement), Package A and the Preferred Alternative have the most potential to result in more concentrated growth near a commuter rail station. This could decrease the acreage of wetlands impacted." The US 36 DEIS used a different methodology than the North I-25 EIS. The scale of the North I-25 EIS was so much larger than the US 36 EIS that it was not reasonable to gather data at that scale.

Detailed Comment Response to Detailed Comment # 25: #25 Comment Noted.

Page 18 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response US Department of the Responses to USDOI Comments Interior (USDOI) Response to Comment #1: Table 3.7-3, which lists common highway related surface water impacts, has been revised in the Final EIS to include petroleum. In the table, the following direct impacts have been listed for petroleum products: — Toxic to aquatic life. — Typically accumulates on the water surface and can inhibit plant and animal productivity. — Causes direct mortality. — The severity of the petroleum effects is related to the habitat into which it is introduced. — River habitats may be less severely affected by spills than standing water.

Also in the table, typical mitigation measures for petroleum products have been listed as: — Water quality ponds

— Comment #1 Nonstructural BMPs (Spill Prevention Plans and Emergency Notification Procedures)

Response to Comment #2: Additional surveys of nesting raptors were conducted in the spring/summer of 2009 and the spring of 2010. CDOT Region 4 uses the CDOW recommended buffer zones as a guide. Also, the

survey area was expanded to cover nests within ½ mile of the Comment #2 project area. In addition, pre-construction surveys will extend to ½ mile from the project area. Based on these surveys, CDOT will coordinate with CDOW to avoid and minimize impacts to raptors before and during construction.

Page 19 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response USDOI (cont.) Responses to USDOI Comments

Comment #3 Response to Comment #3: CDOT migratory bird policies will be followed before and during construction (See Section 3.12.4.2).

Comment #4 Response to Comment #4: This has been changed in the FEIS. Comment #5 Response to Comment #5: CDOT has coordinated and will continue to coordinate with USFWS regarding the evaluation of federally-listed threatened or endangered species, including Formal Section 7 consultation.

Comment #6 Response to Comment #6: A Preferred Alternative has been identified in the Final EIS, which the Department of Interior will review during the Final EIS review period. Chapter 5.0 provides a discussion of the Section 4(f) evaluation, including mitigation measures.

Page 20 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Response to ACHP Comments Response to Comment #1: Comment #1 Thank you for informing FHWA and CDOT of your non- consulting party status under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. FHWA and CDOT will notify you if a request is received in the future for ACHP participation from the State Historic Preservation Officer, an affected Indian tribe, a consulting party, or other party. In addition, a Programmatic Agreement that is being developed will spell out the terms of a formal, legally binding agreement between CDOT, the SHPO and FHWA. The PA will establish a process for consultation, review, and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as the selected alternative is constructed.

Page 21 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response ACHP (cont.)

Page 22 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

Responses to SHPO Comments

Response to Comment #1: 5LR.995.4 Lake Canal was field assessed as not eligible by CDOT in 1983. The segment of this ditch in the APE was re-evaluated as not eligible. It was included by error on the list of eligible Comment #1 properties in Table 3.15-1 of the Draft EIS but it has been removed from the Final EIS. We apologize for this error.

Response to Comment #2: 5WL.1974. We agree with your determination of no-adverse effect Comment #2 for Package A and no historic properties affected for Package B for 5WL.1974 / Rural Ditch. The ditch was originally assessed as not eligible in 1993 but was assessed as eligible for this evaluation.

Page 23 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response SHPO (cont.) Responses to SHPO Comments

Comment #3 Response to Comment #3: 5LR.488 Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot. Further consultation with the SHPO will be conducted as detailed design becomes available. The Preferred Alternative avoids direct effect to this site.

Comment #4 Response to Comment #4: The discussion in Section 3.15 the Final EIS has been updated to provide additional justification for a determination of no adverse effect for these resources. The Final EIS is being provided to SHPO and consulting parties for additional consultation.

Response to Comment #5: The actual mitigation measures will be refined after selection of the preferred package, and formal consultation with the SHPO. The Comment #5 mitigation measures will be set forth in a Programmatic Agreement among CDOT, FHWA, FTA and SHPO.

Comments #6 Response to Comment #6: We will continue to involve the SHPO in the consultation process. Any additional alternatives or modifications to Package A, Package B or the Preferred Alternative that may result subsequent to the DEIS or FEIS will be evaluated in coordination with SHPO. CDOT will seek concurrence on eligibility and effect for any additional potentially eligible properties identified as a result of these modifications in addition to providing an opportunity to consult on a preferred alternative.

Page 24 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response SHPO (cont.)

Page 25 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO)

Responses to NFRMPO Comments

Comment #1 1. As suggested, single track commuter rail with passing track has been included in the Preferred Alternative presented in the FEIS. The single track option with passing track assumes a similar set of service levels, number of stations, and operating speeds that were made for double track in the Draft EIS.

This option resulted in an approximately 30% cost savings over the original Package A double track configuration - $649 million compared to $848 million.

Page 26 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response NFRMPO (cont.) Responses to NFRMPO Comments 2. Since the DEIS, RTD FasTracks has updated the travel times Comment #2 for their Northwest corridor. In addition, with further engineering the North I-25 FEIS travel times have been revised. The revised time difference shows that a connection to downtown Denver through the Northwest Corridor would add an additional 13 minutes of time than it would be to use the North Metro Corridor.

During the development of the Preferred Alternative much consideration was given to the possibility of eliminating the section of commuter rail between the two FasTracks’ rail lines (North Metro and Northwest) that generally parallels SH 119. The project’s two advisory committees reviewed information

about the difference in cost, travel time, ridership and environmental resources. The data showed the following benefits to including the connection: approximately 1,000 additional riders daily and 13 minute faster travel time to downtown Denver. However, including the connection would increase the cost of the rail improvements by approximately 70%, impact more approximately 3.5 more acres of wetlands, and 5 more acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Through this evaluation, the Comment #2a committee’s opted to retain the entire commuter rail improvement including the connection between the two FasTracks’ rail lines.

2a. You are correct, the cost estimates for BRT included in Package B do not include costs associated with the tolled express lanes. As an extreme example, if we associated 100% of tolled express lane capital cost to the BRT, it would cost approximately $513 million ($397 million for the highway improvements and $116 million for the BRT itself) and it would still cost less than the Preferred Alternative commuter rail. The same is true for the operating and maintenance costs. Even associating 100% of the TEL O and M cost to the BRT results in lower total cost than the commuter rail.

Page 27 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response NFRMPO (cont.) Responses to NFRMPO Comments

Comment #2b 2b. The FEIS is based on a long-term horizon analysis year of 2035. The earliest reasonable estimate for opening year of the tolled express lanes is 2015. Based on this, the analysis is based on 20 years of service for revenues, capital and operating/maintenance costs – including equipment replacement. A 30-year basis for analysis is not possible as travel forecasts are unavailable for the year 2045. Note that besides revenue, as a managed lane the TEL provides a long-term reliable speed and promotes carpooling and using transit thus differing from regular toll facilities.

As stated above, even with the addition of the full cost associated with the tolled express lanes the BRT option would still cost less than the commuter rail option. The service levels for each mode were developed to reflect service levels commensurate for each respective technology.

Note that the Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail and does not include BRT but express bus on I-25. This was result of the project's advisory committees review of the project's purpose and need statement, their community values and the results of the comprehensive evaluation presented in the DEIS.

Page 28 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response NFRMPO (cont.) Responses to NFRMPO Comments

Comment #3 3. Since the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Feasibility Study is a relatively recent study, it was not mentioned in the DEIS. The North I-25 project team has been actively coordinated with this project and its applicability to the EIS is now discussed in the FEIS. Chapter 1, Section 1.7.19 summarizes the study and its results. Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.3 includes summary text: “The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority has determined that high speed rail is feasible in the I-25 and I-70 corridors in Colorado, according to criteria specified by the Federal Railroad Administration. Commuter rail would be compatible with potential high-speed rail service as the two services serve different travel markets. Commuter rail serves inter-community trips along the BNSF corridor, with multiple stations. HSR station locations are yet to be determined, but HSR would have at most one station between Denver and Fort Collins, along the I-25 corridor. While some Fort Collins to downtown Denver riders would switch to high speed rail, the majority of commuter rail riders have different origins and destinations. Also note that CDOT will soon be conducting an Interregional Connectivity Study for high speed rail.” The FEIS has been changed to reference recent corridor plans only.

The proposed improvements along I-25 maintain a grassy median between northbound and southbound travel lanes. While a specific alignment for high speed rail has not been clearly defined at this early stage of their planning process the right of way could be available for use by a future high speed rail. This right of way is also maintained at the structures except in select locations where maintaining that right of way would negatively impact a sensitive environmental resource.

Page 29 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response NFRMPO (cont.) Responses to NFRMPO Comments

Comment #4 4. Three to five miles apart is ideal commuter rail station spacing. Through the Station Selection Process and Criteria the potential station locations were evaluated against a set of criteria looking at access, land use and community support. While station spacing was not listed as one of the criteria it was a large factor in locating stations. 3-5 miles was the standard spacing but exceptions were made where it was deemed that there was enough density or activity. The CSU station was identified to serve the university and to interface with the Mason Corridor BRT station.

5. Agreed, a more complete definition of BRT and Express bus is Comment #5 included in the FEIS. Chapter 2 of the FEIS includes an explanation of both BRT and express bus with the largest notable difference between these two options (for the North I-25 EIS) being the presence of median platforms and slip ramps in the BRT option and the use of outside slip ramps at interchange ramps for the express bus. The specific text defining express bus in the FEIS is: Express bus service is regional transit service with limited stops in order to operate faster than other bus services. This type of service typically operates on freeways or expressways. It has park and ride facilities with transit priority amenities such as slip ramps and queue jumps to improve travel time over a traditional regional bus service. When available, the service will utilize the TELs. When adjacent to a freeway, pedestrian structures provide access to park and rides from either direction of bus travel to reduce out of direction travel and improve travel time.

Page 30 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response NFRMPO (cont.) Responses to NFRMPO Comments 6. The median stations of Package B could not remain in place if Comment #6 future HSR is in the median. The Preferred Alternative does not include median BRT stations along I-25. Instead the it includes Express Bus with slip ramps at select interchange locations. The Comment #7 proposed slip ramps would not preclude use of the median by potential high speed rail.

7. Assuming by BRT “propped up” you mean a higher level of service than commuter rail. The intention is to provide a level of Comment #8 service that is commensurate with each transit technology. The Preferred Alternative does includes express bus service along I-25, using stations located along the side of I-25 and slip ramps at selected interchanges, which would not preclude the possibility of future HSR in the median along I-25. The tolled express lanes (TELs) in the Preferred Alternative will enhance the express bus service. The costs Comment #9 for the TELs are included as part of the roadway improvements because the express bus service could be implemented without the implementation of the TELs.

8. The cost of all park and ride lots and carpool lots includes surveillance equipment to enable CDOT or the local operating agency to monitor the lots. Comment #10 9. Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative assume the same set of committed projects in the corridor, which have been updated during development of the FEIS. The costs of the alternatives Comment #11 have taken these committed projects into account accordingly. The Preferred Alternative is a multi-modal solution with bus, rail, and highway improvements that was developed by mixing and matching Package A and B components.

10. The FEIS has been updated to reflect that the I-25 widening south of SH 66 and the new interchange at SH 66 were recently completed.

11. The material in the FEIS has been clarified and states the following: The Harmony Road interchange reconstruction would include the following: widening of Harmony Road to provide additional capacity, minor widening of the existing bridge over I-25 to accommodate the Harmony Road widening, new on/off ramps to tie into proposed I-25 improvements, and re-alignment of the east frontage road.

Page 31 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response NFRMPO (cont.) Responses to NFRMPO Comments

Comment #12 12. Fort Collins and Windsor have identified funding for reconstruction of the SH 392 interchange. This reconstruction is

being completed as part of a separate action and is expected to be completed in 2012. This improvement will not preclude implementation of recommendations that result from this EIS.

Comment #13 13. The FEIS text has been updated to reflect that the I-25 widening south of SH 66 and the new interchange at SH 66 were recently completed.

14. As suggested, the mixing and matching of options included Comment #14 evaluating single track; and resulted in the Preferred Alternative rail alignment plan for single track with passing tracks between FasTracks North Metro end of line and Fort Collins. Evaluation of this option (single track with passing track) found that with five passing track sections along the alignment the service plan could remain unchanged from the commuter rail operating plan of Package A but that costs would be reduced, in comparison to Package A.

The need for double tracking is largely dependent on the service levels on the line, as well as factors regarding train speeds and cycle times. The presence of the new connecting line from North Metro does not necessarily change the amount of service on the lines leading to Longmont.

Page 32 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Denver Regional Council Responses to DRCOG Comments of Governments (DRCOG)

Comment #1 1. The project’s travel demand model has been updated for the FEIS to reflect the DRCOG and NFRPO 2035 RTPs, including both socio-economic forecasts and fiscally-constrained network improvements.

Figure 1-4 of the DEIS and text throughout the document has been updated to reflect the changed boundaries.

2. The term “Metro Vision” has been updated to 2035 Metro Comment #2 Vision Regional Transportation Plan or 2035 MVRTP, when appropriate.

3. "Long Haul" was removed from the text on page 4-20. The Comment #3 following text has been added to address transit operator question: Funding to operate and maintain the service would need to be identified by the communities or by the State prior to implementation. This could happen through the identification of a service district, and implementation of sales tax, property tax or other allowable funding mechanism. This effort could be initiated by a community, the NFRMPO or by CDOT’s Division of Rail and Transit. Also, the following was added to page 4-3 - “The commuter rail would operate as an extension of the North Metro train service with every other train traveling north to Fort Collins.” .

Page 33 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Denver Regional Council Responses to DRCOG Comments of Governments (DRCOG) 4. The FEIS text has been modified to state that the 2035 MVRTP identifies HOV/BRT lanes north of US 36. CDOT has submitted a plan amendment to DRCOG in March 2011 requesting that the additional Comment #4 general purpose lanes between US 36 and Thornton Parkway and between SH 66 and CR 38 be modified to tolled express lanes. Any transportation improvement selected in the ROD will have to be included Comment #5 in a conforming STIP prior to approval of the ROD. 5. The text on figure 4-26 has been revised to say pedestrian and bicycle facility in the FEIS. Clarification to lines 20-23 of page 4-50 has been made in the FEIS. Due to the large size of the study area further detail of figure 4-26 will not be provided. Comment #6 6. The RTP reference has been updated to call out specifically DRCOG’s 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. The Preferred Alternative includes an upgrade to a partial cloverleaf interchange at SH 7. The text has been updated to state that local funding has been identified for this project and is included in DRCOG’s list of regionally significant projects. The new phasing chapter of the Final EIS provides more detail about funding of Phase 1 capital projects than was previously included in the Draft EIS. More information on the cost per user and the cost estimate review can be found in Chapter 6 Financial Analysis. In order to provide the most accurate opinion of probable cost FHWA and CDOT conducted a Cost Estimate Review. The cost estimate review is an unbiased risk-based review to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current total cost estimate to complete the project and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the current stage of project design. Part of this study is to also review the proposed construction schedule to determine its impact on the project cost. During the course of the review the team identified and discussed numerous threats and opportunities. A threat is anything that can add to the cost of the project. An opportunity is anything that can reduce the cost of the project. This probabilistic analysis resulted in a cost estimate at the 70% confidence level of $9,474.9 million (YOE) for the Preferred Alternative of the North I-25 Project. The cost for Phase I at the 70% confidence level was $1,271.2 million (YOE).

Page 34 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County Responses to Larimer County Comments

Response to General Comment # 1 1. Information on project phasing has been provided in Chapter 8 in the FEIS. This chapter provides information on the Preferred Alternative Phasing plan identified by the project's two advisory committees and the costs and impacts associated with this phasing plan. At this point in the project development process, specific requirements and expectations that are typically included in an intergovernmental agreement are not available. As each phase moves into preliminary and final design and more detailed requirements are established, any needed intergovernmental agreement will be initiated and executed with the appropriate governmental body.

General Comment #1 Comment was addressed after the identification of the Preferred Alternative and phasing.

General Comment #2 Response to General Comment # 2 Package A evaluated general purpose lanes along with commuter rail; Package B evaluated tolled express lanes with express bus. The Preferred Alternative evaluates the provision of commuter rail and TELs, in addition to general purpose lanes, as you suggest for further analysis.

At most commuter trains will pass by a crossing every 30 minutes per direction, or 15 minutes in both directions. These trains will be traveling at higher speeds up to 79 mph and are, at most, four cars in length, or less than 400 feet. This is compared to existing freight service that has coal trains of 5,000 to 6,000 feet in length and mixed freight trains of 4,000 to 5,000 feet in length operating at speeds between 10 mph and 49 mph. Crossing signals can also be compared to typical traffic signals that cycle through red, yellow and green phases every 100 seconds or less, on average. Comparatively, the duration of the commuter train impedance is very short compared to freight trains, and infrequent compared to traffic signals.

Overall, from a traffic delay perspective, passenger trains of Package A or the Preferred Alternative will not have a big effect.

Page 35 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (cont.) Responses to Larimer County Comments

General Comment #3 Response to General Comment #3 3. In the DEIS Package A design, double track was proposed from Longmont to University Avenue in Fort Collins and then single track from University Avenue to the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center station. When the DEIS was initially developed, the Mason Corridor BRT was not a funded project, therefore it was not taken into account in the rail design. Now that it has been funded the rail design has been reevaluated through Fort Collins. The design of the Preferred Alternative is single track north of Harmony and therefore accommodates the Mason BRT. Commuter rail service to downtown Fort Collins serves a regional transit hub, and reduces the need for a transfer for some passengers.

General Comment #4 Response to General Comment #4 4. The alternatives under consideration would not preclude future transit expansion to the north.

General Comment #5 Response to General Comment #5 5. The project team has coordinated with BNSF during the project with regards to design criteria, the evolution of alternatives leading to the preferred alternative as well as project cost estimating. The FEIS design for the preferred alternative reflects the information received from this ongoing coordination effort. The plans for the preferred alternative include provision of passing track segments as necessary for the operating plan generated by the project team for commuter rail. However, BNSF does not provide project approval during the NEPA planning process because no action is required of BNSF in association with the FEIS. So we are not seeking plan approval from the BNSF with the FEIS.

Page 36 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (cont.) Responses to Larimer County Comments

General Comment #6 Response to General Comment #6 6. The estimated capital cost in 2009 dollars for Package A is $1.965 billion, for Package B is $1.797 billion, and for the Preferred Alternative is $2.184 billion. In order to provide the most accurate opinion of probable cost FHWA and CDOT conducted a Cost Estimate Review. The cost estimate review is an unbiased risk-based review to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current total cost estimate to complete the project and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the current stage of project design. Part of this study is to also review the proposed construction schedule to determine its impact on the project cost. During the course of the review the team identified and discussed numerous threats and opportunities. A threat is anything that can add to the cost of the project. An opportunity is anything that can reduce the cost of the project. This probabilistic analysis resulted in a cost estimate at the 70% confidence level of $9,474.9 million (YOE) for the Preferred Alternative of the North I-25 Project. The cost for Phase I at the 70% confidence level was $1,271.2 million (YOE).

The cost saving for ending the commuter rail line at STC would be approximately $87 million in capital cost and $2.8 million annually for operation cost.

Text describing typical user costs by each mode has been added to the FEIS. More information on the cost per user and the cost estimate review can be found in Chapter 6 Financial Analysis. A comparison of travel times among the alternatives is provided in Chapter 4. For example, highway travel time for a TEL user between SH-1 and 20th Street in the AM Peak in 2035 is 102 minutes for Package A, 64 minutes for Package B, and 59 minutes for the Preferred Alternative. A summary of the trade- offs between Package A, B and the Preferred Alternative (including more information on cost and travel time) is included in Chapter 7 of the DEIS.

Page 37 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (Cont). Responses to Larimer County Comments

General Comment #7 Response to General Comment #7 7. Per input from you and others, a lengthened schedule for the workshops was adopted, instead of the condensed version initially proposed. The expanded schedule allows for complete input from stakeholders within the corridor to be fully incorporated and reviewed by the RCC.

More notice was given prior to workshops, and the workshops were held further apart. It is CDOT's belief that the additional notices of the workshops allowed sufficient time for elected, including newly elected, officials ample opportunity to review materials and prepare for the workshops.

The Preferred Alternative as developed during the series of workshops, as discussed in this response, combines elements of Package A and B. The Preferred Alternative, was identified and discussed during the workshops.

Page 38 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (cont.) Responses to Larimer County Comments

Staff Comment #1 Response to Staff Comment # 1 - No Response Needed

Staff Comment #2 Response to Staff Comment # 2 - 3 – No Response Needed Staff Comment #3 Staff Comment #4 Response to Staff Comment # 4 – Agreed, the tolled express lanes of Package B and the Preferred Alternative in the metro area do not fully address the congestion anticipated in the metro Denver area; Package A does not include highway improvements to I-25 south of E-470. As you note, each package includes new alternative modes for Staff Comment #5 regional travel. Note the purpose and need is to address long-term Staff Comment #6 travel needs between the northern communities and the Denver metro area. A separate study is expected to fully evaluate the needs within Staff Comment #7 metro Denver. The FEIS design accommodates the I-25 cross section included in DRCOG’s 2035 Metro Vision. Staff Comment #8

Staff Comment #9 Response to Staff Comment # 5 – 11 No Response Needed

Staff Comment #10 Response to Staff Comment # 12 Staff Comment #11 Comment noted. This is consistent with the land use analysis Staff Comment #12 contained in Section 3.1.2 of the DEIS.

Staff Comment #13 Response to Staff Comment # 13 – No Response Needed

Page 39 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County Responses to Larimer County Comments (cont.)

Response to Staff Comment # 14 – No Response Needed Response to Staff Comment # 15 Staff Comment #14 Comment noted. This is generally consistent with land use analysis in Staff Comment #15 the DEIS, but these more detailed comments have been noted in preparing the FEIS.

Staff Comment #16 Response to Staff Comment # 16 The referenced figure is a generalized depiction of existing land use throughout the region in 2000. At the scale presented, the land uses of individual parcels are difficult to depict. The mapping has been updated for the Final EIS.

Response to Staff Comment # 17 Staff Comment #17 Updates to this map for the FEIS have been made for 2035. Updated population figures are noted and have been incorporated into the FEIS.

Staff Comment #18 Response to Staff Comment # 18 - Change has been made as suggested.

Page 40 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (cont.) Responses to Larimer County Comments

Response to Staff Comment # 19 Staff Comment #19 A summary of trade-offs between the two packages and the Preferred Alternative is included in Chapter 7 of the FEIS.

Response to Staff Comment # 20 Staff Comment #20 Package A does attract more volume to I-25 than Package B. Regarding your comment on potential highway development, note that an expert panel convened to assess the land use Staff Comment #21 impacts of Package A and Package B concluded that the impacts along the highway were similar for both packages. This was because the packages each add highway capacity (albeit of different lane types), and each make similar improvements to existing interchanges. See Chapter 3.1.2 of the FEIS. Staff Comment #22 Response to Staff Comment # 21 Staff Comment #23 Text clarifying the build alternative’s relationship to the no action alternative has been added to Chapter 4.

Response to Staff Comment # 22 No Response Needed

Response to Staff Comment # 23 No Response Needed

Page 41 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (cont.) Responses to Larimer County Comments

Response to Staff Comment # 24 Staff Comment #24 Comment noted. Package A only identifies potential transit station locations and it will be up to the jurisdictions to decide what type of development and financial incentives are appropriate for those locations. Many TODs can be accomplished with only zoning being the required public agency action.

Staff Comment #25 Response to Staff Comment # 25

Parking was given consideration during the station planning process. The amount of parking is based on the projected ridership at each

station and serves a regional need. While it is desired that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) occurs at stations, the additional parking associated with a TOD would be the responsibility of a developer. As opportunities occur and TOD design is developed there could be a potential to coordinate efforts between the North I- 25 stations and the proposed development.

Staff Comment #26 Response to Staff Comment # 26 While more recent crash data is available, I-25 was under Staff Comment #27 construction during the following period and therefore crash data would not be considered an accurate typical representation of I-25.

Response to Staff Comment # 27 The text has been updated to reflect auxiliary lanes between SH 60 and Harmony Road in Package A.

Page 42 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County Responses to Larimer County Comments (cont.) Response to Staff Comments # 28 Staff Comment #28 – The Preferred Alternative is a multi-modal solution with bus, rail, 30 and highway improvements that was developed from a combination of Package A and B components. The Preferred Alternative includes interchange reconstructions, the addition of general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along I-25, commuter rail along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton and the Northwest Rail end-of-line station in Longmont, and commuter bus along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver. The Preferred Alternative also assumes that feeder bus service would be provided to bring local traffic to the corridor train service. More detailed information concerning the Preferred Alternative is included in Chapter 2 Alternatives of the Final EIS.

Response to Staff Comments # 29 There is strong local community support to continue the rail line (in both Package A and the Preferred Alternative) to the Downtown Transit Center to directly serve the downtown Fort Collins activity center. However in the Preferred Alternative, service to downtown Fort Collins is only hourly. Note as implementation occurs, commuter rail service may only reach the South Transit Center during initial phases.

Response to Staff Comments # 30 In Package A, service to DIA would be from either the commuter buses on the US 85 corridor, or commuter rail to Denver Union Station via a transfer to the RTD FasTracks East Corridor commuter rail. During the development of the Preferred Alternative, modifications were made to include direct Express Bus service to DIA from the I-25 corridor.

Page 43 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County (cont.) Responses to Larimer County Comments

Staff Comment #28 – Note that the preferred alternative is a combination of packages A 30 (cont.) and B, and may share many of the same qualities that you identify for your rationale for supporting Package A. Note that terminating commuter rail at the South Transit Center was evaluated; but single track hourly service was maintained to downtown Fort Collins to provide a direct connection for regional tripmakers.

Page 44 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County Responses to Larimer County Comments (cont.)

Response to EAB Comment #1 The preferred alternative is a combination of Packages A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North metro end-of-line station in Thornton and the NW rail end-of-line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver, interchange reconstructions, and the addition of general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along I-25. Feeder bus service would EAB Comment #1 be provided to bring local traffic to the corridor train service. More detailed information concerning the Preferred Alternative is included in Chapter 2 Alternatives of the Final EIS.

Page 45 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County Responses to Larimer County Comments (cont.) Response to EAB Comment #2 2. An expert panel convened to assess the land use impacts of Package A and Package B concluded that the impacts along the highway were similar for both packages. This was because the packages each add highway capacity (albeit of different lane types), and each make similar improvements to existing interchanges. As you observe, commuter rail of Package A or the Preferred Alternative would likely EAB Comment #2 facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the project area. In contrast, the introduction of BRT of Package B or express bus of the Preferred Alternative along the I-25 corridor would represent a less permanent form of transit improvement than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for transit oriented development. Further information on land use implications is contained in the DEIS and FEIS, Section 3.1.2.

Response to EAB Comment #3 3. The Preferred Alternative is expected to have a similar impact to EAB Comment #3 development patterns as Package A. Commuter rail of Package A or the Preferred Alternative would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers due to the attractiveness of station areas for new development. While the Project's Purpose and Need focuses on trips between northern Colorado and the Denver Metro area, all the alternatives have been designed to facilitate movement between northern Colorado communities as well. Chapter 4. Transportation Impacts of the EIS provides travel times by project segment by travel mode. For Example the Preferred Alternative travel time via commuter rail between Fort Collins South Transit Center and Loveland would be about 9 minutes. Travel time from Loveland to Berthoud would be 10 minutes. Travel time between Berthoud and Longmont's Sugar Mill Station would be 18 minutes. Similar segments of travel time are provided for private auto travel on I-25, express bus and commuter bus on US 85.

The robust set of improvements included in the Preferred Alternative cost more (in 2009 dollars) than either Package A or B ($2.178 billion compared to $1.963 billion and $1.715 billion, respectively). However, the cost per user would be less for the Preferred Alternative than Package A ($5.14 per user trip vs $5.26 per user trip).

Page 46 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Larimer County Responses to Larimer County Comments (cont.) Response to EAB Comment #3 (cont.) EAB Comment #3 The robust set of improvements included in the Preferred (cont.) Alternative cost more than either Package A or B ($2.178 billion compared to $1.963 billion and $1.715 billion, respectively). However, the cost per user would be less for the Preferred Alternative than Package A ($5.14 per user trip vs $5.26 per user trip).

Page 47 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins

Page 48 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.) 1. All trip types are covered by the analysis. Trips to Boulder and Longmont are also included in the analysis; however Figure 4-6 only depicts riders on the specific transit system improvements proposed by this project. Riders transferring to/from the RTD FasTracks and Comment #1 bus system are not directly illustrated, but their activity is discerned through the rail access/egress in the pie chart. For example, at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, it can be seen that about three- eights of the riders getting on or getting off the commuter rail transfer to/from the FasTracks Northwest Rail line.

2. All of the alternatives are connected to the future FasTracks system. Package A extends the end of the FasTracks North Metro Comment #2 rail line to terminate at the Downtown Transit Center in Fort Collins. Package A also extends the end of the FasTracks Northwest rail line

to a new station in southern Longmont, labeled the Sugar Mill

station. This would be a shared station with the North Metro line to Fort Collins, thus allowing rail-to-rail transfers. Package B interacts with the FasTracks system in downtown Denver, allowing BRT

passengers to access all the FasTracks rail lines as well as the RTD bus routes serving downtown Denver. In addition, the BRT routes in Package B stop at Wagon Road, a major park-n-Ride in the northern metro area at I-25 and 120th Avenue that is served by numerous bus routes. The Preferred Alternative includes the commuter rail FasTracks connectivity points as described for Package A, and it includes express bus to downtown Denver, allowing connectivity to Comment #3 all the FasTracks corridors.

3. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the price of fuel would be impracticable. Similarly, the forecasts assume the portion of work-at-home and other alternative commute activities remain at similar percentages to that experienced today. If the price of gas or commute characteristics dramatically change, these could indeed influence travel behavior patterns. (Information about this is in the FEIS in Section 4.2.9). The EIS has openly acknowledged that the future price of gas is an unknown and therefore introduces an uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6.

Page 49 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.) 4. The forecasts use the adopted socioeconomic datasets of the Comment #4 NFRMPO and DRCOG. The effect of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are generally similar

between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density

of developments near stations in the city centers. If growth shifts towards I-25, the amount of VMT would increase by a small Comment #5 amount.

5. The amount of riders on the east-west feeder buses differ between the alternatives because these buses serve different regional transit systems, with different route alignments and station locations. In Package A, east-west ridership is high, as the bus feeder services to Comment #6 commuter rail also serve local inter-community trips. In Package B, feeder bus riders to BRT along I-25 do not serve as many inter-city trips. In the Preferred Alternative, the feeder routes are designed similar to Package B, and do not have as high a ridership as Package A.

6. Cost and financial information is provided in Chapters 2 and 6 of the Final EIS. The Cost Estimate Review report, which provides detailed information on the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 cost estimates, is included in Cost Estimate Review Final Report, July 2010, FHWA. For more information see the Cost Estimate Review Report, which is a supporting technical report to this Final EIS and is available for review at CDOT Region 4.

Page 50 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Comment #7 7. Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The agreement with BNSF will specify the infrastructure and operating plan requirements to allow both passenger service and freight service. The volume of truck traffic impacts the capacity and operation of I-25 and I-25 interchanges. Because of this, freight truck traffic and anticipated growth in truck traffic along I-25 is accounted for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS.

Freight traffic on I-25 is estimated to grow 2% annual on the south end and slightly more than 3% on the north end of the corridor and constitutes 8 to 14% of the total traffic. It is estimated that under the No Action alternative delay to truck traffic would be 67 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street for a total travel time of 133 minutes.

Three cross sections were evaluated for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative. The preferred cross section identified added both a general purpose lane and a tolled express lane north of SH 66. This was, in part, to better accommodate anticipated growth in freight traffic along I-25. The Preferred Alternative is expected to provide the most travel time improvement for freight traffic with a total travel time of 107 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street.

Page 51 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.) 8. The DEIS addresses the environmental impacts within each Comment #8 respective resource section. Transportation impacts are addressed in Chapter 4, dislocations are addressed in Chapters 3.2 and 3.4, and induced development is addressed in Chapter 3.1 and Appendix C—Land Use. Chapter 7 of the DEIS contains the overall “picture” of the trade-offs among alternatives.

A summary of environmental impacts is included in the Executive Summary and Chapter 7, and detailed information is provided in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

9. The transit ridership model was calibrated and validated to Comment #9 observed travel patterns in the Denver area. Projections are based on empirical behavior of travelers, as well as future geographical projections of population and employment and estimated trip origins and destinations. Recent travel survey data collected by RTD and DRCOG indicates that, as you suggest, current actual

ridership is higher than had been simulated in the model. Section 4.2.6.3 describes the potential effect these behavior changes might Comment #10 have on ridership. For example, commute rail ridership might be higher by about 40% than the earlier model estimates.

Comment #11 10. The North I-25 EIS provides information to decision-makers about alternatives for transportation improvements and their adverse impacts and benefits. Information is included in the Draft Comment #12 and the Final EIS about transportation impacts and benefits as well as those related to sustainability (land use, compatibility with community visions, air quality and other socio-economic and environmental factors).

11. Comment noted.

12. No Response Needed

Page 52 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #1 1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

2. The FEIS includes updated long-term forecasts to reflect 2035 RTP socioeconomic and network conditions. Agreed, separate land use forecasts would more accurately reflect the inter-relationship between land use and transportation infrastructure. Since the highway improvements are generally similar between packages, an expert panel concluded that future growth along I-25 would not substantially differ between the packages. The commuter rail of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would tend to attract Staff Comment #2 growth near station areas in city centers, in contrast to the I-25 BRT and express bus of Package B and the Preferred Alternative, but the magnitude of the differences would be relatively small. For these reasons, the results of the comparison and evaluation of alternatives with different land use sets would not have differed appreciably from the results with a single land use data set. Separate forecasts were not prepared due to the constant need for prudent use of study resources.

Staff Comment #3 3. The DEIS technical analysis accounts for all trip purposes and trip origins and destinations within the northern and Denver front range area. For purposes of presentation, some illustrations highlight travel along I-25.

Page 53 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #4 4. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your participation and look forward to your continued involvement.

Staff Comment # 5 5. The modeling for the FEIS has been updated to include the Mason Street BRT since it is a committed project; the effect of co-locating the three stations in Fort Collins is reflected in the ridership projections for Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, the FEIS modeling for Package B includes the Mason BRT and the effect of a common BRT station at the South Transit Center.

6. Note that Package A has single track between University and the downtown transit center. During development of the Preferred Staff Comment #6 Alternative, single track for the corridor between South Transit Center and downtown Fort Collins was evaluated in further detail, as you suggest. As a result, it was concluded that single track would have fewer environmental impacts while accommodating the Mason Corridor BRT. However, it was necessary to revise the service pattern on this segment of the corridor. The service plan for the Preferred Alternative consists of hourly service to/from downtown Fort Collins, with 30 minute service maintained to the South Transit Center during the peak periods. Package A and the Preferred Alternative serve the population centers of Fort Collins as you describe. Package B only directly serves the College Avenue Corridor at the South Transit Center.

Page 54 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #7 7. Comment noted. Your observations of commuter rail’s influence on land development patterns are generally consistent with the findings of an expert panel convened to evaluate the alternatives regarding induced growth. The effect of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are generally similar Staff Comment # 8 between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of developments near stations in the city centers.

8. Yes, Package A and the Preferred Alternative connect to the RTD FasTracks system via commuter rail at both Longmont and the North Metro end-of-line, and in downtown Denver. In contrast, the BRT of Package B connects only in downtown Denver.

We agree with your assessment that commuter rail stations will be a strong economic catalyst for higher density, mixed use TOD. Values of TOD adjacent properties in the US have increased from 6.4 percent to more than 40 percent in the past few years. Office buildings have fewer vacancies if located within walking distance of a transit station.

As you state, the general purpose lanes of Package A provide additional capacity and are not restricted by vehicle type. The Preferred Alternative includes adding both general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes to I-25 which will similarly address both passenger and freight traffic needs.

Page 55 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.) 9. That is correct, access to the regional BRT service would be by either Staff Comment #9 walking, driving, or taking a local bus to a station or stop on the Harmony Road corridor. Note that the access to commuter rail in Package A or the Preferred Alternative is via the same choice of access modes but to the US- 287 corridor through the core population area of Fort Collins. With the inclusion of express bus, the Preferred Alternative provides regional transit service on both the US 287 and Harmony corridors. The evaluation indeed identified that freight traffic would not be directly served by the addition of TEL in Package B. However, note that mobility in the adjacent general purpose lanes is improved for freight and non-toll paying vehicles, but not as much as Package A. The Preferred Alternative includes additional general purpose lanes as well as TEL north of SH 66. This cross section would improve mobility for freight traffic as well as non-toll paying vehicles.

10. The Preferred Alternative has been developed through a collaborative decision making process with communities and stakeholders from the study area. The future horizon year of 2035 has been used in the analyses presented in the Final EIS. The 2035 socio-economic projections use the adopted land use data sets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. Each of the alternatives provides multi-modal solutions that provide transportation choices for future travelers. Note the evaluation for 2035 does not rely on a historical trend analysis but utilizes a travel model based on reasonable assumptions of future transportation conditions.

At this point in the planning process, the only funds identified in the FEIS are Staff Comment #10 those likely to come in through traditional funding sources over the next 25 years. These funds, and the projects associated with these funds are identified in the fiscally constrained regional transportation plans (NFRMPO and DRCOG). While the toll lanes have the ability to generate revenue and provide opportunities for bonding, the FEIS does not make any recommendations for or against implementation through this means of funding. Additional funding identified by state, federal and local agencies will enable projects in Phases 2 and 3 to be implemented sooner. Fort Collins will continue to participate in determining how and which projects are funded in the North Front Range through their role on the NFRMPO Technical Advisory Committee and the NFRMPO Planning Council. The TAC advises the Council and the council is the decision-making body. Fort Collins has a seat on each.

Thank you for your continued involvement in the process.

Page 56 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.) 11. The intent of the Preferred Alternative is to include fencing along the rail corridor to limit access and improve safety and to adhere to current RTD fencing standards and requirements. However, it is also recognized that the type of fencing may vary depending upon adjacent land uses, wildlife use, or specific safety concerns. The FEIS will list a range of fencing options to consider during the design process. This includes wildlife friendly fencing and could potentially include wildlife underpasses. The actual fencing selected during the design process will be based on

consideration of need and function. Staff Comment #11 12. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft. Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing all parks and Staff Comment #12 natural areas as well as many other land use and transportation information. We believe we now have all City of Ft. Collins natural areas and parks Staff Comment #13 correctly identified and this information has been used in the FEIS. 13. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft. Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing the most Staff Comment #14 recent land use data for the city. The mistakes in the referenced maps have been recognized and corrected in the FEIS. Additionally this updated information has been used in the Final EIS. Staff Comment #15 14. The text has been changed to state that the revegetation plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its jurisdictional areas. 15. Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by implementing CDOT’s best management practices as described in Section 3.10.3, including avoiding existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation to the maximum extent possible, especially wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. A revegetation plan will be developed with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties. CDOT will also have to go through the process of working with the CDOW when submitting documentation to satisfy Senate Bill 40 for wildlife certification.

Page 57 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #16 16. A reference to the high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds has been added to the table. Staff Comment #17 17. The commuter rail alignment will be located within existing rail right-of-way. Construction of commuter rail would result in some impacts to wildlife including habitat fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, and displacement as described in Section 3.12.3.2. Noise impacts to parks and open spaces have been considered in the FEIS, using appropriate guidelines. McKee Farm near the rail corridor is being actively farmed and has no visible public access or visitor facilities.

Staff Comment #18

18. These natural areas and open space properties were identified for the FEIS process. Please see updated Figure 3.18-1. None of these open space and natural areas were identified as being impacted by the alternatives under consideration.

Staff Comment #19

19. The figure and table have been updated to include the missing open space and natural area properties. Fossil Creek Reservoir properties

have been correctly identified including their location. This property is not impacted by the alternatives under consideration.

Page 58 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #20 20. A Preferred Alternative that includes commuter rail has been identified and, along with Package A and B, has been analyzed in the FEIS. Impacts to these natural areas have been fully assessed in that document. The referenced natural areas (as well as a complete update to all land use information) have been identified and the design team is recognizing the potential for impacts to these resources and will make every effort to avoid or minimize impacts under all 3 build alternatives. The

Preferred Alternative identifies single-tracking in this area that will remain within the existing right of way of the rail corridor which will generally negate any direct impacts to the natural areas. Fencing will be included in all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. Indirect impacts such as noise, and visual impacts will be fully evaluated and the Ft. Collins Natural Resources Staff comments will be taken into account.

21. A TNM model receiver at Arapaho Bend was included in Staff Comment #21 the FEIS analysis, even though developed facilities are not present at the site. Also, local traffic noise conditions were represented by Receiver B012 at the nearby Strauss Cabin. Please note that the project team feels Arapaho Bend is a Category B site rather than Category A (e.g., amphitheater). The comment is correct that traffic noise levels in the east of Arapaho Bend do exceed the CDOT Category B NAC for some

of the open space. Noise mitigation for Arapaho Bend was evaluated and found not to be feasible and reasonable under

CDOT’s 2002 noise guidelines because there are no developed sites or recreational facilities with frequent human use present along I-25 that would benefit from a barrier and a barrier did not meet the necessary Cost Benefit Index. Therefore, noise mitigation is not recommended for Arapaho Bend. The list of traffic-noise-impacted sites in the Final EIS documents was updated to include Arapaho Bend and a mitigation analysis summary was included in the Final EIS.

Page 59 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

21. (cont.) FHWA and CDOT have recently adopted new noise regulations, taking effect in July 2011. Regarding the 2011

regulations, the result is expected to be the same. The site would be Category C rather than B, but would still be represented by a single receiver based on the new guidance:

"For activity areas that are spread across a property or for properties that lack defined facilities or formalized activity areas, a single generalized receptor should be placed within the property that best represents the worst expected traffic noise condition, based on professional judgment of the noise specialist." A large barrier would be needed to abate noise for a single receiver, which would be too expensive relative to the benefit; therefore, the reasonableness criteria would not be met

and the wall could not be recommended.

22. Two barriers have been recommended for the project area Staff Comment #22 north of State Highway 7: Wellington East and Mountain Range Shadows. Both of these are in fairly developed areas and are not in obvious wildlife corridors. No final determinations on the specifics of these barriers have been made at this stage of the project, but the final choices will be sensitive to the larger environmental context of the areas including wildlife movement. Also, see Staff Comment Response #11.

Page 60 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #23 23. It is important to note that there are anticipated pollutant loadings associated with existing and No Action Alternatives. These alternatives do not have BMPs associated with them. The BMPs for the action alternatives are anticipated, for example, to remove 50 percent to 70 percent of total suspended solids, which accounts for the predicted increase in loading.

Staff Comment #24 24. Comment noted. The relevant statement has been revised and will not include discussion of this site as a potential

mitigation site to offset impacts to wetlands and other waters of Staff Comment #25 the US.

25. Any actions that result in a permanent dredging or filling of wetlands are required to be permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of this permitting process, mitigation will be required. The first step in this process is

avoidance or minimization of wetland impacts. At Spring

Creek, avoidance measures have been implemented so no wetland impacts occur. At Fossil Creek, Package A has 0.05 Staff Comment #26 acre of wetland impacts. The Preferred Alternative has 0.01 acre of wetland impact. This small amount of wetland impact has been included in the mitigation package being reviewed by the Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 permit.

26. CDOT is currently discussing possible wetland mitigation sites with Fort Collins staff and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The details are in the Section 404 Permit application, which has been provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Page 61 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #27 27.Mitigation measures that will be employed consistent with each alternative include:

 The 100-year FEMA design flows will be used for freeboard

determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable.  The 500-year design flows will be used to further assess the scour design and set the depths of piles or caissons.  The design will consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA.  Degradation, aggregation, and scour are to be determined. Adequate counter measures will be selected using criteria established by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 568 (TRB, 2006)  The design will be such that minimal disruption to the ecosystem will occur.  The design will consider costs for construction and maintenance.  A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at joints will be considered. I possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged into a floodplain.  The designs will comply with federal and state agencies. The designs will make every consideration towards local agency requirements and will be consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs.

Please note that wetland mitigation is discussed in Chapter 3.8 of the EIS.

Page 62 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #28 28. Effects are presented by component and by species. For key species, such as Preble’s and bald eagle, effects are also broken out by site. Aquatic species are addressed by drainage. For black- tailed prairie dogs, site by site analysis would not be productive due to the large number of small prairie dog colonies involved, and the likelihood that most of these colonies will have expanded, contracted, or disappeared by the time of construction. Other species are addressed at a broad scale and impacts are estimated based on suitable habitat due to a lack of actual presence/ absence data. The FEIS includes site-specific mitigation measures where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle).

29. These suggestions have been incorporated in the FEIS for all Staff Comment #29 alternatives.

Staff Comment #30 30. The purpose and need for the project and stakeholder input provided the criteria framework for alternatives development. The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro area and the rapidly growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. For this reason, both highway and transit options were considered for the project. While the transportation system can influence land use patterns, development is regulated at the level of local government.

Page 63 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #31 31. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the price of fuel would be impracticable. The forecasts are based on the adopted future population and employment forecasts of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. If the price of gas dramatically changes, it could indeed influence land use development activity as well as travel behavior patterns. The FEIS acknowledges that the future price of gas is an unknown and therefore introduces an uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6. Staff Comment #32 32. The DEIS and the FEIS both address the effect of the project alternatives on carbon dioxide, which is used as the surrogate for greenhouse gas emissions. Package A produces 0.8 percent more carbon dioxide than the No Action Alternative, Package B produces 0.4 percent more, and the Preferred Alternative produces 0.9 percent more.

The City of Fort Collins has developed a Climate Action Plan to help reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The intent is to reduce GHG emissions by the end of 2012 to a level not to exceed 2,466,000 tons of CO2. This will be achieved by the City implementing measures to reduce VMT, which in turn would reduce GHG emissions. It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent of automobile trips can be moved to non-motorized transport which would reduce the total VMT by 1 percent by 2012. There are several transit projects proposed within the Denver Metro area. The Mason Corridor transit system will serve as the backbone for the enhanced transit system in Fort Collins.

Over time (after 2035), it would be expected that the rail components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption because more trains could easily be added as demand increases.

Page 64 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

33. The FEIS includes the following text on page 3.5-4:

Staff Comment #33 Ground-level ozone is a gas that is not emitted directly from a source, as are other pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant. Its precursors are certain reactive hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which react chemically in sunlight to form ozone. The main sources for these reactive hydrocarbons are automobile exhaust, gasoline, oil storage and transfer facilities, industrial paint and ink solvents, degreasing agents, and cleaning fluids. Exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of health effects, including significant decreases in lung function, inflammation of the airways, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep breath.

Particle pollution (particulate matter) is a mixture of suspended microscopic solids and liquid droplets made up of various components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, dust particles, and pollen or mold spores. The size of a particle is directly linked to its potential for causing health problems. Small

particles, that is, those less than 10 micrometers (PM10) in diameter, pose the greatest problems because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both the lungs and heart. Particles larger than 10 micrometers (PM10) act as an irritant to the eyes and throat. Fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers is called PM2.5. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, particularly diesel exhaust, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes. Because these smaller particles penetrate deeper into the respiratory system, they have a strong association with circulatory (heart disease and strokes) disease and mortality.

Page 65 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #34 34. A project level PM2.5 analysis was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are in attainment for PM 2.5. However, precursors of PM2.5 include NOx and VOC. Emissions for this were projected for this project. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the regionwide total mobile source emission estimates for existing, No Action and the three build packages. For NOx, emissions estimates show very substantial reductions of Staff Comment #35 approximately 164,000 tons per day for all build alternatives, compared to existing levels. For VOC, the anticipated reduction is 58 tons per day. These reductions illustrate the likely conclusion that vehicle emissions of PM 2.5 impacts are not anticipated in the future, with or without the project improvements.

35. Figure 3.5-1 has been updated with the correct ozone non-attainment boundary for the Denver Metro area.

The following text has been added to section 3.5.2:

“However, particulate matter levels even below the NAAQS can impact the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins has implemented a policy to “continually improve air quality as the city grows.”

Table 3.5-2 has been updated with the new monitoring station in Fort Collins (3416 W LaPorte Ave) and “2005” has been removed from the table title.

Text has been revised on page 3.5-6, section 3.5.2.2, criteria pollutants and critical pollutant data trends as follows:

Page 66 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.) 35. (cont.) “Ozone concentrations have shown no consistent trend. Concentrations spiked in 1998, 2003, and 2005, with 2003 and 2005

concentrations exceeding the 8-hour standard in much of the regional study area. Staff Comment #36 Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional study area returned to levels below the 8-hour standard concentrations after the 2003 peak. However, concentrations remained above the 8-hour standard after the 2005 peak. In 2006, Fort Collins added a new monitoring station to monitor ozone concentrations. This monitoring station had the highest concentrations of ozone from 2006 to 2008 within the North Front Range area. Attainment designation for the ozone standard is based on a three year average. Therefore, since monitoring stations exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard for three consecutive years (2005 to 2007), the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the north Front Range as a non- attainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) in November 2007. The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked after this designation. In March 2008, EPA strengthened

the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm.”

A discussion of GHG is in the Energy section, Section 3.21.

Staff Comment #37 36. See response to the “PM2.5” Staff Comment #34.

37. Your review of the impacts is appreciated. The Preferred Alternative and Package A and B have been evaluated with respect to parks and recreation resources, and is presented in the FEIS.

Page 67 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Fort Collins Responses to City of Ft. Collins Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #38 38. No Response Needed.

39. While there currently exists a statement that the project must also Staff Comment #39 comply with local MS4 requirements (Page 3.7-2, lines 19-20), an additional statement regarding construction and development/new development compliance has been added.

Staff Comment #40 40. The predicted constituent loadings from the Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative presented in the EIS do not include the application of permanent BMPs. All of the alternatives would show an increase in contaminant runoff in the Cache la Poudre watershed of approximately 50 percent, without the application of permanent BMPs. As discussed in the mitigation section, the permanent water quality BMPs are expected to remove approximately 30 to 70 percent of various contaminants.

Currently, there are no quantifiable removal rates for temporary construction BMPs in Colorado. The removal percentages cited by the commenter are for permanent water quality structures and represent the current level of understanding in Colorado, and the BMPs associated with all action alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to reduce the pollutant load by the percentages identified in the comment.

Page 68 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Timnath Responses to Town of Timnath Comments

1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

The Preferred Alternative was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees evaluated improvement options to include based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and the technical analysis of alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Package A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end of line station in Thornton and the NW rail end of line station in Longmont, Comment #1 commuter bus along US 85 and express bus along I-25 with service to downtown Denver and DIA from Fort Collins and Greeley. Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed and both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes would be added north of SH 66. South of SH 66, tolled express lanes would be added (south to US 36). These improvements are consistent with the elements of package A identified as important by the City of Loveland.

The Preferred Alternative provides express bus service on I-25 which is comparable to the BRT service of Package B; the relative travel times among modes are similar for 2035 from the Fort Collins South Transit Center to downtown Denver. These are presented in Section 4.3.2 of the FEIS.

While Package A and Package B each provide one transit line from Greeley, the Preferred Alternative includes two transit services from Greeley to downtown Denver. The purpose and need identifies the need to address safety issues and aging infrastructure on I-25. The analysis conducted for the project using the 2035 planning horizon date has determined that commuter rail on the BNSF corridor is most effective, compared to other potential corridors; this would not preclude local communities from preserving right-of-way in other corridors.

The vehicles for the Preferred Alternative express bus service would be over-the-road coaches and would offer a comfortable ride; however Package B would provide premium BRT vehicles.

Page 69 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Timnath Responses to Town of Timnath Comments (cont.)

Comment #2 2. General station locations were identified through the Station Selection Process and Criteria. The Station Selection Process and Criteria identified stations locations that had population or activity centers, east/west access, a lack of environmental impacts, transit infrastructure and committee support. The existing park and ride was identified because it has existing transit infrastructure and good east/west access. Expanding the park and ride allows for cost saving since the North I-25 project would utilize the existing bus bays and transit infrastructure. The site recently requested by the Town of Timnath was not initially identified as a potential site. While having a station ½ mile to the south would serve a future population center it would not have as good access to the station, would require additional cost for an access road, would require more VMT for the buses that serve the station, and may result in traffic impacts to state and local roads.”

Page 70 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Loveland Responses to City of Loveland Comments

1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

A Preferred Alternative has been identified, as described in Chapter 2-Alternatives of this Final EIS. The identification of the preferred alternative came about through a collaborative decision-making process with the communities and stakeholders from the study area, Comment #1 including the City of Loveland. Considerations were given to costs and benefits of the components of Packages A and B, combining in such a way as to maximize the benefits and meet the purpose and need. Community stakeholders prioritized local needs while the state and federal agencies kept in mind the broader regional system needs The Preferred Alternative combines elements of Packages A and B, with some refinements based on public and agency comments, the collaborative decision-making process, and updated (year 2035) travel demand projections. The Preferred Alternative is a multi-modal solution with transit (commuter rail and bus improvements) and highway improvements. In this Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative has been described in detail and compared with Package A, Package B, and the No Action Alternative in terms of transportation benefits, costs and environmental consequences.

The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Packages A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North metro end-of-line station in Thornton and the NW rail end-of-line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver, interchange reconstructions, and the addition of general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along I-25. Feeder bus service would be provided to bring local traffic to the corridor train service. More detailed information concerning the Preferred Alternative is included in Chapter 2 Alternatives of the Final EIS.

Page 71 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Loveland Responses to City of Loveland Comments (cont.) 1. (cont.) The Preferred Alternative includes Express Bus to DIA, with a transfer from the US-85 Commuter Bus. However, it includes two transit services from Greeley to downtown Denver. The purpose

and need identifies the need to address safety issues and aging infrastructure on I-25. The analysis conducted for the project using the 2030 planning horizon date has determined that commuter rail

on the BNSF corridor is most effective, compared to other potential corridors; this would not preclude local communities from preserving right-of-way in other corridors.

Comment #2 Comment #2-1 2. 2-1. The FEIS identifies that additional funding will be needed to implement either package. Local agency support in advancing funding solutions will be appreciated.

The entire Preferred Alternative would cost $2.178 billion (2009 dollars) to construct. The regional transportation plans, including amendments as requested, identify $680 million for implementation of Phase 1. Additional funding opportunities will be needed to implement the improvements identified in Phases 2 and 3. Additional funding that may be identified from state, federal, local or other sources would allow improvements identified in Phases 2 or 3 to be implemented sooner.

Page 72 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Loveland Responses to City of Loveland Comments (Cont). Comment #2-2 2-2. FEIS Chapter 8 Phased Project Implementation describes phasing for the Preferred Alternative and takes into consideration local needs and mitigation measures Comment #2-3 necessary for each phase.

2-3. The alternatives each include new bus feeder routes to provide access to the regional service. The cost of these new bus routes is included in the cost of the alternative. Some minor rerouting of existing local routes to stop at regional transit stations are also planned, but these would have no cost implications.

Page 73 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Berthoud Responses to Town of Berthoud Comments

Comment #1 1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

A Preferred Alternative has been identified, as described in Chapter 2-Alternatives of this Final EIS. The identification of the preferred alternative came about through a collaborative decision-making process with the communities and stakeholders from the study area, including the Town of Berthoud. Considerations were given to costs and benefits of the components of Packages A and B, combining in such a way as to maximize the benefits and meet the purpose and need. Community stakeholders prioritized local needs while the state and federal agencies kept in mind the broader regional system needs. The Preferred Alternative combines elements of Packages A and B, with some refinements based on public and agency comments, the collaborative decision-making process, and updated (year 2035) travel demand projections. The Preferred Alternative is a multi-modal solution with transit (commuter rail and bus improvements) and highway improvements. In this Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative has been described in detail and compared with Package A, Package B, and the No Action Alternative in terms of transportation benefits, costs and environmental consequences.

Page 74 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Berthoud (cont.)

Page 75 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Weld County Responses to Weld County Comments

1. Commuter rail service along I-25 was evaluated earlier in the EIS process; commuter rail service along the BNSF corridor was found to be more effective due to its proximity to the population centers of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont. Package A and the Preferred Alternative include commuter rail on the BNSF and then on new track to the RTD FasTracks North Metro end-of-line at SH 7, crossing I-25 at about CR 8.

The identification of the preferred alternative came about through a collaborative decision-making process with the communities and stakeholders from the study area, including Weld County. Considerations were given to costs and benefits of the components of Packages A and B, combining in such a way as to maximize the benefits and meet the purpose and need, and regulatory requirements. Community stakeholders prioritized local needs while the state and federal agencies kept in mind the broader regional system needs The Preferred Alternative combines elements of Packages A and B, with some refinements based on Comment #1 public and agency comments, the collaborative decision- making process, and updated (year 2035) travel demand projections. The Preferred Alternative is a multi-modal solution with transit (commuter rail and bus improvements) and highway improvements. In this Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative has been described in detail and compared with Package A, Package B, and the No Action Alternative in terms of transportation benefits, costs and environmental consequences. As described in this Final EIS, in Chapter 8-Phased Project Implementation, the Preferred Alternative would be constructed in phases over time as funding becomes available. Three phases of implementation have been identified through the collaborative decision-making process, which established a prioritization considering public and agency comments, the need to preserve existing infrastructure, address safety concerns, improve mobility, coordinate with community plans, balancing long-term improvements with near-term improvements, and cost-effective implementation in light of funding limitations.

Page 76 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Greeley Responses to City of Greeley Comments

Responses to City of Greeley Comments 1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project. The Preferred Alternative was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees evaluated improvement options to include based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and the technical evaluation of alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Package A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end of line station in Thornton and the NW rail end of line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 and express bus along I-25 with service to downtown Denver and DIA from Fort Collins and Greeley. Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed and both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes would be added north of SH 66. South of SH 66, Comment #1 tolled express lanes would be added (south to US 36). Additionally, the US 85 commuter bus service (included in Package A and the Preferred Alternative) was identified as a near-term priority need by the project's two advisory committees and was therefore included in Phase 1. Analysis conducted for the project determined that commuter rail on the BNSF corridor would be most effective for meeting the 2035 travel demand projections. This does not preclude local communities from preserving right of way in other corridors such as along the UPRR/US 85. While the Preferred Alternative does not include BRT along I-25 it does provide a comparable express bus service along I-25 serving downtown Denver and DIA from Fort Collins and Greeley. The largest notable difference between the BRT and the express bus would be the presence of median platforms and slip ramps in the BRT option and the use of outside slip ramps at interchange ramps for the express bus. The express bus improvement was also identified as a near-term priority and will be initiated in Phase 1.

Page 77 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Greeley (cont.)

Page 78 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Frederick Responses to Town of Frederick Comments

1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

The Preferred Alternative was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees evaluated improvement options to include based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and the technical evaluation of alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Package A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Comment #1 Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end of line station in Thornton and the NW rail end of line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 and express bus along I-25 with service to downtown Denver and DIA from Fort Collins and Greeley. Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed and both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes would be added north of SH 66. South of SH 66, tolled express lanes would be added (south to US 36).

The Alternatives Development and Screening Report Appendix F documents a thorough review of different alignments to connect the two FasTracks corridors (North Metro and Northwest Rail). Some alignments presented too much out of direction travel, others presented access conflicts with the I-25 frontage road and others impacted environmental resources including wetlands and 4(f). This evaluation identified that the alignment on SH 119 and CR 7 as the preferred alignment because it would result in less out of direction travel, no conflict with I-25 access and minimal impact to sensitive resources.

Page 79 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Frederick (cont.)

Page 80 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Boulder County Responses to Boulder County Comments

The defined purpose and need of the project was developed at the onset of the EIS through an extensive scoping process; other studies may be required to examine additional needs and improvement options between communities. However, mobility between the communities is improved by each of the alternatives under evaluation in the FEIS due to the improvements proposed for the I-25 facility. Comment #1 Phased Project Implementation 1. FEIS Chapter 8 describes phasing for the Preferred Alternative and takes into consideration local needs and mitigation measures necessary for each phase.

Comment #2 2. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

Page 81 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Boulder County Responses to Boulder County Comments (cont.) Regarding components in the alternatives under evaluation: a. Package B and the Preferred Alternative each include managed lanes on the I-25 Corridor.

b. Package A and the Preferred Alternative each include commuter rail between Fort Collins and the Sugar Mill station in Longmont and Thornton, as an extension of service from the RTD FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. A connection to the RTD FasTracks Northwest rail corridor is provided at Sugar Mill.

c. Package A and the Preferred Alternative each include commuter bus service on US-85 between Greeley and Denver. Package B and the Preferred Alternative each include BRT/express bus service to Denver on the I-25 corridor from Greeley.

d. Each of the alternatives under consideration includes feeder bus service from local communities to the regional transit service. e. Each of the alternatives under consideration includes a package of congestion management measures, including feeder bus and local transit service modifications to support the regional transit improvements.

The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Packages A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North metro end-of-line station in Thornton and the NW rail end- of-line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver, interchange reconstructions, and the addition of general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along I-25. It includes express bus on I- 25 from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver. Feeder bus service would be provided to bring local traffic to the corridor train service. More detailed information concerning the Preferred Alternative is included in Chapter 2 Alternatives of the Final EIS.

The Preferred Alternative includes Express Bus to DIA, with a transfer from the US-85 Commuter Bus. However, it includes two transit services from Greeley to downtown Denver. The purpose and need identifies the need to address safety issues and aging infrastructure on I-25. The analysis conducted for the project using the 2035 planning horizon date has determined that commuter rail on the BNSF corridor is most effective, compared to other potential corridors; this would not preclude local communities from preserving right-of-way in other corridors.

Page 82 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Boulder County (cont.)

Page 83 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments

1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

The Preferred Alternative was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees evaluated improvement options to include based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and the technical evaluation of alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Package A and B.

The Preferred Alternative includes a broad range of transportation options including commuter rail, commuter bus along US 85 and express bus along I-25 with service to downtown Denver and DIA Comment #1 from Fort Collins and Greeley. Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed and both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes would be added north of SH 66. South of SH 66, tolled express lanes would be added (south to US 36).

The commuter rail alignment included in the Preferred Alternative travels along the BNSF right of way to Longmont (tying in with the Northwest Rail Corridor) and generally parallel to SH 119 tying in to the North Metro corridor. Analysis of potential rail alignments in the FEIS concurs with Longmont’s desire to have commuter rail travel through and serve directly the western communities.

CDOT will continue to work with the City of Longmont, the property owners, the business owners, and general public during the final design process to make sure that community impacts are minimized to the extent possible, to develop appropriate mitigation, and to make sure the city and the community fully understand the positive and negative impacts of the project.

Page 84 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont (cont.)

Page 85 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont (cont.)

Page 86 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont (cont.)

Page 87 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (cont.) Response to Staff Comment #1 1. Thank you for your comments. As you have mentioned in your comment, there will be local and regional benefits and impacts associated with Alternative A (Commuter Rail). During the evaluation of measures to offset impacts, mitigation can be required by specific Staff Comment #1 laws, such as wetland mitigation which is required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Feasibility of a particular mitigation measure means considering its technical ease of implementation, its level of effectiveness, cost and maintenance requirements. Both of these have been considered in recommending a particular mitigation measure. Property acquisitions in Longmont, as well as other locations throughout the project area, will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and other applicable relocation assistance programs. From feasibility and reasonableness evaluations for noise barriers, new traffic noise barriers are recommended for the certain sections of I-25. Vibration mitigation locations are recommended for five areas in Longmont. Impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent possible in accordance with legal requirements and feasibility.

Staff Comment #2 Response to Staff Comment #2 2. As suggested, single track was evaluated and resulted in the Preferred Alternative rail alignment plan for single track with passing tracks between FasTracks North Metro end of line and Fort Collins. Evaluation of this option (single track with passing track) found that with four passing track sections along the alignment the operating plan could remain largely unchanged from the operating plan proposed in Package A (which assumes double-track) but that costs and impacts would be reduced, in comparison to Package A. In the preferred alternative single track is proposed in the urbanized community to avoid large impacts to residential communities. The placement of passing track is dependent on the service levels on the line, as well as other factors including train speeds and cycle times. The analysis shows that one of the passing track segments needs to be in the Longmont area. To minimize impacts, the design includes moving the BNSF track to allow the passing track to fit. For this reason, no major acquisitions or impacts to streets will be necessary.

Page 88 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (cont.) Response to Staff Comment #3 Staff Comment #3 3. Impacts from train noise in Longmont under the Preferred Alternative are recognized and described in the FEIS. “Quiet zones” could be an effective and preferred mitigation action for these impacts, as described in Section 3.6.4.4. Implementation of quiet zones cannot be accomplished by CDOT alone and will require the participation of the affected local governments. Quiet zones will continue to be considered as a mitigation action for commuter rail as the project progresses.

Staff Comment #4 It is our understanding that the City of Longmont has recently completed a quiet zone study. In the future CDOT will work with Longmont, as appropriate, to implement these improvements when they impact a state Staff Comment #5 highway or other state facility.

Response to Staff Comment #4 4. This has been revised in the FEIS. Staff Comment #6 Response to Staff Comment #5 5. Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative include 8 lanes between SH 52 and E-470. The higher volumes on Package A are a result of the higher capacity provided by a general purpose lane compared to the additional tolled express lanes in Package B or the Preferred Alternative, in

2035.

Response to Staff Comment #6 6. Your observations of commuter rail’s influence on land development patterns is generally consistent with the findings of an expert panel convened to evaluate the alternatives regarding induced growth. The effect of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of developments near stations in the city centers. While the transportation system can influence land use patterns, development is regulated at the level of local government.

Page 89 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment Comment Response # City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (cont.) Response to Staff Comment #7 Staff Comment #7 7. The purpose and need of the North I-25 EIS is to meet long term travel needs between the Fort Collins/ Wellington area and Denver. Sidewalks are provided between transit stations and closest road. Shorter trips that would create a more integrated system are the responsibility of the local municipalities.

Staff Comment #8 Response to Staff Comment #8 8. The analysis of the Package A and Preferred Alternative commuter rail did include the connectivity to RTD FasTracks Northwest and North Metro corridors. This project provides direct access to the North Metro corridor and provides a transfer to the Northwest corridor by extending the Northwest corridor to the Sugar Mill station (providing a direct, one-seat ride service to both corridors is not reasonable due to the level of estimated ridership generated north of Longmont). Frequency of commuter rail service of our corridor reflects general

demand between Longmont and Fort Collins. Overall, 2035 rail system ridership does increase an additional 4,200 daily riders with Package A,

and an additional 2,700 riders per day with the Preferred Alternative.

Staff Comment #9 Response to Staff Comment #9 9. The design team will continue coordination with the City of Longmont. Please note that this effort may occur years in the future since no funding for construction is currently programmed until after Staff Comment #10 2035.

Response to Staff Comment #10 10. All options compared in figure 4-10 include a portion of tolled express lanes. For no action and Package A this section is limited to the existing reversible lanes between approximately US 36 and downtown Denver.

Page 90 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (cont.)

Staff Comment #11 Response to Staff Comment #11 As pointed out, impacts to The Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244) were identified and determined to result in an “adverse effect”. These historic structures would be removed under Package A. Detailed recording, in accordance with Colorado Historical Society’s Standards for Level II Documentation is recommended as mitigation for this impact. The Preferred Alternative avoids impacts to these two sites, as described in the Final EIS, and would result in a “no adverse effect” determination to the 2 resources. Package B also avoids impacts to these resources and results in a “no historic properties affected” determination. (KM 03-22-2011)

Response to Staff Comment #12 Staff Comment #12 12. The DEIS and FEIS identify quiet zones, rather than sound walls, as the preferred mitigation measure for rail noise. The implementation of quiet zones will require cooperative action among affected municipalities, CDOT and FRA. If quiet zones cannot be implemented, sound walls will be considered. If sound walls are selected for implementation, opportunity for community and public involvement will be provided during final design. This measure is similar to what is offered for commuter rail station design.

Page 91 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (Cont) Response to Staff Comment #13 Staff Comment #13 13. Since these retaining walls provide an elevated railroad grade to cross over SH 119 on a bridge, the visual impact of the retaining walls would be to the surrounding community, not the transit rider.

The retaining walls that are identified in the DEIS and FEIS are located east and west of the intersection of SH 119 and 3rd Avenue. The following are specific locations of the walls: Station 4113+4.20 to 4130+13.67 on the south side of the commuter rail tracks.

Station 4127+4.18 to 4130+13.97 on the north side of the commuter rail tracks.

Station 4134+13.96 to 4153+50.61 on the south side of the commuter rail tracks.

See Table 3.14-7 and Table 3.14-30 for a summary of this information in Staff Comment #14 the FEIS.

Response to Staff Comment #14 14. The mitigation measure table now includes mitigation for the visual impact identified at the North Longmont commuter rail station site. Staff Comment #15

Response to Staff Comment #15 15. Package A includes a proposed commuter rail track east of the existing BNSF track. Impacts to the substation site due to the earthwork needed to accommodate the new rail will be eliminated with a 320-foot-long retaining wall with a maximum height of 5.5 feet. This retaining wall was included in the DEIS and is included in the FEIS.

For the Preferred Alternative, there is less of a potential for impact because between 19th and Highway 66, there are no ROW impacts. If there are electrical utilities in the RR ROW, they would be relocated as needed. The substation is not impacted at all.

Page 92 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (cont.) Response to Staff Comment #16-1 Staff Comment #16-1 16-1. According to current FTA guidance, "active" use parks, such as this, are not considered to be noise sensitive. Impacts to the parks have been considered according to appropriate guidance in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative, Staff Comment #16-2 Package A, and Package B.

Response to Staff Comment #16-2 16-2. At this stage of planning it appears that approximately 2.2 acres of additional right-of-way will be required at Sandstone Ranch under Package A and approximately 1.5 acres will be required under the Preferred Alternative. It appears that the only park features or amenities that would be impacted would be approximately 40 – 60 feet of trail that would require relocation. Detailed information has been included in the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative and Package A appears to impact the irrigated turf along the right-of-way. Mitigation Staff Comment #16-3 for these impacts will include restoration of all impacted areas to existing conditions (irrigated turf) to the extent possible. As designs are finalized for this property the City of Longmont will be included in discussions on the best possible methods to mitigate for any temporary and permanent impacts to this resource.

Recent coordination (spring of 2011) has occurred with the City of Longmont related to the impacts and mitigation proposed for Sandstone Ranch.

Response to Staff Comment #16-3 16-3. The Boulder Creek Estates was likely overlooked as it is not contained on many of the maps and lists of greenways and parks available on the City or County Web sites. This was an oversight in the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and we appreciate it being brought to our attention. As an important area for biological resources it was identified and impacts to those resources were assessed. The FEIS process has included this property as a

planned park and recreation resource. It would be impacted by Package A and the Preferred Alternative. A scoping meeting was held on July 27, 2009 with Jacobs, CDOT, FHWA and relevant staff and officials from the City of Longmont. The possibility of a joint planning agreement between the project team and the city was discussed at this meeting. The project team will continue to work with the City of Longmont to reach a mutually beneficial plan for both parties. Mapping for this property is now included in the FEIS.

Page 93 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City of Longmont Responses to City of Longmont Comments (cont.) Response to Staff Comment #16-4 Staff Comment #16-4 16-4. We appreciate the clarification on this property and it is no longer included as a Park and Recreation resource in the FEIS. None of the alternatives would result in an impact to this property and therefore it is no longer discussed in the FEIS. Staff Comment #16-5 Response to Staff Comment #16-5 16-5. At this stage of planning it appears that approximately 2.2 acres of additional right-of-way will be required at Sandstone Ranch under Package A and approximately 1.5 acres will be required under the Preferred Alternative. It appears that the only park features or amenities that would be impacted would be approximately 40 – 60 feet of trail that would require relocation. Detailed information has been included in the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative and Package A appear to impact the irrigated turf along the right-of-way. Mitigation for these impacts will include restoration of all impacted areas to existing conditions to the extent possible. As designs are finalized for this property the City of Longmont will be included in discussions on the best possible methods to mitigate for any temporary and Staff Comment #16-6 permanent impacts to this resource.

Response to Staff Comment #16-6 16-6. The Preferred Alternative appears to impact the irrigated turf along the right-of- Staff Comment #16-7 way. Mitigation for these impacts will include restoration of all impacted areas to existing conditions to the extent possible. As designs are finalized for this property the City of Longmont will be included in discussions on the best possible methods to mitigate for any temporary and permanent impacts to this resource.

Response to Staff Comment #16-7 16-7. Transit service of this project has been developed to serve the purpose and need, which is to Package A and the preferred alternative provide commuter rail transit service along SH 119. Feeder bus service is provided to support the commuter rail. Specific bus stop locations have not yet been determined; there will be Staff Comment #16-8 opportunity for further input before the service is implemented.

Response to Staff Comment #16-8 16-8. Commuter rail is included in Package A and the Preferred Alternative and fencing and/or other safety measures will be included at all areas where pedestrian safety may be an issue.

Page 94 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response Town of Erie

Responses to Town of Erie Comments

1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project. Comment #1 The Preferred Alternative was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees evaluated improvement options to include based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and the technical evaluation of alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Package A and B. It includes commuter rail along the BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end of line station in Thornton and the NW rail end of line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 and express bus along I-25 with service to downtown Denver and DIA from Fort Collins and Greeley. Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed and both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes would be added north of SH 66. South of SH 66, tolled express lanes would be added (south to US 36).

Page 95 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City and County of Responses to City and County of Broomfield Broomfield Comments

1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project.

In general, the Preferred Alternative was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees evaluated improvement options to include based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and the technical evaluation of alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Package A and B. It includes commuter rail along the Comment #1 BNSF railroad tracks between Fort Collins and the FasTracks North Metro end of line station in Thornton and the NW rail end of line station in Longmont, commuter bus along US 85 and express bus along I-25 with service to downtown Denver and DIA from Fort Collins and Greeley. Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed and both tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes would be added north of SH 66. South of SH 66, tolled express lanes would be added (south to US 36).

Specifically in response to your numbered comments,

1. The Preferred Alternative also has the ability to serve Broomfield residents with a tolled express lane.

2. The Preferred Alternative also includes reconstruction of the SH 7/I- 25 interchange. Unlike Packages A and B however, it has been identified to be reconstructed as a partial cloverleaf interchange to accommodate a higher volume of traffic.

3. The Preferred Alternative commuter rail alignment and station locations are the same as those identified in Package A. We recognize there is not a station serving Broomfield on the Commuter Rail in this study.

4. The Preferred Alternative will have service every 30 minutes during the peak hours of travel and every 60 minutes during off peak. Toll express lanes and general purpose lanes will service bi-directional travel all times continuously.

Page 96 Final EIS August 2011

Agency/Comment # Comment Response City and County of Responses to City and County of Broomfield Broomfield (cont.) Comments

5. Since the DEIS was published CDOT has created a new transit and rail division that allows them to build, operate and maintain transit services. While CDOT has the authority to operate the rail service, no determination about an operator has been made at this time.

6. The Preferred Alternative also provides better travel time and more reliable travel along the corridor.

7. The Preferred Alternative would also replace the aging and obsolete infrastructure along the corridor.

8. Development of the Preferred Alternative included avoiding and minimizing the number of relocations and noise impacts to residences to the greatest extent possible. As a result, a total of 51 residences would require relocation, and no residences would be impacted by transit noise with implementation of mitigation measures.

9. A wetland mitigation plan is being developed as part of the Final EIS. Floodplain mitigation will be provided.

10. The robust set of improvements included in the Preferred Alternative cost more than either Package A or B ($2.178 billion compared to $1.963 billion and $1.715 billion, respectively). However, the cost per user would be less for the Preferred Alternative than Package A ($5.14 vs. $5.26).

11. The phasing of improvements was developed through a series of workshops with the project's two advisory committees. The committees prioritized improvements included in the Preferred Alternative based on their community's desires, the North I-25 Purpose and Need (FEIS Chapter 1.0) and technical analysis of alternatives. The committees prioritized safety and mobility needs north of SH 66 along I-25 as a near term priority. Addressing mobility needs from SH 66 to E-470 was a longer term priority because it has recently been reconstructed. The SH 7/I-25 interchange was identified as a near-term priority and has been included in Phase 1, reflecting that the SH7/I-25 interchange is included in the DRCOG 2035 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan and identified in the Completion Staging of 2015-2019.

Page 97 Final EIS August 2011

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Page 98 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FEISTeam

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

0 FEISTeam INTRODUCTIONTOGENERALRESPONSE: GENERALRESPONSE

Pleasenotethatseveralsimilarcommentswerereceivedfromthepublic.In DECISIONMAKINGPROCESS: thisgeneralresponse,wehaveprovidedanexpandeddiscussiononthese TheDraftEISevaluatedpackagesAandBwiththe topicstoaddressthecommonissues.Forthisreason,thisdiscussionisused acknowledgementthatcomponentsofthepackagescouldbe torespondtomanyofthepubliccomments. combinedinvariouswaystomeetthePurposeandNeed. ConsideringthecommentsreceivedontheDraftEISand workingwiththelocalgovernmentsinacollaborativedecision makingformat,componentswerecombinedtodevelopthe PreferredAlternative.TheFinalEISpresentsPackageA, PackageBandthePreferredAlternative.Thesealternativesare describedindetailinFinalEISSections2.2.2,2.2.3and2.2.4, respectively.

Thecollaborativedecisionmakingprocessincluded45 communitiesandagenciesfromthestudyarea.Meetingswere opentothepublic,andanumberofinterestedindividuals attendedandparticipatedinthediscussions.Interested individualsincludedpropertyowners,residentsand representativesoflocalorganizationsandadvocacygroups. TheprocessisdescribedinFinalEISAppendixB.Considerations weregiventocostsandbenefitsofthecomponentsof PackagesAandB,combininginsuchawaytomaximizethe benefitsandmeetthepurposeandneed.Localrepresentatives tendedtoprioritizelocalneedswhilethestateandfederal agencieskeptinmindthebroaderregionalsystemneedsand regulatoryrequirements.ThePreferredAlternativeisamulti modalsolutionwithtransit(commuterrailandbus improvements)andhighwayimprovements.InthisFinalEIS, thePreferredAlternativehasbeendescribedindetailand comparedwithPackageA,PackageB,andtheNoAction Alternativeintermsoftransportationbenefits,costsand environmentalconsequences.

Earlyinthedecisionmakingprocessmodaloptionsspread throughoutthestudyareawereidentifiedasacriticalneed. Page 99 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FEISTeam

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

SeeFinalEISSection2.1.Toaccomplishthis,thetransit componentsneededtobesizedtoappropriatelymeetthe needsandstillbereasonable.Refiningthesecomponents includedsingletrackingtherailonthewesternsideofthe studyarea,downsizingBRTtoExpressBusontheI25corridor andcoordinatingcommuterbusonUS85withtheexpressbus service.Itwasdeterminedthatsingletrackingcouldreduce costby20percentaswellasreduceimpactstosomesensitive environmentalresources.ThePackageAserviceplancouldbe maintainedwithasingletracksystembutreliabilitycouldbe somewhatimpacted.Expressbuswasdevelopedinsteadof BRTtoprovidemoreflexibleandphaseablebusservice,allow neartermimplementationandimprovedpassenger experience.TheUS85commuterbusserviceplanwasre designedtobecomplementarytotheExpressBusalongI25.

NEEDFORHIGHWAYIMPROVEMENTS: Robusttransitimprovementsalonewouldnotmeetthe PurposeandNeed.Agingandfunctionallyobsolete infrastructure,increasedfreighttraffic,inadditiontothe growingpopulationcontributestotheneedforimprovements onI25.SeeFinalEISSection2.3.Allthebuildalternatives evaluatedintheFinalEISaddressedtheagingandfunctionally obsoleteinfrastructureinsimilarways.Freightandprivate automobilemobilityareaddressedbygeneralpurposelanesor managedlanes.

TELlanesprovidetheabilitytomanagedemandandtravel timereliabilityalongthecorridorfortheI25expressbus service,highoccupancyvehicles(HOV)andtollpayingusers. TELlaneswouldprovidelongtermreliabilityastollscanbe adjustedovertimeandrelativetocongestiontomaintain reliabletraveltimeswithintheTELlane.Freightwouldbe prohibitedfromtheTEL.

Generalpurposelaneswouldaddressthefreightandsomeof Page 100 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FEISTeam

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thegeneralmobilityneeds,buteventuallycongestionwould increasebecauseofthegrowingpopulation.

OnI25,PackageAincludestheadditionofgeneralpurpose lanesonly.OnI25PackageBincludesonlyTELs.ThePreferred AlternativeincludesbothTELandgeneralpurposelanesto balancefreightandlongtermprivateautomobiledemand.See FinalEISSection2.2.

BothTELsandgeneralpurposelanesareincludedinthe PreferredAlternativebecausetheyprovidethemostreliability forfreighttraffic,theleastcongestionoverall,areliablechoice forcarpoolsandbuses,andcosttheleastperlanemile.

RELATIONSHIPTOLANDUSEPLANNING: Anexpertpanelwasconvenedtoassesslanduseimpactsof thealternativesandthislanduseexpertpanelagreedwith publishedresearchthatimprovementsonanexistingfacility, suchasI25,affectdevelopmentandgrowthpatternstoa lesserdegreethanlocalgrowthmanagementpolicies.SeeFinal EISSection3.1.Sincethehighwayimprovementsaregenerally similarbetweenthepackages,asimilaramountofgrowthnear I25isanticipatedamongthebuildpackages.PackageAand thePreferredAlternativebothwouldbeexpectedtofacilitatea shiftingrowthtowardsexistingurbancenters,intensifyingthe densityofdevelopmentsnearcommuterrailstations.Package Bwouldlikelyresultinthecontinuedexpansionof communitiestowardI25atafasterratethanundertheother alternatives.PleaseseetheLandUseTechnicalMemorandum inAppendixCforadditionalinformationregardinginduced growthimpacts.

FUNDINGANDCOSTISSUES: Thereisnotenoughmoneyavailabletobuildanyofthebuild alternativesintheirentiretyby2035.SeeFinalEISChapter6.0. Thecollaborativedecisionmakingprocessdescribedabove Page 101 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FEISTeam

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

wasalsousedtoidentifyaphasedapproachfor implementationofthePreferredAlternative.Thiswas accomplishedafterthePreferredAlternativehadbeen identified.ThePreferredAlternativeisexpectedtocost approximately$2.18billion(in2009dollars),whilethefiscally constrainedregionaltransportationplansfortheareaidentify only$688millionofanticipatedfundingforimprovements withintheplanninghorizontoyear2035,creatingan approximately$1.5billionfundingshortfall.Incomparison, PackageAandPackageBwouldbeexpectedtocost approximately$1.96billionand$1.72billion(in2009dollars), respectively.

AsdescribedinthisFinalEISinChapter8PhasedProject Implementation,thePreferredAlternativewouldbe constructedinphasesovertimeasfundingbecomesavailable. Threephasesofimplementationhavebeenidentifiedthrough thecollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,whichestablisheda prioritizationconsideringpublicandagencycomments,the needtopreserveexistinginfrastructure,addresssafety concerns,improvemobility,coordinatewithcommunityplans, balancelongtermimprovementswithnearterm improvements,andcosteffectiveimplementationinlightof fundinglimitations.ThethreephasesaredescribedinChapter 8.ItshouldbenotedthatprojectsidentifiedineitherPhase2 orPhase3canmoveforwardwithimplementationasfunding forthemisidentifiedthroughthestatewideplanningprocess andtheimprovementsareincludedintheconforming,fiscally constrainedlongrangeplan.

ThePreferredAlternativeimplementationwillneedtobe phasedduetolackoffunding.Theacquisitionofrightofway forcommuterrailwouldbeincludedinPhase1while commuterrailconstruction/servicewouldoccurinPhases2 and3.Acquisitionoftherailrightofwaywouldnotbeeligible forfederalfundswithoutcommuterrailconstructionincluded Page 102 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FEISTeam

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

intheconforming,fiscallyconstrainedlongrangeplan.During thecollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,considerationwas giventoallphasingoptionsincludingconstructingand initiatingcommuterrailserviceinPhase1(implementationof thefullcommuterrailsystemwouldrequiremostofthe fundingcurrentlyidentifiedforPhase1).SeeFinalEISChapter 6.0.

Throughthecollaborativedecisionmakingprocessdescribedin AppendixB,itwasestablishedthattheconstructionofthe commuterrailsystemwouldbeincludedinPhases2and3, ratherthanPhase1,forthefollowingreasons:

1).Implementationofcommuterrailwouldnotaddressproject purposeandneedelementsrelatedtotheneedtoimprove safetyandreplaceageinginfrastructureonI25andprovidefor theefficientmovementoffreightalongI25,whichwere identifiedashighpriorityneedsthroughthecollaborative process.Useofidentifiedfundingforcommuterrailwould greatlylimittheabilitytobeginaddressingtheseotherneeds inPhase1. 2).ThetimingofimplementationofRTD’sNorthwestRailand NorthMetrocorridorsiscurrentlyuncertain,andmayoccur afteryear2035.Completionofatleastoneofthesecorridorsis neededtobeabletoprovideacommuterrailconnectionto Denver. 3).Theagencytransitoperatorhasnotyetbeenidentifiedfor thecommuterrailsystem.

Basedontheseconsiderations,commuterbusandexpressbus servicehavebeenincludedinPhase1,alongwithasubsetof thePreferredAlternativeI25improvementstobeginto addresshighpriorityneeds.SeeFinalEISSection8.4.However, thecollaborativedecisionmakingprocessrevealedadesireto showastrongcommitmenttotheconstructionofrailinthe future.Thiswasachievedbyincludingthepurchaseofallright Page 103 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FEISTeam

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ofwayneededforcommuterrailinPhase1.

1 Chris& Bolton IhavebeeninvolvedintransportationissuesinLarimerCo.sincetheearly Yourcommentexpressesconstructingonlycommuterrail Jeanne 90's.InthattimeIhavecometorealizethattheONLYfeasiblenew alongBNSFcorridorasthetransportationsolutioninthestudy transportationneedispassengerrailfromFortCollinstoBoulderand area.PleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway Denver. Improvements. WeallknowthattheU.S.cannotsustainourcurrentrateofoilusage.Rail willsignificantlyreducethat. Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingenergyuse,airquality Theairqualityintheentirefrontrangeisapresentproblemwhichpassenger andsafety,theFinalEISpresentscomparativeinformationfor railcansignificantlyreduce. thethreebuildalternative(thePreferredAlternative,Package Passengersafetyistheothermajorimprovementwhichpassengerrailwill AandPackageB)andtheNoActionAlternativeforthese providetoourcitizens. topics.AsdescribedinSection3.21–Energy–energyuse Addtothesetheconvenience,reducedstress,improvedaccessibility,lower wouldbesimilarwithadifferenceoflessthan1%betweenthe cost,reductionofsprawlandthebenefitsofpassengerrailareclear. alternatives(withthePreferredAlternativehavingthehighest Themostusefulwaytoimplementpassengerrailistousetheexisting energyuse).AsdescribedinSection3.5–AirQualitytheair BurlingtonNorthernSantaFelinesbeginninginFortCollinsandendingin qualityemissionsformostairpollutantswouldbesimilarin Denver.Thisoptionwillutilizetheexistingdowntowninallthecitiesand year2035forallofthealternatives,andwouldbelowerthan townsontherouteandtherebyreducesprawlawayfromthoseexisting existinglevelsasaresultofimprovementsinvehiclesemissions towncenters. overtime.Withregardtosafety,asdescribedinSection4.6– Withtheuncertainfutureofoilavailability,Ibelievetheimplementationof Safety–allthreeofthebuildalternativeswouldimprovesafety thepassengerrailONLYistheoneportionofalltheelementsofbothplanA conditionsforthetravellingpubliccomparedwiththeNo andBthatshouldbeconsidered.Weverywellmaynotneedanyadditional ActionAlternative. lanesonceLarimerCountycitizenshaveanalternativetothesingle occupancyvehicle. Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingtherelationship Attheveryleastthisoption,passengerrailontheBNSFlines,shouldbe betweentransportationandlanduse(downtowncenters, consideredandthecostofthisonlyshouldbeshownandbrokendowninto sprawl),pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–Relationshipto itselementsforthecitizensinformation. LandUsePlanning. 2 Carolyn Duncan [A]RapidtransitisamustforColorado.Wearecaughtinanationwide [A]Eachofthebuildpackagesproposesnewregionaltransit dilemmaasmoreroadsleadtomoretraffic,morepollution,andmore services.Inparticular,thePreferredAlternativeincludes expense.Whiletherestoftheworldwasbuildingrapidtransit,theUnited multipletransitimprovements,includingCommuterRail, Stateswasbuildingsuburbs.Itisestimatedthatourcurrenthighwaysystem, ExpressBus,CommuterBus,andLocalBus.Weareuncertain ifmaintainedproperly,willcostaminimumof$500,000annually. whatthe$500,000annualcostyouciteisreferringto. [B]Oneofourcandidatesforcountycommissionerhasinvestigatedthe possibilityofusingtheexistingrailroadtracksforbothfreightandrapid [B]MuchoftheCommuterRailcorridorinthePreferred transitbynegotiatingthetimetable.Freightcanadaptnighttimeschedules AlternativeandPackageAwouldutilizetheBNSFrightofway. whiledaylighthourscanbeusedfortransit. However,thetimetableforfreighttrafficwouldbeminimally Page 104 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaEmail

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

[C]Ibelievethatthereisoppositiontothisproposalfromvariousmerchants adjustedforthisproject.ThePreferredAlternativeincludesa intheareawhodonotwanteasyaccesstootherareas.Also,therearetax singletracksystemutilizingtheexistingfreightrailtrackswith incentivesforsomedevelopersthatmightbelessenedandusedforthe passingtracksatsomelocationstomaintaincommuterrail transitprogram.[D]Oneofthescaretacticswasthatitwouldcost$4million service,andalsohelptominimizeconflictswithfreight amiletoconstructtracks. operations,whilePackageAincludesadoubletracksystem. Manyofusoldercitizenswouldusetransitexclusively.Weregularlydriveto LongmonttorideabustoDenver. [C]Whilesomeoppositiontothecommuterrailwas Everyeffortshouldbemadetoestablisharapidtransitsysteminthisarea. encounteredthroughouttheprocess,theimpactstolocal Beginningnowwillbenefiteveryone.Let’stakeColoradointoanewage. businesses,bothdirectandindirect,havebeendocumented throughoutandaresummarizedinSection3.3oftheFinalEIS. Mitigationmeasuresareoutlinedforimpactedproperty owners.

[D]ThecosttoconstructtheCommuterRailcomponentofthe PreferredAlternativeisestimatedtobe$14millionpermile,as describedinSections2.2and6.1oftheFinalEIS. 3 Irene Fortune PleasenotethatIspokeatthepublichearinginLovelandinsupportofthe Commentnoted. commuterRailcomponentofPackageA.Thereasonforthisemailistolist morereasonswhyIsupportCommuterrailalongHwy287. Inresponsetoyourcomments(numbered14inyour Here,again,aremypreferredimplementationsteps: comments)regardingimplementationsteps,pleasereferto 1.CommuterbusbetweenDenverandGreeley GeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues.Notethatthe 2.CommuterrailfromFortCollinstoLongmontandThornton,usingBNSF decisionmakersagreethatCommuterbusbetweenDenver railasmuchaspossible andGreeleyshouldbeimplementedinPhase1. 3.Eachnorthfrontrangetownandcommunityshouldpromotetransit optionsstronglyastheybecomeavailable,therebymotivatingadditional Inresponsetoyourcomments(numbered16inyour peopletousetransit comments)regardingadditionallanesonI25,pleasereferto 4.RemediatesafetyproblemsonI25anditsinterchanges. GeneralComment#0NeedforHighwayImprovements. IdonotsupportincreasingthenumberoflanesonI25aswrittenineither PackageAorB.Here’swhy: Severalofyourcommentspertaintotherelationshipbetween 1.TheuseoftheNorthI25EISRecordofDecisionintheupcoming2035 landuseanddevelopment.Inresponsetothesecomments, LandUseEISisahugeredflagtome!Giventhecloserelationshipbetween pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–RelationshiptoLandUse transportationandlanddevelopment,andtheunlikelihoodthatfundingwill Planning.Notethatthatlanduseplanningisalocal becomeavailableanytimesoon,itmakesmewonderwhetherthepurpose governmentresponsibility. forthisEISistolaythegroundworkforthenextwaveofdevelopment. 2.Consideringthatstateandregionalinfrastructureissadlyoutofdateand Inresponsetoyourcomment(numbered5inyourcomments) underfunded,itwouldseemprudentforgreenfielddevelopmenttoFOLLOW regardingthegoalsoftheEIS,thegoalsofthetransportation Page 105 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaEmail

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

transportationinfrastructureratherthanprecedeit.Thereare5 improvementareprimarilyexpressedintheChapter1 interchangesin5milesbetweenHwy60andCrossroads.Populationdensity PurposeandNeedoftheFinalEIS:mobility,safety,needto isverylowinthatareanow.IftheRecordOfDecisionincludesplansfor6 replaceaginginfrastructure,needtoprovideforefficient lanesplustwo5milemergelanesinthatstretch,thendeveloperswill movementoffreightandlackofmodalalternatives.Airquality developforcarbaseddevelopmentinthatarea.Allthatadditionalcartraffic andpedestrianandbicyclesafetyandaccommodationswere willverynegativelyaffectregionalhealthandsafetymetrics. evaluatedaspartoftheNEPAprocess.Theseareassessedin 3.RegardingLandUseEIS,ColoradoandCDOTshouldsetastandardfor detailintheFinalEISinChapters3and4.Asdescribedin transitorienteddesigninnewdevelopmentinregionswithpopulationabove Section3.5–AirQualitytheairqualityemissionsformostair somelevelandthegreenfieldaroundBerthoud,JohnstownandLoveland pollutantswouldbesimilarinyear2035forallofthe wouldbeaperfectplacetoforthisnewrequirement.Spaceshouldbe alternatives,andwouldbelowerthanexistinglevelsasaresult reservedforwalking,biking,busroutesandstopsand/orarailspur, ofimprovementsinvehiclesemissionsovertime. dependingondevelopmentlocationwithinalongtermTransportationPlan, sothatnewpopulationshavechoicesotherthandrivingorstayinghome. Inresponsetoyourcomment(numbered6inyourcomments, 4.Masstransit(railandbus)shouldbedesignedtohandlethepeakload regardingthetimeframeoftheEIS,theFinalEISalsoexamined traffictimessothatadditionallanesandroadsdonotgetbuilt.Transitis thepossibilityofa2050horizonyear,butprojectionsthatfar expandableatfarmorereasonablecoststhanadditionallanes,aspeak intothefuturearefraughtwithuncertaintiesandthe2035 trafficcontinuestogrow.Bycontrast,tobuildhighwaystohandlepeak yearwasselectedasthehorizonyear.Thisisconsistentwith trafficloadsistolagdemand–themoreroadsandlanes,themoretraffic. thelongrangeplanninghorizonandrequirementsforfiscal 5.ThegoalsoftheEISshouldincludehealtheffects(airquality,incidence constraint. ofrespiratoryhealthconditions,pedestrianandbicyclistsafety,exercise benefits,etc.)inadditiontothe‘regionalandinterregionalmovementof people,goods,andservicesintheI25corridor’,and‘addressingmobility, accessibility,safetyandaginginfrastructure’.Peopledonotonly“move about”here.Peopleareborn,work,raisefamiliesandretirehere.The climateisconducivetooutdoorexerciseandhealthbenefitsresult.Butifair qualityworsensduetoincreasedcartrafficthenevenbicyclists’healthis impactedandtherearealotofbicyclecommutershere. 6.TheEISshouldassessmetricsat2030and2050–tostopat2030isonly 20yearsaway.ThePortland,ORareaforexample,hada50yearlanduse plansincethemid90’s–let’slearnfromthem.Assuminga2%annual increaseinpopulationgrowthover40yearswillrevealthecosteffectiveness ofrailandfeedertransitsystemsversustheexpenseandnegativehealth effectsofadditionalI25lanes,roadsfeedingI25andparallelarterials. Thanksforthechancetoprovideadditionalfeedback. 4 Tim Katers Isupportthealignmentofrailservicealongthehighway287corridor Commentnoted. throughtheBerthoud,LovelandandFortCollinscommunities. Page 106 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaEmail

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

5 Elizabeth Kearney Railtransportofpeopleismorecosteffectiveandmorefuelefficientthan Commentnoted. personalcarorbus.Therailsystemislessexpensivetomaintainoncebuilt thanroads.SprawlwouldbeencouragedbyoptionBandwouldnotsupport Asyoumention,therailservices,asprovidedbyeither therevitalizationoforiginaldowntownareasalongtheBNSFline. PackagesAorthePreferredAlternative,offeramodefor regionaltripsthatismorefuelefficientthanindividualprivate automobiles.NotethatduetolesstrafficonI25,totalenergy useforPackageB(360,371BTU)islessthanthatofPackageA (361,900BTU)orthePreferredAlternative(362,222BTU). Whilecommuterrailoffersanenergyefficienttransportation mode,itdoesnotovercomethetrafficdifferencesamongthe alternatives.

Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingtherelationship betweentransportationandlanduse(downtowncenters, sprawl),pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–Relationshipto LandUsePlanning. 6 Evelyn King ThefollowingmaybeofinterestiftheI25EISbasedcostsonColorado Atthistime,ColoradoRailCarisnolongerinbusiness.DMUs Railcarinformation.Also,I'mnotsurethesafetyissueswereadequately areavailablefromothermanufacturers.UnitcostsforDMUs addressedbasedonthesecondreferenceinthefollowingemail.Twostories weredevelopedusingdatafromotherDMUmanufacturers intheOregonianaboutrailtransitwillbeofinteresttoColoradoreaders. andcomparedwiththeunitcostsRTDisusingforDMUson FirstisastoryaboutColoradoRailcar,whichhasbeenproposingadesignfor theirNWRailproject. "Dieselmultipleunits"(DMU)thattransitagenciescanuseforcommuter trains.Portland'stransitagency,TriMet,orderedsomeoftheseDMUsand SincetheimplementationofRTD'sLRTsystemovertenyears hashadseriousproblemswithColoradoRailcar.Thebasicproblem,Ithink, ago,crimeonboardvehiclesandatstationshasbeen isthatTomRader,whorunsColoradoRailcar,hashistoricallyhadabusiness statisticallyinsignificant.Crimeattransitstationsoronrail ofrebuildingpassengerrailcarsfromoldercars.Buildingcarsfromthe vehiclesreflectsthecrimeactivityofthesurrounding groundupismuchmoredifficultandIsuspectheunderestimatedthecost community.Safetyandsecuritymeasuresattransitstations anddifficultyinordertogetordersfromtransitagencies.ThiswillaffectRTD willbeprovidedandareincludedinthedesignand totheextentthatRTDwasdependingonColoradoRailcarforitsUS36and constructionandoperationscostestimates. NorthMetrolines.Readthefullstoryat http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/12/trimet.htmlSecond, theOregonianmaintainsauniquemapofPortland'slightrailsystem.Instead ofshowingschedules,itrevealsallthecrimethatisassociatedwithPortland lightrail.Therailstations,especiallyontheeastside,havebeentakenover bylocalgangs.Youcanseethemapat

Page 107 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaEmail

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2007/11/max.html 7 Scott Rees IhavelookedatthealternativesfortheNorthI25EIS,andasacitizenof Commentnoted. northernColorado,fullysupportOptionA,withacommuterrailandstopping pointinBerthoud.Ican'trememberifthereareoptionsfortransfercenters ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludeacommuter innorthLongmontand/orsouthLoveland,butIfeelthatacentrallylocated railstationinBerthoud,whichwouldserveasatransfercenter transfercenterinBerthoudwouldbeagreatalternative.Pleaseconsiderthis toaneastwestfeederbusroutebetweenBerthoudand asmycommentsontheinformationthatwaspresentedinthepublic Milliken.StationsinLongmontandLovelandwouldalsoserve hearings.Thanks. astransfercenterstothelocalbusroutesinthoserespective communities. 8 William Rosquist Iamwritingtoexpressmyoptionforthe3DOTalternativesfornorthI25. Commentnoted. MychoiceisfortherailonlyoptionfromPackageA.Thisistheonlyoption thatfillsthreerequirementsofdecreasingairpollution,decreasingusageof InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI nonrenewableresources,andanincreaseinpassengersafetyonthe 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway corridor.ThereisarealfearamongcitizensofnorthernColorado,especially Improvements. theelderly,inusingI25,andadditionaltrafficlaneswilljustmeanmorecars tryingtofunnelintothebottleneckthatoccursinthevicinityofI76andthe Boulderturnpike.Thanks. 9 Earl&Twila Stevens WeneedpackageAthiswillprovidemoreefficienttransitfromthestateline Commentnoted. toDenver.Commuterrailandbusserviceswillbestserveseniorswhoneed transportationservices.Buildingmoreroadsisonlyashorttemporaryfix. PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingthemetroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne. 10 CleanWater Wockner CLEANENERGYTRANSPORTATIONSOLUTIONSFORNORTHERNCOLORADO Manyofyourcommentsnotethebenefitsofagoodtransit Action CleanWaterActionendorses“PackageA”(withmodification)oftheNorthI system,whichwerecognizeintheEIS.Yourexpressed 25DEIS.PackageAisacleanenergytransportationsolutionforthefuture preferenceforPackageAisnoted. environmentalandeconomicprosperityofnorthernColorado.Thefuture Page 108 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaEmail

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

transportationsystemsavailabletonorthernColoradoresidentswillbeakey Severalofyourcommentsrelatetotherelationshipbetween featurethatdetermineshowthisareadevelopsaswellastheenvironmental transportationimprovementsandlanduse;inresponseto andeconomichealthofthelandscapeandthecitizens.Transportation thesecomments,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0– systemsthatpromotehidensitycorecityredevelopment,reducesprawl, RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. incorporatetransit,andprovidesafeandreliablemeansformovingpeople aroundwillleadtoahigherqualityofenvironmentalandeconomichealth.In Foreachofthethreealternatives,theFinalEISprovides addition,fiscalresponsibilitythatpromotesthebestuseoftaxpayerdollars comparativeinformationontheimpactsontheresourcesthat willalsoincreaseeconomicopportunityandtheoverallprosperityofthe youmention,includingairquality,VMT,openspace,wildlife region. habitat,wetlandsandfloodplains,economicconditions, “PackageA”(withmodification)oftheI25DEISisacleanenergy compatibilitywithlocalplans,andlanduse.Yes,manytripson transportationsolutionforthefutureofnorthernColorado.Specifically, thecommuterraillineofeitherPackageAorthePreferred PackageAwillinvestintransitthatconnectsthecitycoresofFortCollins, Alternativearecitytocitytrips. Greeley,Loveland,Berthoud,andLongmont,andwillthenbeconnectedto theDenverMetroRTD/FasTrackssystems.Byinvestingincorecitytransit Yourcommentsexpressapreferencefortransitimprovements systems,PackageAwill: beforeI25improvements;inresponsetothesecomments, •Reducesuburbansprawlbypromotingcorecityredevelopment, pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. •PromotebetweencitytransportationinnorthernColorado–whichisthe majorityofcurrenttransportationpatterns–ratherthanpromoting Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingtheneedfor increasedcommutingtoDenver, additionallanesonI25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0 •Reducegreenhousegasemissions,VMTs,ozone,andairpollution, NeedforHighwayImprovements. •Reduceimpactstoopenspace,wildlifehabitat,andrivercorridors, •Reduceenergyandwaterneedsofagrowingpopulation, •Reducetheamountofmoneythatcitizenspayfortransportationand gasoline, •Increasebus,bicycle,andpedestriantravelinthecoresofcities, •Increasetheeconomichealthoftheregionbyinvestingfederalandstate transportationdollarsin“Smart”projectsthatpromotecleanenergy transportationsolutions, •Maintainandincreasethedistinctcharacterandeconomiesofcities, •Decreasetheamountofmoneycitiesandtaxpayerswillhavetopayfor newgrowth–corecityredevelopmentismuchlessexpensivethansprawl, •TieindirectlywithurbanrenewalplanningofnorthernColoradocities, •FueltheNewEnergyEconomyofnorthernColorado, •Increasetheoverallprosperityandqualityoflifeofcitizens, •Serveasanationalmodelforcleanenergytransportationinagrowing metropolitanarea. Page 109 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaEmail

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ThefollowingmodificationtoPackageAisalsoendorsed: •“TransitFirst”:ThepassengerrailsystemfortheBurlingtonNorthernSanta Fe(BNSF)lineshouldbebuiltbeforeI25isfurtherwidened.Byinvestingin TransitFirst,the1.3billiondollarexpenditureforwideningI25maybe significantlydelayedorcompletelyunnecessary.TransitFirstwillalso significantlyreduceongoingmaintenancecostsonNorthI25. 11 Timothy Ackerman Usingexistingfreightraillineswouldbethecheapest,andmostpopular Aseparatestudyisconsideringmovingsomefreightrailtothe amongsturbanandsuburbandwellingcommuters.Takethefreighttraffic easternplains.Somefreightrailwouldremainontheexisting outeastrural,makeallurbanlinespassengerrail.Savebillionsofdollarsand raillinestoservethelocalcommunities.Forthisreason, billionsoftonsofCO2emissions.Makethetrainsbikefriendly. passengerrailplansarecoordinatedwithfreightrailneeds.

Thecommuterrailoperationswouldlikelyhavesimilarbicycle accommodationstothosecurrentlyusedbyRTD.RTDcurrently allowsfourbicyclespervehicleonitslightrailvehicleswithout anytimerestrictions.RTDhasnodetailedpoliciesforbicycles oncommuterrailvehiclesbutisexpectedtomaintainatleast thesameaccessibilityascurrentlyexistsonlightrailvehicles. 12 Bonnie Adamson IfeelitisveryimportanttohavecommuterrailfortheNorthernColorado Commentnoted. area.Weneedtolooktothefuturewhengasolineisinshortsupply. Coloradowillgreatlybenefitbyhavingcommuterrail. 13 Sherry Albertson AsaresidentofNOCOwhotravelsbyautotoDenvernearlyweekly,I Commentnoted. Clark stronglysupportmakingsafetyupgradesonI25,aswellasthemasstransit componentsofPackageA.Iamalsoinfavorofacommuterrailsystemusing InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI theexistingtrack,toconnectcommunitiesfromFortCollinstoLongmont. 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway Weneedsolutionsnowthatdonotinvolvebuildingmorelanesofpavement. Improvements. 14 Roger Alexander Iamhappytoseeyouaddressingtheissueonaregionallevel.Ivotefor Afullrangeofrailtechnologies,includingmonorail,was commuterrail(highspeedmonorail?)asthebackbonefromCheyenneto evaluated.ThisevaluationisdocumentedinChapter2ofthe PuebloandDIAtoVail.Raisedmonorailwouldhavethesmallestfootprint EIS.Commuterrailwasfoundtobethemosteffectivesolution andthesmallestimpactonenvironmentalsystemsandwildlife.Itwould forthiscorridor.Thetraveldemandmodelingeffortindicates probablybethesafest,too.Highspeedcommuterrailwouldmovethemost thatadditionallanesonI25arecriticaltoaddresscongestion peoplethequickestwiththeleastfuel.Inadditionrailserviceismore andfreightmobilityinthecorridorin2035. enjoyablethanbusservice.AddingmorelanestoI25willjustperpetuatethe existingproblemsaspopulationincreases. Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, Page 110 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

Theidentificationofthepreferredalternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 15 Kristen Andersen IamreallyexcitedaboutOptionAfortheN.I25Projectandamwritingto YourexpressedpreferenceforPackageAoverPackageBis expressmysupportforit.Thisoptionmainlyusesexistinginfrastructureto noted. bringtransportationoptionsdirectlytowherethemajorpopulationcenters areinnorthernColoradoalongtheraillineandthussupportsexisting TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout communities.Ithasthepotentialtohelprevitalizemanyailingdowntowns, throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed includingthoseinBerthoud,Loveland,andLongmont.Italsoallowsthe inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. maximumpossiblenumberofpeopletowalktomasstransportationservices insteadofneedingtodrivetogetthere.IamopposedtoOptionBbecauseit Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingtherelationship wouldrequirepeopletodrivetotheI25corridortoaccessmasstransit betweentransportationandlanduse(downtowncenters, there.Thiswouldkeepmorecarsontheroad,thusincreasingpollution,and sprawl),pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–Relationshipto ismuchlessaffordableandaccessibleforallfamilies,butespeciallythose LandUsePlanning. Page 111 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

withlowenoughincomestomakecarownershipimpossible.Italsoseems unlikelytoalleviatecongestioninthelongterm.Asmorepeoplemoveto InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingI25improvements, thisarea,wewillcontinueneedingmoreandmorelanesontheinterstateto pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway keeptrafficmovingquicklyduringrushhour.WhileoptionAismore Improvements,whichalsodiscussesthebenefitsofTELlanes. expensive,itssupportofcurrent,compactdevelopmentintowncentersis likelytopayfinancialdividendsoverthelongtermbyavoidingnewsprawl alongtheI25corridor,withallthenewpublicservicesthatwouldrequire. PleasechooseoptionAtoimprovetransportationalongtheI25corridor.Itis theclearwinnerfornorthernColoradoinprotectingandimprovingour environment,communities,andqualityoflife.Thankyousomuchforgiving usthisoptionandforconsideringmycomments. 16 Tj Anderson WouldliketosupportOptionA Commentnoted. 17 Ray Anderton RTDlightrailisneededtoLongmontandbeyondtoFt.Collins.Howelsecan Commentnoted. webegintoquitourdependencyonforeignoilinsufficientnumberstomake adifference? ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 18 Sharon Anhorn IamwritinginregardtothemasstransitoptionsA&Bforthefrontrange.I Commentnoted. wouldaskyoutosupportOptionAforcommuterrailserviceontheexisting railline.Ialsothinkthisshouldbepursuedfirstexclusiveofadditionalwork Inresponsetoyourcommentexpressingapreferencefor onI25.Itseemstomakesensetoseejusthowgreataresponseintheway constructingcommuterrailfirst,pleaserefertoGeneral ofuseisontherailsystembeforepouringmoremoneyintoaddedlanesonI Comment#0NeedforHighwayImprovementsandGeneral 25.AsaDenvernativewithallmyfamilystillinDenverandasasenior Comment#0–FundingandCostIssues. citizen,IwillbedeeplyaffectedasIgrowolderinthatmyoptionsforgoing toDenverwilldecreasealongwithmyabilitytodrive.Also,Idobusinessin DenverandwouldhavetoabandonmygoodlifehereinLovelandandmove backtoDenverifIamtocontinuetoseemyfamilyanddobusiness.The easterncorridorofourcontinenthasitalloverusforpublictransportation. Page 112 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Wealreadyhavetherails.Let'susethem!Thankyouforyourtime. 19 Anonymous Aseemstomakemoreurbanplanningsensesincethatiswherethe Commentnoted. populationlives. 20 Alan Apt IsupportoptionAwithrailalong287. Commentnoted. 21 Alan Apt ThePoudreCanyonGroupoftheSierraClubsupportsAlternativeAwithan Commentnoted. emphasisoncommuterrailonexistingraillines,ornearlocalcommunities. ThiswillkeepdowntownareasvitalandencouragecompactgrowthsoVMTs InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI canbereducedandairqualityimproved.Weareopposedtotheadditionof 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway autolanestoI25becausenoregionhasbuiltitswayoutofcongestion;railis Improvements. themostcosteffectiveandenvironmentallysoundalternative.Wefeelthat maintainingmorelanesandnewroadconstructionisunsustainable Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduse,pleaserefer financiallyandenvironmentallyovertime.Wecannotaffordtomaintain toGeneralComment#0–RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. existinginfrastructure.Railisthemostfinanciallyandenvironmentally sustainablekindoftransportationinfrastructure,andthereisbroadsupport forthis21stCenturysolution.Thankyou.ConservationChair,PCG 22 Tiffany Ayraud IsupportoptionA(allowingformuchneededexpansionofI25,pluspossible Commentnoted. futurerailroadtransit). 23 Kate Bailey IwouldliketovoicemysupportforProjectAforseveralreasons.First,I Commentnoted. believecommuterrailoffersamuchmoreenvironmentallybenignmodeof movingpeoplethanincreasingtolllanesandcontinuingtherelianceupon TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout carsastheprimarymodeoftransportation.Second,IpreferProjectA throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed becauseitdistributesthetrafficloadbetweenthreecorridors,ratherthan inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess.The continuingtoshuttleeverythingviaI25.Thirdly,becauseProjectAincludes PreferredAlternativeincludedimprovementsalongmultiple multiplecorridors,itallowsforbetteraccessbetweenwesteastpoints corridors,similartoPackageA. ratherthanfocusingexclusivelyonthenorthsouthcorridor.Thirdly,while bothprojectshaveenvironmentalimpacts,ProjectAoffersthemostbangfor Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingtherelationship thebuck,sotospeak,inthatitwillmovemorepeoplemoreefficientlyover betweentransportationandlanduse(downtowncenters, timethaneitherProjectBornoaction.Finally,Ithinktheinvestmentin sprawl),pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–Relationshipto commuterrailandbusservice,asopposedtobuslanesandHOV/tolllanes, LandUsePlanning. willdrawmoregrowthtourbanareasandallowforlesssuburban development/sprawl.Theresultwillbetopreservemoreofthefarmland InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingI25improvements, thatstillexistsintheI25vicinity.ProjectAtakesalongertermlookatthe pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway needsoftheareaandprovidesabettersolutionforthelongterm.Thankyou Improvements,whichalsodiscussesthebenefitsofTEL. fortheopportunitytocomment. Page 113 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduse,pleaserefer toGeneralComment#0–RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 24 Mark Bailey IlikeprojectAbecauseitwillputintoplacealightrailoralternative Commentnoted. transportationsystemregardlessoffuturegrowthincludingincreasedtraffic intheaffectedareas.Thegoalistoreducevehiculartrafficandpollutionand ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail nowisthetimetodothiswhilethereismoneyfortheproject.PlanBwould fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe helpforawhilebutlikesimilarfixesinCalifornia,Texas,etc.,increased NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing growthwouldeventuallyovercometheadditionallanesandroutes.Having toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology therailinplacewillhelpcommutersgettowheretheyaregoingwithoutthe thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail havingtodealwithheavytraffic,accidentsandlengthytraveltimesduring corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors poorweatherconditionsand/oraccidents. incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingfunding,pleaserefer toGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway Improvements. 25 Susan Bailor IstronglysupportOptionAthatwillconnectthecentersofourcommunities Commentnoted. andIhopeyouwillgiveyourstrongestconsiderationtothisoption. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduse,pleaserefer toGeneralComment#0–RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 26 Thomas& Baker Pleasedonotput6lanelanesonI25.Theinterchangesarebecomingmore InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI Rosika congestedanddangerous,andadditionallaneswillonlymakeitworse. 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway However,threelanestoCheyennewillbenefitinstreamliningthedrive.We Improvements. areferventadvocatesofplacingalightrailsystem,withdifferenttraintimes andstopsatallthetownsbetweenDenverandCheyenne;andvarioustimes PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin toaccommodateonlymajorcitiesbetweenthetwocapitols.(Ihaveusedthe Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto railsysteminsouthernCAbetweenLaVerneandLAanditistimeandcost Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit saving.)WehavelivedinLovelandforthepast40yearsandhaveseenthe improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA congestiononI25fromCheyennetoDenverdramaticallychangeoverthe andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand years.MyhusbanddrivesfromLovelandto38thAve5day/weekandthis Greeley,andextendingthemetroDenver.Theextensionof Page 114 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

hasdramaticallychangedinthewayhedrivestoandfromwork.Thankyou. transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 27 Valerie BakerEasley AsaresidentofNorthernColoradofrequentlytravelingtoDenver,Isupport Commentnoted. PackageAoftheCDOTNI25DraftEIS.Commuterrailandimprovedbus servicetoournortherncommunitiesisawiseandeffectiveinvestmentfor thetransportationneedsofthegrowingpopulationoftheI25corridor. 28 Deanna Ball Weneedthis,thesoonerthebetter Commentnoted. 29 LuAnn Ball Isupportanyrailsystemtoservicethefrontrange.Commuterrailorlight Commentnoted. rail,anythingbutmoreautotraffic. 30 Robert Barlow Whyistherejustthetwooptions,A&B?Whycan'tyoujustwidenanddo ThebasicimprovementsjustcompletednorthofLongmont basicimprovementsasyouhavedonenorthtoLongmont? werecompletedunderanEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)and FindingofNoSignificantImpactsignedin1995.These improvementswereoneofthelastconstructionprojects approvedundertheEA.Atthebeginningofthisprojecta PurposeandNeedstatementwasdeveloped.Itconsiders communityobjectives,inputsolicitedfromcitizensand stakeholdersandfuturelanduseplansintheregionamong otherthings.Theresultofthisprocesswastodeterminethata regionalplanwasdesiredtoidentifyavarietyoftransportation solutionsthatcouldworkinconcerttoaddressthetravel Page 115 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

needsthroughoutthenorthernColoradocommunities,notjust alongI25.Basedonthatinformationawiderangeof transportationalternatives(over100)wereevaluatedto determinetheirapplicabilityinthecorridor.Throughan extensiveevaluationprocesstransportationalternativeswere eliminatedand/orpairedwitheachothertodevelopasetof improvementsthataddressestheprojectgoals.Thetwo packagesthatbestaddressedtheproject’sPurposeandNeed andhadsupportfromthecommunitieswerePackagesAandB. Furtherevaluationofthosepackagesbasedonpublic commentsandadditionalinputfromtheproject’stwoadvisory committeesledtothedevelopmentofthePreferred AlternativethatisevaluatedinthisFinalEIS. 31 Tangier Barnes It'snicetoseeGreeleyincludedinPackageA.IunderstandthatinPackageB CommuterrailservicealongtheexistingUnionPacificRailroad therewouldbeanefficientserviceforgettingpeoplefromGreeleytoI25via routesbetweenGreeleyandDenverwasconsideredduringthe HWY34,howeverWeldCountyhasgrownsignificantlyandifthiscontinues, alternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thisalternativewas anefficientalternativemodeoftransportationwillbecrucialalongHWY85. determinedtonotbeareasonableoptionbecauseitcaused StudentsandprofessionalsspendhourscommutingalongHWY85between outofdirectiontravelformanycommunities(exceptfor GreeleyandDenver.However,ifacommuterbusservicealongHWY85isnot Greeley),hadhigherpotentialforimpactstoenvironmental goingtobefasterthandrivingacar,itdoesn'tmakesensetospendthe resources,hadlowerridershipthantheBNSFcorridor,and money.IthinkthatcommuterrailservicefromGreeleytoDenveristhe wouldcostmoredueto50percentmoreatgradecrossings. ultimategoalforthelongterm. However,thePreferredAlternativeandPackageAinclude commuterbusservicebetweenGreeleyandDenver.Whilethe CommuterBuswillhavesimilartraveltimesasprivateautos,it willprovideanalternativetoautotravelforpeoplenotowning acarorwithoutaccesstoacar. 32 Lila Bartmann IappreciatetheamountofdetailavailableontheI25EISwebsite.Itwas Commentnoted. dauntinginitiallytofindwhatIneededtoreviewintheoptions.Atthistime, IsupportAlternativeACommuterRailfromFt.CollinstoDenver.Iam ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail concernedabouttheintegrityoftheBNSFraillinesforcommuteruseand fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe alsowonderhowmuchimpactthefreightscheduleswillcausesincewelive NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing within1mileofthetracksandthetrainsgothroughFCoften!Iwouldhope toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thatthelightrailoptionsforLongmont,BoulderandGreeleyareascanbea thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail realitysoon.IpersonallyknowagreatnumberofpeoplewhodrivetoDenver corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors orBoulderdailyfromCheyenneandFortCollins....mostofthemsolointheir incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis Page 116 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

cars.Weallneedotheroptions.....soon!Thankyou. corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 33 Louis Bartmann AsapastuseroflightrailinChicagoIstronglyrecommendasimilarsystem ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail forthefrontrange.Ivoteforplan"A"withthehopethatitwouldeventually fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe beexpandedfromCheyennetoColoradoSprings.Thankyou. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess.

PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingthemetroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne. 34 Anna Barton IownapropertyinMountainRangeShadows,andthetenantgavemeyour Commentnoted. infoonalternativesproposed.ISTRONGLYsupportcommuterrailservice! Thiswouldbemuchmoreenergeticallyefficienttransportation,would reduceemissionsandtrafficcongestion,correspondinglyreducingtraffic accidents,injuriesandfatalities.Itmakessomuchsense!Thankyoufor Page 117 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

askingouropinions! 35 Tim Beecher Hello.IamaresidentofFortCollinswhereIworkasapsychologist.Isoldmy Commentnoted. cartwoyearsagoandnowcommuteroughly13milesadaybybicycle,as wellasdoallmyerrandsbybicycle.WhileIlovemynewcarfreelifestyle, longerdistancesstillprovetobeachallengeandIsupportwholeheartedly anyeffortstogetpublictransportationfromFortCollinstoDenver(andcities inbetween).PleaseletmeknowwhatIcandoasacitizentohelppromote thispossibility. 36 Kathleen Benedict Pleasehurryandgetthisdone!Iwouldlovetohavesomesortofpublic Commentnoted. transportationbetweenFortCollinsandDenver,preferablytrainlike Denver'slightrail!!! Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingthetimingof implementation,pleaseseeResponsetoGeneralComment #0FundingandCostIssues

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 37 Teresa Bennett Pleasedon'tletlightraildieanuntimelydeathinnorthernCO.Longmonthas Commentnoted. beenpayingitsfairshare,andit'sthegatewaytotherestofnorthernCO. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand Page 118 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

isconsistentwithRTDplans. 38 Helene Bennett IsupportcommuterrailfortheNorthI25corridor. Commentnoted. 39 Linda Bersch IsupportPackageA,CDOTNI25DEISfornorthernColorado.Justmore Commentnoted. lanesonI25willnottakecareofourneedsnoworinthefuture. 40 Maris Berzins IwouldliketoexpressmystrongsupportforOptionAoftheNorthI25 Commentnoted. project,especiallytherailline.Thanks 41 Bobby Bienvenue PleasesupportPackageA Commentnoted 42 Robert Binckes Iwillattendthepublichearingtolearnmore.Iwouldbeinfavorofarail ThePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailservice systemwithaDIAconnection. betweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenveralongtheBNSF andSH119withaconnectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroand Northwestraillines.BothoftheFasTrackslinesconnectto downtownDenverwheretravelerscantransfertothe FasTrackseastcorridortoreachDIA.Inaddition,thePreferred Alternativesincludesexpressbusservicethatprovidesadirect connectionfornorthernColoradotravelerstoDIA. 43 Jim Birdsall IwantedtocommentonthedraftNorthI25EISoptions.Iliveandoperatea Commentnoted. businessinBerthoud.IfeelthatoptionA,puttingcommuter/lightraildown theexistingrailcorridoraswellasprovidingmasstransitalongtheHwy85 TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout corridoristhepreferableoption.Thecommunitiesthathavedevelopedwest throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed ofI25includingLongmont,Berthoud,LovelandandFortCollinsarein inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess.The proximitytotherailwhichwouldhelpgreatlyinsupportingtheideaofmass PreferredAlternative,includescommuterrailalongtheBNSF transitinNorthernColorado.ToplacetheprimaryN/Smasstransitcorridor corridoraswellascommuterbusalongUS85,asyouhave alongtheinterstatecreatesarequirementforeachcommunitytobuild expressed. infrastructuretoaccommodatecommutersfromthecommunitytothe interstate.Moreroads,parkinglotsetc.IfeelstronglythatOptionAwill AnalysisconductedintheEISconfirmsyoursentimentthat increasethesuccessofthisprojectlongtermaswellassupportingthehealth providingrailtransittotheexistingdevelopedcommunities ofthecommunitiesinNorthernColorado.Thanks. alongthewesternsideofthecorridorisabetteroptionthan railtransitalongI25.ThePreferredAlternativeincludesthis alignmentofrail.Inaddition,thePreferredAlternativeincludes bustransitalongI25.Thistypeofserviceismoreflexiblethan railandcaneasilyberoutedintothecommunitiestoserve themdirectly.However,itshouldbenotedthatthis improvementalone,isnotlikelytoeliminatetheneedfor Page 119 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

communitiestoaddresseast/westmobilityandaccesstothe interstate. 44 John Bittner ItismyardentbeliefthatthefutureofColoradowillbenefitmuchmore Commentnoted. profoundlybyabackboneofcommuterrailthanbyexpandinghighways. PleasepursueOptionAandmarkmyvoteassuch!! TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 45 Brad Blake Hello,Ijustwantedtosubmitmycommentsinthehopethatitwillhelpwith ThePreferredAlternativeisamultimodalsolutionwithbus, thiseffort.IliveinFortCollins,andforthelast8yearshavehadtocommute rail,andhighwayimprovementsthatwasdevelopedfroma toeitherDenverorBoulderforwork.IusetheVanGoprogrambasedinFort combinationofPackageAandBcomponents.ThePreferred Collins,whichhasbeenahugehelp.ButIthinkthatthelongtermvision Alternativeincludesinterchangereconstructions,theaddition needstobetowardgettingahighspeedtrainlinegoingfromFortCollins ofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanesalongI25, throughDenver,allthewaytoColoradoSprings,anditwouldbeevenbetter commuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailroad iftherewasalsoalinefromDenvertoBoulder!!Iammorethanwillingtodo tracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthMetroend anythingIcantohelpmakethishappen,sopleasefeelfreetocontactmeif oflinestationinThorntonandtheNorthwestRailendofline there'sanythingIcando!! stationinLongmont,andcommuterbusalongUS85between GreeleyanddowntownDenver.ThePreferredAlternativealso assumesthatfeederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobring localtraffictothecorridortrainservice.Moredetailed informationconcerningthePreferredAlternativeisincludedin Chapter2AlternativesoftheFinalEIS.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor. Page 120 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

46 Helen Boggs IfavorrailservicethroughtheFrontRangecityinteriorsbecauseofgreater Commentnoted. rideraccessibilityfromthecitycenters.Thisshouldgreatlyhelpease increasedcommutertrafficbetweenWellingtonandDenver. 47 Elaine Boni IstronglysupportoptionA.IdrivetoDenveratleasttwiceaweekandI Commentnoted. wouldsupportcommuterrailalongtheBNSFrailcorridor.Thankyou. 48 Frank Bonifazi I'mhopingtohearmoreabouttheplansandamhopingtoseealightrail ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements fromFt.CollinstoDIAandDenver. onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF corridor,asanextensionoftheNorthMetroRTDFasTracks CommuterRaillinetodowntownDenver,allowingatransferto commuterrailservicetoDIA.Notethatcommuterrailisa differenttechnologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperate infreightrailcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsover longercorridorsincontrasttolightrail.Commuterrailhas beenidentifiedforthiscorridorandisconsistentwithRTD plans.Inaddition,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor, expressbusalongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusserviceare includedinthePreferredAlternative.Intermsofhighway improvements,thePreferredAlternativeincludessafety improvementsthroughoutthecorridor,theadditionofgeneral purposelanesonI25betweenSH14andSH66,tolledexpress lanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS36,andinterchange improvements.SeeChapter2Alternativesfordetails. 49 Gary Boughton AsatransplantedCalifornianireallyappreciatetheproblemsoftraffic Commentnoted. congestionhereinco.tomeplanAmakesthemostsense.ibelieverail transitisthemosteffectivewaytomovepeople(seeMetrolinkinsocalif) althomostpeoplethinkittooexpensive.Itisamustforus.Alsodobelieve expressbuses(BRT)andonfreewaysareessential.Ifeelthatinitiallyexpress busservicebeprovidedtoshowpeoplethebenefitsofrapidtransitasmost peopledon'tknowtoomuchorcaremuchaboutit.Amveryexcitedabout yourplansandreallybelieveyouareontherighttrack(punintended). thanksfor"listening" 50 Lori Bretthauer WESTRONGLYSUPPORTCOMMUTERRAILWOULDBEHAPPYTOPAYTAXTO Commentnoted. PAYFORPROJECT Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingfunding,pleaserefer Page 121 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

toGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. 51 Susan Bricker IsupportoptionAincludinglightrailthroughthedowntownsofFortCollins Commentnoted. &Loveland.Weneedtolooktowardthefutureandprovideameansfor escapingtheurbansprawlofDenverwithanenvironmentallyfriendlier ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail optionthanmoreinterstate. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway Improvements. 52 Pauline Brinkerhoff InconnectionwithColoradoDepartmentofTransportation's(CDOT)NorthI Commentnoted. 25DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(NI25DEIS)andtoprovideviable transportationchoicesforthemovementofpeopleandgoodsinthe NorthernFrontRange(NFR),wesupport:necessarysafetyupgradesonI25, masstransitcomponentsofPackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrail connectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,there connectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.Myfamily wouldwelcomethisstepintherightdirection.Itispastdue.Let'sgetupto speedwiththerestofthedevelopedworldinregardtomasstransit. 53 Carole Brinkhoff ItonlymakessensetohavealightrailgoingtoatleastFtCollins,andmaybe ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail eventoCheyenne.ThetrafficisgettingsocongestedbetweenDenver&Ft fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe Collinsthatitdefinitelyneedsattention.Ibelievepeoplewoulduselightrail NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing ifitwereavailable. toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand Page 122 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

isconsistentwithRTDplans.

PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingthemetroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne. 54 Harrison Bromley AsaresidentofWeldCounty,living2milesfromI25,Iwouldnotliketosee Commentnoted. itcontinuouslywidened.IdrivefromGoldentoLovelandtwiceaweek,and evenwheretherearealready3lanes,thedrivingisstillcrowdedand Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingtheexistingtown stressful.IwanttobeabletositandrelaxonmywaytoDenver/Goldenorto centerspleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–Relationshipto Loveland/Berthoud.IfIcouldcatchthetrainfromanynorthernColoradocity LandUsePlanning. intoDenver,itwouldmakemylifemucheasier.Also,sincemostofthetraffic onI25livesincommunitieslikeBerthoud,Loveland,FortCollins,Longmont, Greeley,etc.,whynothaveacommutertrainthatgoesthrougheachof thesecommunities?Imaginehowsimpleandstressfreethatcommute wouldbe?Initialcostwouldn'tbetoexpensiveeither,thetracksarealready there.Safetyincommuteswouldincreaseaswell,asvehicularaccidentsare moreandmoreprevalentwithmoreandmorecrowdedhighways.Also,a trainthatstopsineachofthesetownswillboosttheeconomies.Theeasierit istogettothedowntownareas,themorelikelyconsumersaretogothere andspendtheirmoney.IknowBerthoudandLovelandarestrugglingwith keepingtheirdowntownsupandrunning.Withatrainbringinghundreds, possiblythousandstothesetownsadayyoucanseethebenefit.Another laneonahighwaydoesnothingforthesecommunitiesexceptaddstress, andmoreconstructiontodrivethrough.LookatEurope.Switzerlandhasa traingoingtoeachlittlehamletititscountry,andallofthemarethrivingdue totheeaseofgettingthere.Pleaseconsidereconomicsandeaseof commuteinsteadofdrivetimesandonlyvehiculartrafficwhenyouplan NorthernColorado'sfuture. Page 123 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

55 William BromleyIII IvoteforplanAandplanB.Iwouldlovetobeabletoreadabookonmyway Commentnoted. toDenverbecauseIwasridinginatrainorabus,insteadofincreasingmy chancesofheartdiseasefromthestressofdrivinginI25traffic! TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 56 Sally Broste IwouldliketoseePackageAimplemented,withthecommuterrailextending Commentnoted. southtonorthernDenver.MyhusbandandIwillusetherail,insteadof drivingtoLoveland,LongmontandWestminsteroften.WewillgotoDenver forconcerts,museums,meetingsandentertainmentmoreoften.Welivedin NorthernVirginiaandsawthealwaysincreasinguseofMetrothere; however,theshortsightednessofnotextendingmetrotooutersuburbsand buildingcrossconnectionsinthebeginning,hasbecauseofcostsatthetime, hasmeantthatthemetrorailisnotasflexibleanddoesnotservepopulations asitcould/should. 57 Nels Broste IsupportplanA,especiallytherailportionsthatprovidealternativeservices Commentnoted. tothetownsinthecorridor.Suchservicescouldboosttheeconomiesofall townsalongtheroute. 58 Brett Bruyere Noactionissimplynotanalternative;wehavebeguntolearntheimpactsof ThePreferredAlternativeisamultimodalsolutionwithbus, atransportationsystemthatprovidesalmostexclusivelyforautotravelonly. rail,andhighwayimprovementsthatwasdevelopedfroma AlternativeAisagoodmixofupgradesandnewservices.Iquestionifallof combinationofPackageAandBcomponents.The theinfrastructureimprovementsareneeded;itseemswasteful,forexample, infrastructureimprovementsidentifiedalongthecorridorwill thattheinterchangeatHarmonywouldneedaredesignwhenthat provideadditionalcapacity,butalsoimprovethesafetyofthe interchangewasupgradedinrecentyears.Therealityisthatwhileexpensive, travelingpublic.Theseimprovementsare,therefore,a railisthemostappealingoptionintermsofridership.Enhancedbusservice necessarycomponentofthePreferredAlternative.The simplywon'tappealtothepublic.I'llpay$28roundtriptotakeatrainto PreferredAlternativeincludesinterchangereconstructions,the Denverwithouthesitation.We'llgainthatinvestmentbackinimproved additionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes environmentalquality.Tollroads,etc.justkeepusinourcars.Idon'tsupport alongI25,commuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSanta that.Wehavetothinkoutsidetheboxintermsofhowwegetaround.It FerailroadtracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorth can'tbeautodependent;thatisaheadinthesandapproachinmyopinion. MetroendoflinestationinThorntonandtheNorthwestRail endoflinestationinLongmont,andcommuterbusalongUS 85betweenGreeleyanddowntownDenver.ThePreferred Alternativealsoassumesthatfeederbusservicewouldbe

Page 124 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

providedtobringlocaltraffictothecorridortrainservice. MoredetailedinformationconcerningthePreferred AlternativeisincludedinChapter2AlternativesoftheFinalEIS.

ThecostofthePreferredAlternativewillrequirethatitis constructedinphases.BecauseHarmonyRoadinterchange wasrecentlyreconstructed,itisnotexpectedtorequire improvementstoprovideadditionalcapacityuntilsometime after2035. 59 Nancy Bryan IsupportPlanAovertheothers.Itwilldothemosttooffermultiple Commentnoted. transportationalternativesasthepopulationofnorthernCOcontinuesto grow. 60 Chris Buckridge IamstronglyinfavorofacommuterrailsystemstoppinginBerthoud.I Commentnoted. wouldmakeuseofitseveraltimesaweekanddependingonexactlywhereit stopswouldevenuseitformydailycommutetowork. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludeacommuter railstationinBerthoud. 61 Beth Buczynski IWHOLEHEARTEDLYsupportacommuterrailalongI25!!!!Theenergy, RailalongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduringthe moneyandpollutionsavedwillbeastronomical.Itwouldgreatlyincreasemy alternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thisalternativewas optionsofliving,working,andstudyinginDenver,nottomentionmanyof determinedtobeinfeasiblebecausecentralrailalignments thesmaller,growingcommunitiesbetweenFortCollinsandDenver.Please wouldcostuptofourtimesmorethanalignmentsalongan PLEASEpursuethisconceptandgiveustherailsystemthatwillchangethe existingtrack.Therefore,thePreferredAlternativeincludes waypeoplemovearoundColorado. commuterrailservicebetweenFortCollinsanddowntown DenveralongtheBNSFandSH119withaconnectionto FasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines.

Further,ExpressBusservicewouldbeprovidedalongI25.The traveltimebetweenDenverandFortCollinsis93minutesfor PackageAcommuterrail;70minutesforPackageBBRTonI 25;94minutesforPreferredAlternativecommuterrail;and63 minutesforPreferredAlternativeexpressbusonI25in2035. 62 Robert Burton StronglysupportPackageAwithrailservice.Multiplesourcesof Commentnoted. transportationwillhelpusall. 63 Flo Butler CDOT'sPackageAYES.PublictransportationtoDenverbusorraillong, Commentnoted. longoverdueandDESPERATELYNEEDED. Page 125 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

64 Frank Cada IbelievethatPackageAistherightsolution.I25isapolluteranddangerous. Commentnoted. Weneedsomerailasthepopulationgrows. 65 Gerald Callahan IamveryexcitedaboutthenorthI25plans,especiallyplanAwithrail Commentnoted. servicetoDenverandpointsbetween 66 Richard Cape IaminfavorofoptionA. Commentnoted. 67 Eliza Carney IsupportthemasstransitcomponentsofPackageA,especiallythe Commentnoted. commuterrailconnectingcitycentersonexistingtrackbetweenFt.Collins andLongmont,thereconnectingwithDenverMetroFastTracksandRTDbus routes. 68 Mary Carraher MyfirstchoicewouldbecommuterrailalongtheexistingBNSFrailway.This Commentnoted. wouldbemostconvenientformanyofuswholiveintheoriginaltownof Loveland(asopposedtonewdevelopmentalongthefreeway).Icouldwalk Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 todowntownLovelandandeithertravelsouthtoDenverornorthtoFort mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, Collinsorbeyond.Thiswouldbegoodforthelocaleconomy,especially and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring originalLoveland.Itwouldreducepollutionandgasconsumption.Whilehigh thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere speedrailwouldbenice,itisnotnecessaryforthecommutealongtheFront determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot Range.Highspeedwouldrequirenewrail.Withcommuterservicewecan meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of useexistingrail.AfirststepwouldbecommutertransporttoLongmont theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing wherewecancatchabusintoDenver.However,thiswouldbemoretime necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat consumingandnotasmanypeoplewoulddothis.Iwouldloveatrainthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto goesrightintoDenver.WhilemorelanesonI25arehelpful,thisisnotmy manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe firstchoice.Itistimetobeprogressiveandtakerealaction. themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway Improvements. 69 Debbie Casale IwanttoseearailwayplanputinplacefromWyomingtoDenver.Iwould ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail definitelycommuteback/forthonatrainfromDenvertoLovelandifrail thatwouldprovideservicebetweenFortCollinsandDenver, servicewasanoption.IalsothinkthespeedlimitonI25needstobe alongtheBNSFcorridor.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicated loweredto55mph.75mphiswaytoohighandcontributesinmyopinionto thatonly0.1%ofalldailytripsfromNorthernColorado moreaccidents.Idon'tdriveI25veryoftenbecauseofthehighspeeds. communitiesaredestinedforCheyennethereforethe proposedcommuterrailwouldterminateinFortCollins.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority Page 126 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

(http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Thisservicecouldpotentiallyextendto Wyoming.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudyservesa differentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS.The commuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.Notein addition,CDOTwillbeconductinganInterregionalConnectivity studyforvariouspotentialcorridorsinthestate.

Basedonstandardindustrypractice,reducingtheposted speedlimitonafacilitydoesnoteffectivelyreducethespeed atwhichpeopletravel.Forthisreason,speedlimitsare typicallyestablishedusingthe85thpercentileofactualtravel speedontheroad. 70 Margie Caswell IwanttobringcommuterrailtotheNorthFrontRange.Isupport:necessary Commentnoted. safetyupgradesonI25,masstransitcomponentsofPackageA,and commuterrailconnectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinsto Longmont,thereconnectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbus routes. 71 Stephen Charles PassengerrailthroughBerthoudtotheDenvermetroareawouldreduce Commentnoted. trafficflowonI25/US287/etc.reducingpollution,trafficcongestion,and trafficaccidentswhichresultininjuryordeath.Itwouldalsoreducethe demandforDenvermetroparking;allowingareasusedforfutureparkingto bedevelopedforcommercial,residential,openspaceorpublicparks. 72 Steven Chorak Stronglysupporttolledexpresslaneswithsecondchoicebeingadditional Commentnoted. regularlanes. 73 DAnn Chorak Isupportexpresstolllaneswithmoreregularlanesbeingmysecondchoice. Commentnoted. Tolllanesplacesomeofthecostonusers. 74 Jane Clark FrontRangepassengerrailserviceisfarpreferabletoaddingevenmore Commentnoted. lanestoI25.Servingcitycentersitwillhelpreducesprawlwhichnotonly gobblesupproductiveagland,butcontributestowastefulnessoverall. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingexistingcitycenters Page 127 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

andlanduse,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0– RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning.

InresponsetoaddingmorelanestoI25pleasereferto GeneralComment#0NeedforHighwayImprovement. 75 Allen Clauson Fortherecord....Thisissueofcommuterbusvs.commuterrailisaNO Commentnoted. BRAINER!Whenyousetshorttermfundingaside,commuterrailisthevery bestchoiceforthefollowingreasons:1)Itpermanentlyremovescommuter congestionfromtheI25corridor.2)Railserviceis:fuelefficient,dependable inallweather,faster,andsafer!3)Thisservicewouldprovideapositive continuingbenefittoeachofthecitiesserved,nottomentionthepublicin general.4)Theinstitutionofthisservicewouldprovideincentivetothe RegionalTransportationDistricttohonortheirpromisetothetaxpayersof LongmontandBoulderCountytoprovidecommuterrailservicetoour regiontoo. 76 Richard Coen 1)WeneedawaytousepublictransittogettopointsbeyondLoveland.We Commentnoted. inFortCollinshavenobusortrainservicethatgetuseventoLongmont.At leastabusbetweenLovelandandLongmontwouldhelp.2)Pleaseprovide railservicealongtheentirefrontrange.Thetimehascomeforalternatives tothehighway. 77 Andrew Colony Pleasedowhatisnecessarytoprovidecommuterrailtoallcommunitiesto Commentnoted. thenorth.thankyou 78 Dolores Conley Shuttletransportationthatdiminishespersonalvehicleuseisalwaysthebest Commentnoted.Weassumethatshuttletransportationis useoftravelpathways. referringtotransit(rail,bus,etc.).ThePreferredAlternative includesseveraltransitimprovementsthatwillprovide travelersoptionsbesidetheuseofpersonalvehicles. 79 Kosta Constantine IdriveI25toDIAatleasttwiceperweek.Thefourlaneportionisinverybad Commentnoted. shape.ThisneedstobeexpandedtosixlanestonorthofFortCollinsassoon aspossible.Manyotherhighwayprojectshavebeengivenpriorityinthe statelikeI25inSouthDenverwhilethesectionIdrivenorthofLongmontis ignored.ItiswaypasttimetodoitrightandfinishsixlanesallthewaytoCO Hwy14.

Page 128 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

80 Dan Coogan Thisareawillonlycontinuetoexpandandwillneedatrainatsomepoint. Commentnoted. Besttodoitnow. 81 Kevin Cook AsaresidentandbusinessownerinnorthernColoradoIstronglysupport Commentnoted. optionA,whichincludesI25laneadditions,interchangerebuildsand commuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailcorridor.Thisrail Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduse,pleaserefer linewillconnectthecentersofourcommunities,allowingpeopleto toGeneralComment#0–RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. convenientlyvisitfamilyorfriends,conductbusinessordineandshopin otherareasbytakingatrainfromtowntotown.I'velearnedthatacritical factorforthesuccessofapublictransitsystemisthenumberofpeoplethat liveclosetothetransitstations.ThisclearlyfavorsoptionA,whichincludesa railstationinornearthetraditionaldowntownsofFortCollins,Loveland, BerthoudandLongmontaswellasatotherstrategiclocationssuchasCSU. OptionAsavestaxpayermoneybyutilizingtheexistingrailcorridorbetween FortCollinsandLongmonttoreducerightofwayacquisitioncosts.OptionA supportsvibrantdowntownswithpeopletravelingonfootorbicyclepast shopsontheirwaytoandfromthetransitstations.OptionAencourages transitorienteddevelopmentneartherailstations,furtheraddingto commerceinthedowntownareas. 82 Donald Crain Greatidea,ThiswouldremoveaneedformorelanesonI25 Commentnoted.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway Improvements. 83 Ryan Croke IwouldliketovoicemysupportforoptionAfortheNorthI25 Commentnoted. EnvironmentalImpactStatement.Railisamuchbetteroptionthanbuses. ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF corridor.Inaddition,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor, expressbusalongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusserviceare includedinthePreferredAlternative.Yourobservationabout railcomparedtobusesreflectsthefactthatrailtypically attractsmoreridersthanbusservice.Theridershipratio betweenthetwomodesdependsonavarietyoffactorsfor eachcorridor'suniquecharacteristicsandtravelmarkets. ThesefactorsareincludedintheFinalEIStraveldemand Page 129 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

model.Thedecisiontoproviderailandbuselementstogether wasmadetoprovideanintegratedtransportationsystemthat servesthevariedneedsofthenorthernfrontrange communitiesandcorridors.Thetransitservicesofferedbythe packagesgenerallyprovidecomparabletraveltimesto downtownDenver.ThetransittraveltimebetweenDenverand FortCollinsis93minutesforPackageAcommuterrail;70 minutesforPackageBBRT;94minutesforPreferred Alternativecommuterrail;and63minutesforPreferred Alternativeexpressbusin2035.CommuterRailwouldbefaster thanthe132minutesforautotravelintheNoAction,and fasterthanthegeneralpurposeautotraveltimeof107to117 minutesinthebuildalternatives.Thetraveltimecomparison forallalternativesandallmodesisavailableinChapter4ofthe FinalEIS 84 Bill Cronenberg HelloIwouldbeinfavorofcommuterrailwithDMU'sbeingusedasthe Commentnoted. trainsets.DMU'scanbeusedinfavoroflocomotivespullingpassengercars. DMU'sarequieterandmorefuelefficientthanconventionallocomotives. Atthistime,DMUistheidentifiedrailvehicletechnologyfor DMU'sarebyfarlessexpensivetopurchaseandoperatewhencomparedto thecorridor. electricallightrailtrains.DMU'salthoughdieselpowered,arecapableof meetingTier2and3pollutioncompliance.Withgreatadvancesinresearch onbiodiesel,afleetofDMU'scanbeeasilyconvertedandflexiblefuel capable.DMU'scanalsobemoreeasilymaintainedcomparedto conventionallocomotivepassengerconsists,asaworkforcefamiliarwith maintainingbusfleets,canmaintainaDMU,astheenginesinaDMUare similartowhatisusedinabus.BothBNSFRailwayandUnionPacifichave showntheyarewillingtocooperatewithcommuterrailagencies,bysharing trackagerights.Letusnotsquanderthischance,whilethehostrailroadsare willingtohelp.ThankYou. 85 Jeff Cummins IliveinFortCollinsandcommutetoDenver5dayseachweekforwork.I Commentnoted. currentlyparticipateinaVanGovanpool.WhileIbelieveHOVand/orToll laneswouldimprovecongestionalongI25,Idonotfeelthisisthebest ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements courseofaction.Real,forwardthinkingmasstransitsolutions(suchasrailor onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF busrapidtransit)representthebestopportunityforlongtermimpact.Inthe corridor.Correct,commuterrailisadifferenttechnologythan courtofpublicopinionitisalsoimportanttomakethedistinctionbetween lightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrailcorridors, Page 130 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

"commuterrail"and"lightrail"thesearenotnecessarilythesamething.If andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridorsincontrast lightrailiseconomicallyunfeasible,thatdoesnotmeanthecommuterrail tolightrail.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridor conceptshouldbeabandonedaswell.Beyondallofthis,Ithinkitis andisconsistentwithRTDplans.Inaddition,toprovidegreater importanttoconsiderthequestion:isitabsolutelynecessaryforallofthese accesstotransitforallcommunities,commuterbusalongthe peopletocommuteonadailybasis?Perhapspartofthisstudy(andany US85corridor,expressbusalongtheI25corridor,andfeeder publiclyfundedsolutions)shouldconsiderwaystoincentivisetelecommuting busservicebetweenthemainlinesandoutlyingcommunities foremployeesandemployersalike.Thiswouldmostdirectlyaddresstheroot areincludedinthePreferredAlternative. issuetoomanypeoplecommutingeachday. Intermsofhighwayimprovements,thePreferredAlternative includessafetyimprovementsthroughoutthecorridor,the additionofgeneralpurposelanesonI25betweenSH14and SH66,tolledexpresslanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS 36,andinterchangeimprovements.

CommutersmakeuponlyaportionofthetrafficonI25ona dailybasis.Severalcongestionmanagementmeasuressuchas carpoollotsareincludedinPackageA,PackageB,andthe PreferredAlternativetoaddressalternativemodesof transportation.Inaddition,traveldemandmeasuresmaybe implementedduringconstruction.Telecommuting,however, wasevaluatedandnotspecificallyincludedasaproject strategybecausetheNFRMPOalreadyhasaprogramthat supportstelecommuting. 86 June Cupples Wesupportcommuterrail(PackageA)duetothenumberofdeathsand Commentnoted. injuriesonthenation'shighways. 87 Julie Dalton IsupportmasstransitalongI25fromCheyennetoDenver.IliveinLoveland Commentnoted. andIwouldgotobothCheyenneandDenveriftherewasmasstransit, especiallytoDenver.WiththecurrentlackofmasstransitonI25,Idon'tgo PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin toDenver.Iwouldbewillingtopayincreasedtaxesfortheproject. Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingthemetroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis Page 131 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingfunding,pleaserefer toGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. 88 Chester Dalton IwouldliketohaverapidtransitalongInterstate25fromFt.Collinsto Commentnoted. DenversoIcouldeasilyandsafelytoDenvertobenefitfromplacesinDenver includingtheZoo,BotanicalGardens,CherryShoppingMall,16thStreetMall andalotofotherplacesintheCity. 89 James Danforth IfavoracomboofHOVlanes,commutertrain,fasttrack.wemustreduce Commentnoted. emissionsandcongestiononI25 90 Debbie Davis IwoulddefinitelylikethecommutertraintocometoBerthoud.Ilivein Commentnoted. LovelandandwoulduseittocommutetoworkinBerthoud. 91 Linsey DeBell Weneedhighspeedpublictransiteithercommuterrailorbusrapidtransit Commentnoted. fromFortCollinstoDenverandBoulderthatruns2477daysaweek.More laneswillonlytemporarilyfixthecongestionproblemanddonotfixthe TheRockyMountainRailAuthority environmentalproblem.Highspeedpublictransitallowsthosewithalong (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility commutetousethattimeproductivelyratherthansimplyspendingthattime studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 navigatingacar.Publictransitneedstobeaffordable,clean,safeand mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy efficientorpeoplewillnotuseit.Traditionaltrainsdonotworkandregular servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. busesdonotworkwellforintercitytransport. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.Notein addition,CDOTwillbeconductinganInterregionalConnectivity studyforvariouspotentialcorridorsinthestate. 92 John Decker MywifeandIsupportsustainablemasstransitalternativestothesingle Commentnoted. occupancyvehicle.Wewouldliketoseecommuterrailusingtheexisting linesit'sapracticaluseofexistingresourcesandmakesgoodsense.Thank youforyourconsideration. 93 M. DeCoursey 1)WouldliketoviewsummaryofOptionAandBonlinewhere?2)In InformationonPackageA,PackageB,andthePreferred principle,IwouldliketoseeOptionAadvanced,butwouldliketoseedetails Alternativeisincludedontheprojectwebsite: Page 132 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

beforecompletelysupportingit. http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/northi25eis 94 Stephen DelGrosso Wesupportcommuterrail.Thetransportationsysteminthiscountryis Commentnoted. broken.Almost40,000Americansarekilledeachyearonroads.Traffic congestionalsowastestime,isresourceintensive,andcontributestomental aggregation.IfitwereconvenienttogettoDenverwewouldvisitoncea monthinsteadofonceayear.Rapidrailwouldincreasemobilityofpeople whichwouldhelptheeconomyoftheentireregion. 95 James DeMartini IpreferPackageAbecauseitprovidesthemostversatilesolutiontotheI25 Commentnoted. trafficproblem,wouldtietheNorthernColoradocities'centerstogether,and wouldresultinlesscongestiononI25. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduse,pleaserefer toGeneralComment#0–RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 96 Paul DeMott MywifeandIwouldliketolendoursupporttopackageAoftheNorthI25 Commentnoted. DraftEIS.Wefeelstronglythatrailoptionsneedtobepushedforwardnow. Itissuchanaturalfitforthegrowingpopulationsinnearbycommunities ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail alongtheFrontRange.WhilewewouldliketoseethesealongI25,E470, servicebetweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenveralongthe andthroughtheolderurbancorridor,weunderstandthehighcostsandsoit BNSFandSH119withaconnectiontoFasTracksNorthMetro makesthemostselectivesensetoputitfromFCtoLongmont.Itistoobad andNorthwestraillines.BothoftheFasTrackslinesconnectto thattheoptionspagedoesnotstressthatthisconnectionwillreadilylink downtownDenverwheretravelerscantransfertothe withalloftheotherplansbeingmadeintheDenvermetroarea.Wewould FasTrackseastcorridortoreachDIA.Inaddition,thePreferred frequentlyusesuchaconnectionforworkandpleasuretraveltoBoulderand Alternativesincludesexpressbusservicethatprovidesadirect Denver,eventolinkinthefuturetoDIA.Asalastpoint,wewishforsome connectionfornorthernColoradotravelerstoDIA. waytopleaseintegratetraveltotheairportfromthenorthintotheplan,a waythatwouldencourageuseofthesystemversusautotravel(e.g.,only15 minuteslongerandalotmorerelaxing,safe,andfuelefficient).Imakeupto 15tripsayeartotheairport(perhapsmorethantoDenveralone)andI suspecttherearethousandsofothersintheFortCollinsareawhodothe same. 97 Beth Dickson IaminsupportofPackageA.Iinparticular,highlysupportthecommuter Commentnoted. railcomponentthatwillconnectthedowntownsofcommunities,fromFort CollinstoPueblo,alongtheUS287corridorwithDenverMetroFasTracks PleasenotethatthePurposeandNeedofthisprojectdoesnot andRTDtransitcenters.Intermsofimprovinginfrastructure,Icannotthink includeservingPueblo.However,theRockyMountainRail ofanythingmorevaluableandviable. Authority(http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompleteda feasibilitystudyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrange (includingPueblo)andI70mountaincorridors.Therailservice Page 133 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

consideredbythisstudyservesadifferentpurposeandneed thantheNorthI25EIS.Thecommuterrailproposedin PackageAorthePreferredAlternativedoesnotprecludeother potentialrailservices.Throughoutthedevelopmentofthe PreferredAlternative,theEISteamhasbeenincoordination withtheRMRA. 98 Lexi DiPentino IaminsupportofOption"A"foraCommuterRailSystemfromFortCollinsto Commentnoted. DenverwithstopsinLoveland,LongmontandinBerthoud!!! 99 Marisa Dirks 26yearsago,IgraduatedfromCSUafterhavinggrownupinLongmont.I Commentnoted. havebeenexcitedandproudofthegrowthofFortCollinsasanimportant NorthernHubofColorado.BUT,I'vebeenverydismayedandfrightenedby InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingadditionallanesonI thedangerousandburgeoningamountoftrafficgoingnorthonI25.Youcan 25,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0NeedforHighway almostpredictthe"speedsurge"justasyoucomenorthofLongmont'scity Improvements. limitsandtrafficstartszoomingatwellover90milesanhour.Icancursethe lackofsafety,butreally,it'saboutalotofpeopletryingtogonorthinrecord time.WideningI25simplywon'tsolvetheproblem,andcertainlyatmost, onlytemporarily.Atrain,ontheotherhand,wouldsolvemanyproblemsat once:Safety,environment,conveniencetocommuters.And,aswithallmass transitthedecisionshavetobeforwardthinking.Anticipatingthefactthat presentproblemsonlygetworse,andveryquickly.Thedecisionsneedtobe madeona"yesterday"basis.Here'sonenativeofColoradowhoisurgingthe additionofaNorthernTraintoFortCollins,protectingourbeautifulstate's environmentandprovidingexcellent,efficientandconvenientopportunity forgrowthtooureconomy!Thankyou! 100 Stephen Donnellan OPTIONAISBEST Commentnoted. 101 Patricia Douthit Havingacommuterraillineonexistingtracksthatgothruthecitiesseems Commentnoted. morelogicalthansendingbusesouttoI25. 102 Donald Downey I,asabusinessownerinBerthoud,wouldliketoseethecommuterrail Commentnoted. completedwithastopinthetownshipofBerthoud.Thecommuterrailwill providegreeneruseofourstate'senergythanwillmotorvehicleuseonly. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludeacommuter ThankYouforconsideringOption"A"fortheI25northernregion. railstationinBerthoud. 103 Robert Drage Ibelieveweare10to15yearsbehindwhereweshouldbeinmovingpeople ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail inN.Colo.OurplansshouldincludepassengerrailusingtheBurlingtonline alongtheBNSFcorridorbetweenFortCollinsandLongmont, Page 134 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

runningfromFtCollinstotownsalongthefrontrangetoBoulderand andprovidingcommuterrailservicetoBoulderandDenver. Denver.Additionallyweshouldbelookingathighspeedrailrunningfrom WyoalongtheI25corridorintoNewMexico.Weshouldneverconsideran Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 additionalhighwaybypassingtheFrontRangecommunitiestotheeast.This mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, wouldonlyaddtourbansprawl.IfEuropecanbuilda"Chunnel",wecan and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring buildatunnelundertheContinentalDivide,connectingtoSummitCounty thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere andbeyond.Weneedtothinkaboutsomethinglikeaphonenetworkfor determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot rentalcarswhichwouldallowpeopleto"subscribe"tomeansoftraveling meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of beyondmasstransitstationsdepots.Thesoonerwegetdevelopment theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing projectsintothinkingaboutcentralizingversussprawling,thebetter. necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 104 Ed DSilva Downtowntodowntownconnectivitywithoptiontocarrybicyclesonboard. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Cleanestmostefficientuseoffuel,bestfortheenvironmentandpublic alongtheBNSFcorridorbetweenFortCollinsandLongmont, health.Iforgottomentioninthepreviousmessage:Isupporttheuseofthe andprovidingcommuterrailservicetoBoulderandDenver. BNSFraillinesfordowntowntodowntownconnectivity.Trainsarethebest mostefficientwaytogetaround. Thecommuterrailoperationswouldmostlikelyprovidebicycle accommodationssimilartothosecurrentlyusedbyRTD.RTD currentlyallowsfourbicyclespervehicleonitslightrail vehicleswithoutanytimerestrictions.RTDhasnodetailed policiesforbicyclesoncommuterrailvehiclesbutisexpected Page 135 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

tomaintainatleastthesameaccessibilityascurrentlyexistson lightrailvehicles. 105 Andrea Dsilva IsupporttheBNSF(commuterrail)downtowntodowntownconnectivity Commentnoted. describedinPackageA 106 Colleen Duncan AtraintoFortCollinswouldbeawesome!!!Fullsupport!!Pleasemakeit ThePreferredAlternativeisamultimodalsolutionwithbus, possibletotakepetswithyou. railandhighwayimprovements,includingatrainfromDenver toFortCollins,withstationsalongthewayinLoveland, Berthoud,Longmont,andnorthmetroDenvercommunities. Whilenodecisiononpetscanbemadeatthistime,service petswillbeallowed,andotherpetscantypicallybecarriedin propercarriers. 107 Pamela Duncan IamwritinginsupportofPackageA,whichwillresultincommuterrailalong Commentnoted. the287corridor.It'spasttimetomoveawayfromacarcentric transportationmodeandinvestinmoreenergyefficientinfrastructure. 108 Kenneth Duncan IamwritingtoexpressmysupportforoptionA.JustaddinglanestoI25will Commentnoted. beaneverendingprojectrequiringmoreandmorelanesoverthecoming years.SomethingdifferentneedstobedoneandinthelongrunIfeelthata InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, railsystemwillbetheultimateanswer.Delayingimplementingthatoption pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway willjustmakeitmoreexpensivewhenitisultimatelybuilt.Let'sbitethe Improvements. bulletandgetitstarted. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 109 Dave Dunn Doingnothingisnotanoption.Demographicprojectionsindicatea Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingthedecisionmaking, significantpopulationincreaseinthenorthColoradofrontrangeinthenext pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–DecisionmakingProcess. severaldecades.Wemustplanaccordingly.Whicheversolutionisarrivedat, theprocessatarrivingatthesolutionneedstoconsiderthelongterm InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, operatingcostofeachalternativeandidentifythefundingmechanismfor pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway eachwellinadvanceofmovingforward.Itisunreasonabletocreatea"mass Improvements. transit"onlyscenarioforthenorthernsegmentofI25butthenexpectthe usersofthatmodetobeartheentirecostoftheprovisionofthatserviceand Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation notprovideanalternativethatallowsachoiceieindividualvehicleusage.I steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost fearthattheinclusionofonealternativeattheexpenseofanotherwillonly Issues. servetodegradethequalityoflifeinnorthernColoradobymakingtravelin Page 136 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

andoutoftheregionunbearable.MorelanesneedtobeaddedtoI25.The ThePreferredAlternativethatisevaluatedintheFinalEIS railorbusalternativesareinterestingbutwilltheproposedrail/bussystem includesbothimprovementstoI25aswellasacomprehensive becomprehensiveenoughtobeseenasa"useable"alternativeto transitnetworkprovidinguserswithtraveloptions.Highway automobiletravelandwillitbeseenascostbeneficial?Idon'tseehowthe improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative(general discussioncanbeheldaboutselectinganalternativefromoneknownmode purposelanes,tolledexpresslanes,frontageroads,cross andtwounknownmodeswithoutstudyingthecostresistanceeffectsofeach streets,etc.)areexpectedtocostapproximately$1.4billionfor mode. 555newlanemiles.Thisequatestoabout$2.5millionperlane mileorabout$23millionpermile.Commuterrail improvementsareexpectedtocostapproximately$649million orabout$14millionpermile.

Chapter6FinancialAnalysisalsoprovidesinformationonthe costperuserbymodeoftravel.Thisanalysisshowsthatthe costperuserforcommuterrailishighest(over$70peruser trip)andthecostperuserofhighwayimprovements(include thecosttoownandoperateyourownprivateautomobile)is lowest(lessthan$5perusertrip).Formoreinformationonthe operatingandmaintenancecostbymodepleaseseeChapter 6.0oftheFinalEIS. 110 Matthew Durell PleasebringrailservicesthateasilyconnectswithRTDtothecommunities Commentnoted.ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageA alongtheNorthI25corridor. includecommuterrailfromFortCollins,alongtheBNSF corridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroendoflinein Thornton,withservicecontinuingtoDenver. 111 Eleanor Dwight OurgroupwishestoexpressourpreferenceforOptionAoftheNorthI25 Commentnoted. study.Wewouldliketoseethatmostresourcesgoformasstransit, preferablyrailusingthecurrentrailbeds. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation, pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. 112 Lisa Eakins I'dliketoseethecommuterrailoptionimplementedwe'vebeenwaitinga Commentnoted. longtimeforit! Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation, pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. Page 137 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

113 Stuart Eastman Ibelieveitisessentialtoemphasizemasstransitasthefirstpriorityinthe Commentnoted. improvementofthiscorridor.WideningI25willcompressthecommute time,butthetrafficwillstillbehorrible.Lightrailserviceconnectingthe Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation majorcitiesalongthenorthernfrontrangewouldbeabenefittoall. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 114 Peter Eberle Goodafternoon.I'dliketoexpressmysupportforoptionsyouare Commentnoted. consideringthatincludeamasstransitaspect(light/commuterrailorBus RapidTransit).OverthemanyyearsI'velivedupinNOCO,traffichas InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, continuedtoexpandbeyondourabilitytocreatenewroads/newlanes. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Furthermore,atsomepointwewillreachasaturationlevel,soIbelievewe Improvements. needtobegininvestingnow,atleastlayingdownthefuturecapacityfor masstransit,beforeitistoolateandtooexpensive.Thankyou. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 115 Ray Ehrenstein Iwouldliketoseerail(electricpreferably)allthewayuptoCheyenneand ThePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailservice downtoTrinidadwithTODstationsandopportunitiesforallthetownsand betweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenverwithstopsinFort citiesalongtheroute.Let'stiethisstatetogetherwithribbonsofsteel.Upto Collins,Loveland,Berthoud,LongmontandnearI25/CR8.A Skicountrytoo! recenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%ofalldaily tripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesaredestinedfor Cheyennethereforetheproposedcommuterrailwould Page 138 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

terminateinFortCollins.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 116 Carol Eikleberry IsupportoptionA Commentnoted. 117 Doug Elliott Thanksfortakinginput.IfavoroptionA.Idon'tseehowourincreasing Commentnoted. densityinNOCOcanbedealtwithefficientlywithoutrailas(atleast)apart ofthesolution. 118 DonaldE. Eriksen,DDS IamtotallyinfavorofthenorthernlightrailallthewaytoLongmont.I Commentnoted. believeitwillbeheavilyused. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail alongtheBNSFcorridor.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent technologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreight railcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlonger corridorsincontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredfor thiscorridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Page 139 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 119 Leonard Ewy IsupportPackageAofCDOTNorthI25environmentalimpactstudy Commentnoted. 120 Roger Faaborg IfweassumethatthepopulationofNorthernColoradoisgoingtocontinue Commentnoted. togrow,thentransportationbyrailasspecifiedinOptionAwilleventuallybe needed.Itwillbecheapertostartnowratherthantowaitandpayininflated Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation dollars.IurgeacceptanceofOptionA. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 121 Sandra Fagan TheneedtoimprovethecommutealongI25isreal.Itistimetolooktothe Commentnoted. futureandtheeventualpopulationgrowth.Ourenvironmentissuffering fromthecongestionalongtheI25corridor.Nowisthetime,actuallythe InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, timewas20yearsago,tobeginamasstransportationproject.Istrongly pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway supportarailsystemthatwouldlessenthevehiclesontheroad,decreaseof Improvements. fatalandnonfatalaccidentsandtimetotravelfrompointAtopointB.The projectshouldbeablendofgovernmentandprivateenterprise. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

ThePreferredAlternativethatisevaluatedintheFinalEIS includesbothimprovementstoI25aswellasacomprehensive transitnetworkprovidinguserswithtraveloptions.Whilethe PreferredAlternativedoesincludecommuterrail,our projectionsindicatethatitwillnotmeasurablyreducethe vehicularvolumeonI25.However,theanalysisofthe PreferredAlternativedoesanticipatefewercrashespervehicle miletraveledalongthecorridorin2035comparedtotheNo ActionAlternative. 122 Ginger Fedak IwishtourgeyoutochooseOption"A"fortheCommuterRailSystemfrom Commentnoted. FortCollinstoDenverwithstopsinLoveland,LongmontandBerthoud.This "GoldenCorridor"ofvibrantcities/townsisgainingagreatreputation.Fort Collins&Lovelandhavebothreceivedhighmarksinmanyofthe"BestTowns toLive"publicationsforvariouscriteria.Thiscommuterrailsystemwill solidifythatreputationandenhancetheentirecorridorfortheNorthern Coloradoeconomy.Itisbyfarthebestoption.Thankyou. Page 140 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

123 Joshua Finkelstein Isupportboththecommuterraillineusingtheexistinginfrastructureand WhilePackageAprovidescommuterrailontheBNSFcorridor thebusrapidtransitthatwillhopefullyconnectthismainlinetotheoutlying withfeederbusservicetostations,andPackageBprovidesBRT communities.Ithinkitisimportanttousetheexistinginfrastructuretoboth onI25withfeederbusservicetoBRTstations,thePreferred lessentheconstructioncostsaswellasrevitalizeandmaintainthedowntown Alternativewouldprovidetransitimprovementsonmultiple areasthatitwillconnect.Hopefullymanybuslineswillconnectthismain corridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSFcorridor.In commuterlinetomanyoutlyingareas.Iampleasedtoseethatpublictransit addition,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor,expressbus optionsarebeingconsideredtogivecommutersotheroptionsthantheir alongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusservicetooutlying automobileswhenconsideringtravel. communitiesthatprovidesaccesstobothrailandexpressbus linesareincludedinthePreferredAlternative.Intermsof highwayimprovements,thePreferredAlternativeincludes safetyimprovementsthroughoutthecorridor,theadditionof generalpurposelanesonI25betweenSH14andSH66,tolled expresslanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS36,and interchangeimprovements.SeeChapter2Alternativesfor details. 124 Kaye Fissinger InconnectionwithColoradoDepartmentofTransportation's(CDOT)NorthI Commentnoted. 25DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(NI25DEIS)andtoprovideviable transportationchoicesforthemovementofpeopleandgoodsinthe InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, NorthernFrontRange(NFR),Isupport:necessarysafetyupgradesonI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway masstransitcomponentsofPackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrail Improvements. connectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,there connectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.Itisnolonger rationalorsustainabletocreatetransportationinfrastructurethatpromotes a"carculture."FurtherwideningofI25servesonlytoencouragemore drivingandmorecars.Climatechangedemandsmasstransitformost transportationneeds,especiallyforcommutestoandfromemployment.We canhopeforandinvestinalternativefuels.However,thereisnoreasonto believethattheywillmaterializeinthenearfuture.Theabilitytocreate masstransitalongthenorthernFrontRangethatconnectswithFasTracksis availablenow. 125 Paula Fitzgerald Iwanttoencouragequietzonesorbetterrulesontrainhorns.Some QuietzonesarethepreferredtrainhornmitigationintheFinal engineersarecourteousduringthenighthoursandothersareloudandlong. EIS.Thesewillrequireconsentandleadershipfromthe Hugeimpacttoourneighborhoodandqualityoflife(andsleep)!Increased affectedlocalgovernments,withCDOT,toimplement. traintrafficwillonlymakeabadsituation(already)muchworse.Thisshould beaddressedforthecurrentsituationbutresolvedcompletelybefore Page 141 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

additionaltrainsareaddedtothesystem.Overall,wesupporttheconceptof railandalternativetransportation,butthesleepdeprivationmustbe tackled. 126 Sebastien Foisy IwouldrecommendthatyougowithDMU(DieselMultipleUnits)technology Atthistime,DMUsaretheidentifiedvehicletechnologyforthe asopposedtobuses. commuterrailcorridor.Inadditiontothecommuterrail,theI 25andUS85corridorswillbeservedbyregionalbuses. 127 Ann Foley IwouldliketogoonrecordaspreferringtheBNSFtoRTDchoiceforfuture Commentnoted. transportation.Thetracksarealreadyinexistence,whichwouldsavemoney, andatrainwillbebetterfortheairqualityandforseniors,physically handicapped,andotherswhocannotorwouldnotdriveonI25. 128 Dana Foley Therailoptionisthewaytogo.Thisistheeasiestwaytomovepeople.It Commentnoted. willalsoreducetheamountofcarsontheroad.Savefuelandreduce congestion. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 129 Jeni Forbes About30yearsago,therewasa"study"astothefeasibilityofalightrail Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 alongI25fromFt.Collins(orevenCheyenne)toPueblo.Acommitteewas mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, evensenttoJapanatgreatexpensetolookattheirsystem.Idon't and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring rememberanythinghappeningafterthatexcepttosaythatitwastoo thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere expensive!Whatashame.Weshouldhavehadarailsystemforcommuters determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot aswellasrecreationaltravelersinplacebynow.Don'twasteanymoretime. meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of AddingmorelanestoI25willnotsolvetheproblem!Weneedalightrail theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing system! necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. Page 142 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 130 Patricia Forbes Isupportpkg.A Commentnoted. 131 James Franklin accidentalinjuryleadingtolayoff?workingnightly,withcdotandaggregate Weassumethecommenterisexpressingconcernabout industries. potentialinjurythatcouldoccurtoconstructionworkers duringnightconstructionactivities.Allconstructionworkers wouldbecoveredbyCDOT'sverystrictsafetyprecautionsto avoidinjuriesduringconstructionoftransportationprojects. 132 Thomas Frazier Afterallthestudiesovertheyearshavebeendustedoffandexamined,the Commentnoted. bestoptionforCommuterRailistheutilizationoftheBurlingtonNorthern RioGrandecorridor. 133 DFreierIdon'tthinkrailispracticalunlessyou'respeakingofhighspeedrail.Include Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 thisalongtheI25corridoralongwithHOVlanes,ifanyexpansionofI25 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, northofHWY66isconsidered.LightrailconnectionsalongHwy14and34 and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring fromthecenteroftowncanroundoutthepicture.ForGreeley,asimilar thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere scheme,onlyconnectingtoDenveralongtheHWY85corridor. determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1 PurposeandNeedduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstation spacingnecessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdetermined Page 143 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thattheseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivity tomanynortherncommunities.

Feederbuses,andminorroutemodificationsofexistinglocal service,willprovidelocaltransitserviceconnectingtothe regionaltransitservice.Notethatthefeasibilityofproviding railonSH14orUS34doesnotmeetthedefinedpurposeand needofthisEISandisthereforenotexaminedbythisproject. Commuterrailisadifferenttechnologythanlightrail. Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrailcorridors,andcan achievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridorsincontrasttolight rail.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorandis consistentwithRTDplans.WhilerailtransitbetweenGreeley andDenverwasconsidered,populationandemployment densitiesalongtheUS85corridorwouldnotsupportthecost ofimplementationandcommuterbuswasdeterminetobea morefeasibleoption. 134 Teresa Funke MyhusbandandIwouldVERYmuchliketoseeI25expandedtothreelanes Commentnoted. uptoorpastFortCollins.We'dalsoapproveofarailtransitlinkingthecity centersandwouldbelikelytousethataswell.Webelievetheadditional lanesandraillinewillmakeI25saferforourcommutesandourchildrenwill benefitfromthoseimprovements! 135 DFurmanItmakessensetometoenhancetheexistingtransportationsystems,update PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeusetheexistingBNSF andenlargethemratherthanstartalloveragain.Iwouldsuggestbeforeyou tracksforcommuterrail,alongwithnewtracktoconnect do,talktoorganizationsforthedisabledtogaintheirinputbecauseitis LongmonttoThornton.Alltransitstationdesignsandtransit importanttoensurethattheyhaveeasyaccesstopublictransportation. vehiclesarefullyADAcompliant.CDOTcommitstoinvolving organizationsrepresentingthedisabledcommunityduringthe designprocessforthetransitelements. 136 Todd Gabriel IamwritingtovoicemysupportforOption"A",aCommuterRailSystem Commentnoted. fromFortCollinstoDenverwithstopsinLoveland,LongmontandBerthoud. IhavebeenaresidentofLovelandandBerthoudfor34yearsandabuilder anddeveloperfor10years.Ithinkthisprojectisveryimportanttoourarea andwouldbeagreatadditiontothetransportationsysteminNorthern Colorado.

Page 144 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

137 Deb Gardner IsupportnecessarysafetyupgradesonI25butmoreimportantlythemass Commentnoted. transitcomponentsofPackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrail connectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmontand InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, fromthereconnectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.This pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway typeoftransitisbotheconomicallyandenvironmentallythebestsolution. Improvements. 138 Chris Gaughan IstronglysupportPackageAintheEIS.RailtransportfromSouthFortCollins Commentnoted. transitcenterwouldbeagreatwaytoimprovetravelbetweenDenverand Ft.Collins/Loveland. 139 Nancy Gescheidt IsupportoptionAbecauseitincludesarailstationinorneardowntownFC. Commentnoted.

PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeincludethree commuterrailstationsinFortCollins:thedowntowntransit centerattheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFe(BNSF)andMaple St.;ColoradoStateUniversityattheBNSFbetweenUniversity Ave.andPitkinSt.;andthesouthtransitcenteratUS287and HarmonyRd. 140 John Gierard IwanttostatethatIsupportPlanAoverPlanB.Ifeeltheextracostis Commentnoted. justifiedbecause,inthelongrun,PlanAwillbetterservethecommunities' transitneedswithlessenvironmentalimpact.PlanAwillalsobettermesh TheRockyMountainRailAuthority withtotalfrontrangepassengerrailserviceifandwhenthathappens.Itsmy (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility opinionthatPlanBwillencouragemorestripdevelopmentalongI25and studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 thusaddtotheproblemthePlansareintendedtosolve.Thankyouforthe mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy opportunitytocommentontheEIS. servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 141 Lucin Gilliland IsupporttheNorthI25EIS"packageA"withonemodification.Buildtherail Commentnoted. transitfortheBNSFlinefirstbeforeanyexpansiontoI25aremade. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Page 145 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 142 Norma Glad Iwanttovoteforplan/packageAbeforeTuesday.HowdoIdoit? Commentnoted.

TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 143 Theresa Gomez MyhusbandandIstronglysupportboththebusrapidtransitandthe Commentnoted. commuterrailoptions.HavinglivedintheSanFranciscoBayAreaweknow howmuchthesetwooptionscandotoimprovetrafficandsupporthealthy economieswhileimprovingthelivabilityofthecitiesbeingserved.We stronglyopposetheprivatetollroadoptionandaddingmorelanestothe alreadydominatefreeway. 144 LindaandKim Gottschalk WesupportoptionAofyourEnvironmentalImpactStudy.Commuterrailis Commentnoted. importantforLongmontandnorthernColorado. 145 Dan Gould Thanksfortheopportunitytocommentandposeafewquestions: C1.SimilartoPackageA,thePreferredAlternativeincludes Comments1.PackageAispreferredbecauseitfocusesonpopulationcenters commuterrailnearUS287andcommuterbusserviceonUS withcommuterrailalongUS287andregionalbusservicealongUS85.2.I 85,aswellasexpressbusonI25. wishthisplanningeffortcouldberenamedthe"NorthFrontRange2030 TransportationPlan".Rightnowtheinitialimpressionfortheaveragecitizen C2.TheprojectwasinitiatedtoaddressI25asdefinedinthe isthattheplanisabouttheinterstatehighwayitself.Infact,itwillhave purposeandneed(SeeChapter1)butattheonsetofthe broadlanduseandtransportationimpactsfortheregionasawhole.3.Iam project,itwasrecognizedthattheinterstateservesthewhole concernedabouttheabsenceofattentiontomodernfreighttransportation northernregion,andthestudyareawassodefined;the planning.AcriticalneedforfutureNorthFrontRangetransportationwill potentialimprovementsdohaveregionwideimpacts.The probablybeamodernfreightcorridorthatavoidspopulationcenters. regionaltransportationplanoftheNFRMPOistheplanning Questions1.RelativetoPackageBcantruckspaytollsandusetheTELs?2. mechanismforthenorthfrontrangearea. WhencomparingPackageA&B,whatarethetransittraveltimesforecasted forBRTvs.commuterrailnotjustbetweenFortCollinsandDenver,but C3.Truckswillbeservedbytheimprovementsofanypackage Page 146 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

betweenotherpairsofcitiessuchasFortCollins,Berthoud,Loveland toI25,anditsalignmentdoesnotimpactthemajorcity Longmont,etc.?3.Forwhichtransitmode(BRTvscommuterrail)can centers. capacitybemosteconomicallyexpandedtoservefutureincreasesin demand.4.Whatifapeakoilfuturecausesalargeshiftfromdieseltruck Q1.Truckswillnotbeallowedtousethetolledexpresslanes. freighttointermodalrailfreight.Whichpackagecouldmorefavorably However,theNorthI25EISPreferredAlternativeaddsgeneral accommodatesuchachange? purposelanestoI25northofSH66.Theselaneswillimprove trucktraveltimeandefficiency.Additionally,asmoretravelers usethetolledlanes,thecongestiononthegeneralpurpose laneswillbereduced. 146 Jim Graham IwouldliketosupportthetrainoptioninsteadoffurtherwideningofI25. Commentnoted. Widefreewaysarethepastandwillbeobsoletedoilreservesaredepleted thiscentury.WeneedtoinvestinthefutureandIbelieveelectrictrainsare InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, partofit.IhavetraveledinEuropeandhatetoseethemsofaraheadofthe pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway USinthisandotherareas. Improvements.

NotethatPackageAandthePreferredAlternativeinclude commuterrail,andforplanningevaluationpurposesassumes dieselmultipleunits(incontrasttoelectricmultipleunits).The technologyisevolvingrapidlyforcommuterrailvehicles,and commuterrailvehicletypeswillbereassessedandidentified priortoimplementationofcommuterrailfortheNorthI25 corridor.Electriclightrailwasevaluatedearlierandeliminated duetolongtraveltimesforthiscorridor. 147 Dave Graham IwantedtofileacommentonN.I25DEIS.IwouldliketosaythatIsupport Commentnoted. masstransitcomponentsofPackageAandinparticularthecommuterrail connectingthecitycenters.ThoseofusinFortCollinsarestillwaitingfora goodalternativetransportationoptiontogettoDenver. 148 Tom Grant AcommuterrailorlightrailsystembetweenFortCollinsandDenverwould Commentnoted. begreat.Ipreferthetrainoverbuses,duetospeedandcomfort.Theonly problemwithaI25lineisthatignoresBoulder/Longmont/Lovelandandthe ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail existinglightrailplantoconnectBouldertoDenver.Thismaybeanother alongtheBNSFcorridor.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent viableoption(FortCollinstoBoulder). technologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreight railcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlonger corridorsincontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredfor thiscorridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Page 147 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridorwith newtracktotheNorthMetroendoflineinThornton. CommuterrailalongI25wasscreenedoutasitprovidesless accesstopopulationcentersthantheBNSFcorridor.However, anexpressbusservicealongI25wasretainedforthe PreferredAlternativetoprovidegreateraccesstotransitforall communities.Theexpressbuswouldprovidecompetitive traveltimestoprivateautosandcommuterrailbyutilizingthe managedlaneswherepossible. 149 Warren Gregory IsupportcommuterrailfortheNorthI25project.Preferablyhighspeed Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 commuterrail,consistentwithanytechnologyusedfortheFrontRangeandI mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, 70HighSpeedRailprojects. and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1 PurposeandNeedduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstation spacingnecessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdetermined thattheseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivity tomanynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

CDOTisstudyingrailalongtheI70corridorfromtheJefferson CountyGovernmentComplextothemountainsandskiresorts asapartoftheI70MountainProgrammaticEIS (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i70mountaincorridor). TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25andI70corridors.Therail serviceconsideredbythesestudiesservesadifferentpurpose andneedthantheNorthI25EIS.Thecommuterrailproposed inPackageAorthePreferredAlternativedoesnotpreclude theseotherpotentialrailservices.Throughoutthe Page 148 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

developmentofthePreferredAlternative,theEISteamhas beenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 150 Tom Griggs Thecommuterrailapproachtopublictransportationchallengesfacing Commentnoted. northernColoradoandspecificallythecoretocoreoptioniseasilythe mostfeasibleandmostforwardthinkingalternativeforustoadopt;I Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation stronglyurgeCDOTtodoso.Additionally,giventhefactthatitwilltakea steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost greatdealoftimetoimplementfullyfunctioningcommuterrailservice Issues. betweenthecommunitiesoftheFrontRange,therearesomecriticalshort termissuesthatneedtobeaddressedintheinterim,suchastheprovisionof commuterbusservicebetweenWellingtonandDenver.Themoneyspentin theinterimwillhelpreorientthegeneralpublic'sattitudetowardpublic masstransitandpromotegreaterridershipastherailsystemisbeingbuilt andcomesonline. 151 Beverly Hall Idonotliketollroads.Addinghighwaylanesisagreatdisruptiontotraffic ThePreferredAlternativeincludesadditionalTolledExpress andcommuters,andIdonotlikethateither.Iliketheother LanesonI25.TolledExpressLaneswillallowcarpoolusers alternatives...theissueishowlatetotrainsandbusesruncanIgethomeat access,aswellassingleoccupantvehiclesforafee.This aconvenienthour? strategywillallowthetolllanestooperateasexpresslanesby managingthecongestionontheroadwaywithavariableprice. Thiscanprovidegreatermobilitytousersofthefreewayby providingareliablyshortertraveltime.

Constructionmanagementplanscallformaintainingcapacity asmuchaspossibleduringpeakperiods.

Thebusandrailoperatingplansincludeearlyandevening servicewithreducedfrequency.Specificswillbedefinedduring implementation. 152 Don Hallowell I'velivedinColoradosince1964andwatchedtollroadspayforthemselvesin Commentnoted. ashortperiodoftimeintheDenverarea(BroomfieldtoBoulder).The growthintheDenverareaandLarimerCountyissuchthatdrivingisagreat Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation stressfulhazardonI25.ThelightrailinDenverhashadahugeimpacton steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost commutersandcitizensusingthisgreatsystem.InFortCollinsandnorthof Issues. Denvertheneediseminenttohavethesametypeofrailformanyreasons. 1.impactontheenvironmentwouldbepositive.2.travelbycaronI25isa Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationincludenewregional messwithconstantheavytrafficandlargefreight18wheelerswhich transitelements.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent Page 149 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

contributetothewearandtearoftheroadwaysandpeople'sstresslevels.3. technologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreight Weshouldstarttrainingtheyoungpeopleandfuturechildrenhowtouse railcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlonger rapidtransitinsteadofrelyingontheautomobilesolelyfortransportation.4. corridorsincontrasttolightrail.Commuterrailhasbeen MorepeoplewouldgointoDenverforbusiness,culture,sports,artsand identifiedforthiscorridorandisconsistentwithRTDplans. otherreasonsiftherewereaneasier,moreefficientwaytogetthereand Regardingtruckfreighttraffic,theamounttoday(between11 back.5WeNEEDmasstransitupinLarimerCounty. and14percent)willgrowataboutthesamerateasother traffic.In2035,itisexpectedtobebetweenabout8and14 percentofthetotaltrafficonthecorridor. 153 Mary Hamilton IaminfavoroflightrailbetweenFt.CollinsandDenver.Iwouldalsoliketo Commentnoted. seelightrailconnectingtoDIAandalsowestontheI70Corridortoaccess ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail themountainsandskiresorts.Itisexpensive,butsoneededtorelievefuture fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe congestion. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Morespecifically,thePreferredAlternativeandPackageA includescommuterrailservicebetweenFortCollinsand downtownDenveralongtheBNSFandSH119witha connectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines. BothoftheFasTrackslinesconnecttodowntownDenver wheretravelerscantransfertotheFasTrackseastcorridorto reachDIA.Inaddition,thePreferredAlternativesincludes expressbusservicethatprovidesadirectconnectionfor northernColoradotravelerstoDIA.

TheRTDFasTracksplanincludesrailfromDIAtoDenverUnion Station.TheWestCorridorisunderconstructionwhichislight railfromDenverUnionStationtotheJeffersonCounty GovernmentComplex.CDOTisstudyingrailalongtheI70 corridorfromtheJeffersonCountyGovernmentComplexto themountainsandskiresortsasapartoftheI70Mountain Page 150 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ProgrammaticEIS(http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i 70mountaincorridor).

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 154 Donna Hanks PleaseselectPackageAwhichincludescommuterrail.Anyothersolution Commentnoted. wouldbefoolhardy. 155 Jean Hanson OptionA:expandlanes&addlightrailservicetoFortCollins Commentnoted.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend oflineinThornton.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent technologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreight railcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlonger corridorsincontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredfor thiscorridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 156 Lynne Harkness IwouldMUCHprefertherailoption,itgetsmorevehiclesofftheroad, Commentnoted. reducesemissionsandbringstheoptionsintothetownsalongtheroute. Railtransportationhasworkedaroundtheworlditcanworkheretoo. 157 Aaron Harris Inthisdayandagewithrisingenergypricesandtheriseofthegreen Commentnoted. movement,howcomethereisnomasstransitconnectionbetweennorthern ColoradoandDenver? 158 Jillian Harrison IfavoroptionA.IlikethatI25willbewidenedto3laneseachdirectionfrom Commentnoted. DenvertoHighway14(MulberrySt.inFC).Further,OptionAcreatesamass transitrailsystemconnectingFortCollinstoothercitiesalongtheFront ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred Page 151 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Range,includingLongmont&Boulder,aswellasconnectionstoDenver.I AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridor. thinkitisshortsitedtocreateabussysteminOptionB.Ifeelthatmost However,anexpressbusservicealongI25wasretainedfor peoplewouldprefertraintransittobustransitandwouldthereforebe thePreferredAlternativetoprovidegreateraccesstotransit likeliertousethisalternativeformoftransportation.Besides,thebussystem forallcommunities.Theexpressbuswouldprovide wouldusethehighwaylanes&contributetooveralltrafficcongestion.I competitivetraveltimestoprivateautosandcommuterrailby thinkweneedtobeforwardthinkingandprepareforatimewhenour utilizingthemanagedlaneswherepossible. communitieswillrequireefficientwaystobeconnectedtooneanotherthat don'trelyonthehighways.The"donothing"approachisn'tanoptionatall. Wemustaddressthisissuenow!Thankyouforhearingmycomments. 159 Patrick Harrison IthinkthatOptionAisthebest.ThebustransitinOptionBisnotworthwhile Commentnoted. fortworeasons:1.peoplewon'tusethebuses.(Theyarefarlikeliertoride trainsformasstransit).2.ThebuseswilltravelI25addingtothecongestion. ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred Also,Ifeelthatkeepingtherailroutesalongthecitycentersofthetownsin AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridor. OptionAbenefitsthesecommunities.Somethingneedstobedoneabout However,anexpressbusservicealongI25wasretainedfor trafficcongestioninNorthernColorado.IalsofeelthatI25shouldbe3lanes thePreferredAlternativetoprovidegreateraccesstotransit ineachdirectionfromDenverthroughFortCollinsandOptionA forallcommunities.Theexpressbuswouldprovide accomplishesthat. competitivetraveltimestoprivateautosandcommuterrailby utilizingthemanagedlaneswherepossible.InPackageB,BRT busesonI25wouldtravelintheTELlanesfortheentiretyof theirtrip. 160 Ann Harroun IstronglypreferOptionA.Commuterrailwillmovepeopleusinglessfossil Commentnoted. fuelandcreatinglessCO2.Italsowillrevitalizetownsalongtherouteand promotedevelopmentinanalreadydevelopedcorridor.Itrequires Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand acquisitionofverylittleland,andthatlandwillonlybecomemoreexpensive transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 astimepasses. –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 161 Kathy Hayes IsupporttheexpansionofI25tothreelaneseachdirectionfromDenver Commentnoted. throughFortCollins,and,furthermore,supporttheconstructionofrail transitalongexistingrailroads,toconnectthecitycentersofFortCollins, LovelandandLongmonttooneanother.GivenColorado'scommitmentto reducedependenceonfossilfuelandcleanuptheenvironment,wewill needbettermasstransitoptionstoaccomplishthesegoals.Ifsuchasystem wereinplace,Iwouldopttousethatratherthandrivingmycartothese locations. 162 Cathy Heckman IaminfavorofoptionA. Commentnoted. Page 152 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

163 Paul Hedquist ThankyouforexploringtwomasstransitalternativesfortravelonI25north, Commentnoted. andforencouragingpublicinput.IstronglyrecommendyouroptionAthe additionofcommuterrailtocurrentoptions.JapanandEuropeancountries havedemonstratedtheeffectivenessofcommuterrails,withhighspeed, lightrails.ItistimefortheUStocatchup.Notonlywillthisoptionbebest fortheenvironment,itwilladdjobstooureconomy.Thankyou. 164 Margaret Heimbrook IsupportpackageAofCDOT'sNorthI25environmentalimpactstudy.In Commentnoted. particularIwouldencouragetransportationlinksbetweentheuniversities andcommunitycollegessincestudentsarecommutingbetweenthevarious institutionsdayandnightandalsototheirparttimeorfulltimejobs.Itis possibletoreadorstudyoncommuterrailandsavetimebynotseeking parkingspacesaroundcampus. 165 Carol Heitman Weneedtothinkofthefutureandmakethisapermanentfix,byputtingin ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail lightrail.Itwillbelessexpensiveinthelongrun.theotheralternativeis fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe anothersetofrailroadtracksfromPueblotoCheyenne.Let'sdoitright,not NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing cheap.HowIwishthiscouldhappentomorrow. toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingthemetroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne.

Page 153 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 166 Marilyn Heller IsupportPackageAproposal Commentnoted. 167 Sarah Henry IurgeyoutoadoptPackageAthecommuterrailoptiononly.Thiswillnot Commentnoted. onlyreducecongestion,butreducegasolineusageandimprovesafety.We don'tneedmoreroads,weneedmorepublictransit! InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 168 David Hodge WestronglysupportoptionAwhichincludesadditionalinterchangesanda Commentnoted. raillinealongtheI25corridorfromFt.CollinstoDenver. Forclarification,pleasenotethatthecommuterrailinPackage AandthePreferredAlternativetravelsalongtheBNSFfreight railline(generallyparalleltoUS287)notI25.Inaddition,no newinterchangelocationsareplannedalongI25.Theexisting interchangeswillbereplacedand/orupgradedtoimprove theircapacityandsafety.However,noneofthepackages Page 154 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

wouldprecludeaddinginterchangelocationsinthefuture. 169 Raymond Hoekstra IaminsupportofOption"A"foraCommuterRailSystemfromFortCollinsto Commentnoted. DenverwithastopinLoveland,LongmontandinBerthoud!!! 170 Sara Hoffman PleaseputinarailsystemtoDenver.Itmaycostmoreintheshortrun,butin Commentnoted. thelongitwillsavemoney,and,moreimportantly,thelivesofthosekilled eachyearonInterstate25. WhilethePreferredAlternativedoesincludecommuterrail, ourprojectionsindicatethatthecommuterrailwillnot measurablyreducethevehicularvolumeonI25.However,the analysisofthePreferredAlternativedoesanticipatefewer crashespervehiclemileoftravelalongthecorridorin2035 comparedtotheNoActionAlternative. 171 Gerhard Hoof Iamallforpkg.A,thisislongoverdue. Commentnoted. 172 Carole Hossan Ingeneral,Isupport:necessarysafetyupgradesonI25,masstransit SeeresponsetoComment#1,above,andChapter2 componentsofPackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrailconnecting AlternativesofthisFinalEISregardingthePreferredAlternative citycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,thereconnecting andthetransitandhighwayimprovementsincludedinit. withDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.Iwouldalsolikenoise studiesdonere:noiseimpactsoflocaltrainserviceincitycenters/howthey SeeresponsetoComment#1,above,andChapter8Phased canbemitigated.IattendedthemeetingonDecember9th,2008,andheard ProjectImplementationofthisFinalEISregarding manyspeakers.IlikedwhatTimJohnsonhadtosay. implementationofthePreferredAlternativeovertime.

Arailtransitnoiseandvibrationstudywasperformedforthe DraftEISandfortheFinalEIS(seeSection3.6).Theprimary mitigationtechniqueidentifiedinthenoiseandvibrationstudy istheimplementationofQuietZones.Implementationofquiet zonesrequirestheconsentandleadershipofthelocal governmentagency.Additionalinformationcanbefoundin theRailTransitNoiseandVibrationTechnicalReportforNorth I25FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement,2011,HarrisMiller Miller&Hanson,availableatCDOTRegion4. 173 Ben Houston TheworkingclassofNorthernColoradoneedaprofoundchangeinthe Commentnoted. publictransportationsector.This,Ibelieve,ismostcrucialforachievinga sliceofthe"new"AmericanDream.

Page 155 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

174 Nathan Howard IamVERYinterestedincommuterrailalongI25.IthinkitisaGREATwayto ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail linkthefrontrangeandmakeitmoreaccessible. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.RailalongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.CommuterrailalongI 25wasscreenedoutasitprovideslessaccesstopopulation centersthantheBNSFcorridor.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 175 Mary Humstone IsupportPackageAbecauseitincludescommuterrail.IcommutedfromFort Commentnoted. CollinstoDenveronI25for15years.Nonumberofnewlaneswillever makethatagoodwaytocommute.Arailconnectionwouldvastlyimprove InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, thequalityoflifeinnorthernColorado,andistheonlyoptionthatmakes pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway senseconsideringbothglobalwarmingandthecostofgas(whichwillgoup Improvements. again!)

Page 156 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

176 Nancy Hunt OptionAismypreference. Commentnoted. 177 Meredith Hutmacher IamaColoradonative.IgrewupinLittletonandwhenIwasveryyoungI ThePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailalongthe recallboardingthetrainatourdepotinLittleton,andridingthetrainto BurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailroadtracksbetweenFort UnionStationinDenver.Ourexistingtraintrackscouldbeveryeasilyutilized CollinsandtheFasTracksNorthMetroendoflinestationin forcommutertrafficandfordaytripsandvacationstoothercitiesalongthe ThorntonandtheNorthwestRailendoflinestationin FrontRange.IwouldlovetoboardthetraininLovelandandtakeatripto LongmontandsafetyupgradesonI25.SeeChapter2 downtownDenvertoshop,visitamuseum,ortowatchaplay.Ialsothink AlternativesintheFinalEISformoredetailedinformationon thatthisoptionwouldhelptopromotethemanysmallertownsalongthat thePreferredAlternative. routeparticularlyBerthoud.IalsoworkedforaBritishcompanyinasmall townlocatedabout35milessouthofLondon.Itwascommonplacetoboard InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, thetraintotakeadaytriptoLondon.Itwasconvenientandallowedmeto pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway avoidthenumeroustrafficsnarlsonthemotorways.Itwasarelaxingand Improvements. safewaytotravel.Ialsoaminsupportofmakingthemuchneededrepairsto I25.Currently,itisalmostlifethreateningtodrivebetweenBerthoudand FortCollinsonI25.TheinterchangesatHighway34,CrossroadsBoulevard (inLoveland)areveryinefficient,andarealsodangerous.Thankyoufor takingthetimetoreadmyopinionsandconcerns! 178 Keith Jacobson IwouldliketoexpressmysupportofPackageA. Commentnoted. 179 Bill Jenkins IamsupportingtheI25DEISPackageAproposalthatrecommends Commentnoted. commuter/passengerrailbetweenFortCollinsandLongmontontheexisting BNSFrail.Ibelievethiswillbringtransportationinlinewithourfutureneeds Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand alongthefrontrange.Theenvironmental,economic,andbusinessbenefits transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 arehugeinprovidingpassengerandfreightservicetothedowntownareasof –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. thecitiesinvolved.ThisapproachwouldcertainlytakepressureoffI25and allowpeopletotravelinrelativesafety.Thankyouforincludingmy WhilethePreferredAlternativedoesincludecommuterrail, commentsinthedecisionprocess. ourprojectionsindicatethatthecommuterrailwillnot measurablyreducethevehicularvolumeonI25.However,the analysisofthePreferredAlternativedoesanticipatefewer crashespervehiclemileoftravelalongthecorridorin2035 comparedtotheNoActionAlternative. 180 Trixie Jensen Iaminsupportofalightrailorgoldlineroutegoingnorthespeciallyto Commentnoted. Berthoud! ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuter rail,withastopinBerthoud,fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSF Page 157 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

corridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroendoflinein Thornton,withservicecontinuingtoDenver.Notethat commuterrailisadifferenttechnologythanlightrail. Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrailcorridors,andcan achievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridorsincontrasttolight rail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthiscorridor,butwas determinednottobethebestrailtransitchoice.Commuter railhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorandisconsistentwith RTDplans. 181 Arthur Johnson IsupportOptionAfortheNorthI25Project Commentnoted. 182 Casey Jones IaminfavorofoptionAbecauseitincludesrailservicetoimportantFront Commentnoted. Rangecommunitieswithouttheneedforconnectorbusservicethatwill likelydrivedownridership.Wecannotexpectriderstoacceptmultiple ThePreferredAlternativeservesmanymajorpopulationand transferswhichoptionBwouldsurelyrequire.Instead,weneedthe employmentcentersdirectlywitheithercommuterrail, transportationsolutionstobeintegralwithpopulationcentersasinoptionA. expressbus,orcommuterbus.Inaddition,feederbusservice, whichmayrequiretransferstothemajorregionalroutes, wouldserveoutlyingcommunities.ThePreferredAlternative directlyservesmorecommunitiesthaneitherPackageAorB. 183 Waldo Jones Ihavebeenfollowingtheissueforsometimenowandhaveexaminedthe Commentnoted. plans.IurgeyoutoadoptPlanA. 184 Bill Jones Ourhouseholdandfriendsbelievetheinfrastructureofourrailroadsystemis ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail extremelyimportant.USAhastwoeastwesttrunkRRlineshereintheWest: alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend oneinthenorth,&oneinthesouth.FifteenyearsagoIwroteAMTRACKour oflineinThornton. opinionthattheycould/shouldteamupinajointeffortwithmunicipalities betweenthetwotrunklinesandcreateacooperativeefforttoconnectthe Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal existingtrunklineswithanorthsouthtrunklinealongthefrontrange/I25 combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA corridor.Westillthinkthisasplendid,futureorientedplanforseveral andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon reasons.Passenger/Freightwouldofcoursehavetobeworkedout(Probably theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI asinotherpartsofourcountry.).Ifyour"PackageA"iscompatiblewith 25.CommuterrailalongI25wasscreenedoutasitprovides movinginthismajornstrunklinedirectionasafirststep,myhouseholdand lessaccesstopopulationcentersthantheBNSFcorridor. Iareallinfavorofyour"PackageA."Pleaseexcusemyspelling.Itislate,and Ican'taccessspellcheck. Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring Page 158 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 185 Richard Jurin AsaresidentofLovelandandaprofessorofEnvironmentalStudiesatUNC,I Commentnoted. wouldliketopromotemysupportoftheCDOTNorthernI25Draft EnvironmentalImpactStudy(NI25DEIS)PACKAGEA.Thisisalongoverdue ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements planforeasingthetransportproblemoftheI25corridorbetweenDenver onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF andthenorthcentralColoradoCommunities.Iknowpersonallyfromusing corridor.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnologythan lightrailinothercities(bothU.Sandinternationally)howiteasesnotonly lightrail.Lightrailwasconsidered,butwaseliminatedbecause transportationproblems,butalsopromotesmovementofthepeoplein oftheservicedistancesinvolvedandinabilitytooperateina outlyingcommunitiestothecity,thusinvigoratingthewholeregion.Many freightrailcorridor.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail thanks. corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedfor thiscorridorandisconsistentwithRTDplans. 186 Susan Kaplan NFRtravelplansassomeonewhotravelsfromDenvertoFt.Collinsfor Commentnoted. businessandtoseefamily,Ifeelstronglythatweneedalternativeformsof transportation.ThelatestlaneadditiontoI25isnowcongestedandpeople InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, travel8090mphmakingitadangerousstretchtotravel.Inaddition,the pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway useofthetrainandbusarereadilyimplementedideasandwillavoidthe Improvements. costlyandchallenginghighwayconstructionprojects.Thiswouldprovidea Page 159 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

greenerapproachaswellencouragingpeopletoavoidmorepollution.We Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation arebecomingabigmetrocomplexwithmanywebssoletsstepupanduse steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost thetrain/busalternativesthatmanybiggercitiesalreadyhaveincorporated Issues. intotheirplans.Pleaseacceptmystrongvoteforatrainoptionespecially withtheexpansionofthelightrail,atrainusingexistingtrackswould TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout developawebofexcellentroutesfortravel.IstronglysupportPackageA, throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed whichproposespassengerrailserviceusingtheBNSFrailcorridorthat inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. presentlyconnectsFortCollins,Loveland,Berthoud,LongmontandDenver Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout UnionStation.ItalsoprovidesforcommuterbusservicebetweenGreeley, theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. DenverandDIAaswellasimprovedlocalfeederbusserviceandanew vehiclelaneonI25.Thankyou. 187 Ann karspeck Isupportthecommuterrailandbusrapidtransitoptions.Ibelievethatby Commentnoted. usingtheexistinglinesfortherailthatitwillsavemoneybyusingthe existinginfrastructureandaccommodatetransitacrossthefrontrangefrom InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, FortCollinstoDenver.Therailoptionalsocontributestothehealthand pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway sustainabilityofthedowntownareasthatitrunsthrough.Ihopethatthebus Improvements. rapidtransitwillallowforconnectionbetweentherailsystemsandoutlying communities.Iampleasedtoseethatsuchneededpublictransitalternatives Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand arebeingconsideredifnotforourgenerations,thenthegenerationsto transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 come. –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 188 Sherry KeeneHobbs Isupportthecommuterrailoption. Commentnoted. 189 Larey Kerling IstronglysupportOptionAbecauseitincludesalternativeroutestoI25.A Commentnoted. railconnectionbetweenFortCollinsandpointssouthwouldgiveusawayto travelthatdidnotincludeI25.IfeverythingisroutedviaI25thenitisa totalchokepointwhichcouldbedisruptedbyanychangeoftrafficpatterns. Oncecriticalelementofacommuter/passengertrainserviceiseasy connectionstodestinationsinDenversuchasthesportsarenas,theairport, andbusinesscenters.Thankyou. 190 Ace King Fixedrailtransitisnotflexibletoadjusttodifferentdemographicsorneeds. ThePreferredAlternativeincludesexpressbusservicealongI Doublingtheexistingbusroutescouldaccomplishthesamegoalsasatrain 25andcommuterbusservicealongUS85.Theseserviceswill Page 160 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

butwithoutthemassivepricetagandconstructiondelays.Forathoughtful, havetheabilitytobemodifiedtoservetheareaswhere detailedalternativetotrains,visitmywebsite:FreeSkiBus.org developmentpatternscontinuetoemerge.

Inaddition,thePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrail servicebetweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenverthatwill servetheexistingestablishedpopulationcentersalongthat corridorsuchasFortCollins,Loveland,Berthoudand Longmont.Thisisconsistentwiththosecommunities’plansfor growthanddevelopmentwithintheirexistingcoreareas. 191 Fred Kirsch CanIseewhatthepubliccommentsaretodate? Thepubliccommentsareincludedontheprojectwebsiteat: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/northi25eis 192 David Klockeman Pleaseaddlanguagetotheinformationrelatedtointerchangesthatallows TexthasbeenaddedtotheFinalEIS(Chapter2section2.2.4.1, thepotentialforroundaboutsattheramptermini,andadjacenttotheramps PreferredAlternativeI25Improvements)statingthat atothercontrolledintersectionssuchasfrontageroads.Thelanguageinthe communitiescanworkwithCDOTandFHWAtoreevaluate DEISdoesnotprecluderoundaboutsbutitdoesnotendorsetheirpotential interchangeconfigurationsandintersectioncontroloptionsto eitherasapracticalalternative.Thankyou. meettheircommunitiesneeds. 193 Mike Knowles SincetheNI25EISsiteisdownI'mhopingthatmycommentswillget Commentnoted. counted.Irepeatedlyhearthattherearetwopackages,AandB,tochoose fromalthoughI'veneverfoundreferencetothemonyoursite.Ithinkthose ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail ofusthatliveinN.COneedrailtoDenver.Itdoesn'thavetobelightrail.I alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend wouldliketoseeheavyrailthatutilizesexistingraillines.Ialsodon'tlikethe oflineinThornton.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent ideaofrailrunningdowntheI25corridor,althoughIunderstandfroma technologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreight rightofwaytheappeal.MyissueisthatthereisnoN.COtownthat railcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlonger straddlestheinterstate.Alltowns,andthusthemajorityofcitizenslivemiles corridorsincontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredfor fromtheinterstate.Thiswouldrequireasubstantialincreaseinbusservice thiscorridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit fromtheurbancenterstotheinterstatetoaccesstherail.RailMUSTbepart choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand ofthesolution.Anypackagethatdoesnotincluderailshouldbethrownout. isconsistentwithRTDplans. Wemustn'tshortchangeandburdenfuturegenerationswithacaronly transportationsystemmodel.Thanks. 194 Elizabeth Kolbe Ifeelthiswouldbeagreatservicetoallthefrontrangecommunities.It Commentnoted. wouldespeciallyhelpstudentsandtheelderlywhootherwiseareunableto commute.ThiswouldcertainlyimproveFrontRangeeconomy.

Page 161 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

195 Dee Koloski Ilovetheideaofthecommuterrailoption!(optionA)Itappearstobalance Commentnoted. theneedforconnectivitybetweencommunitiesutilizingbuses,whilealso lookingtothefuturerequirementsofmovinglargenumbersofpeople withoutpavingourentireprairie.Thanksforallyourworkonthis! 196 Bob Komives CommentsonNorthI25EIS1.Thisprojectseemsmisnamed,"NorthFront TheprojectwasinitiatedtoaddressI25asdefinedinthe RangeTransportation(Draft)Plan"wouldbetterdescribetheeffort.2.I purposeandneed(SeeChapter1)butattheonsetofthe preferPackage(Alternative)A.Thefollowingcommentsrefermostlytothis projectitwasrecognizedthattheinterstateservesthewhole alternative.3.Thestudyareaandthealternativesshouldextendtothe northernregion,andthestudyareawassodefined.The borderandspeaktotheconnectionwithCheyenne.Cheyenneisthe regionaltransportationplanoftheNFRMPOistheplanning functionalnorthernendoftheregion,notFortCollins,notGreeley.4.I mechanismforthenorthfrontrangearea. stronglysupportthepassengerrailinthemostly287corridorasproposed.5. Ibelievetherenaissanceofthehighway85corridorisanequalkeytothe Currentdataindicatesthatabout0.1%ofalldailytripsfrom futureoftheregionasthe287corridor.Tothatendthe"commuterbus" NorthernColoradocommunitiesaredestinedforCheyenne. seemsliketoolittleatransitefforttopromotetransitoriented Thepurposeandneedoftheprojectistoidentify redevelopment.Irecommendeitherbusrapidtransitorrailasanexpression improvementsbetweennorthernColoradocommunitiesand ofthestatewideinvestmentinthiscorridor.6."Commuter"Railand theDenvermetropolitanregion;nottheRockyMountain "Commuter"Busmayreflecttechnicaldefinitionsofequipmentandservice, NationalPark.Freightprojectionsareincludedintheanalysis. howevertheerroneouslyimplythattheNorthFrontRangeisDenver focused.Atermwhichmightmakemoresensetothepublicandreflectthe CommuterrailonUS85wasevaluated,buteliminatedbecause regioncouldbetosubstitute"Regional"for"Commuter."7.Ibelievethe287 itdidn’tservepopulationcentersaswellasothercorridors, and85corridorsarethesocialandeconomicmainstreetsoftheregion.I25 andduetomorecomplexcoordinationwithfreightrail isavitalservicecorridor.Theplanshouldreflectthisbyincludingfreight operationsthantheBNSFcorridor.Asdemandgrows movementanddeliveryalongthatcorridor.8.Similartotheneedto additionalbusservicecouldeasilybeaddedtotheUS85 acknowledgetheCheyenneconnection,theplanshouldacknowledgethe corridorthisprojectdoesnotprecludefuturetransit Estes/RockyMountainNationalParkconnection.Thisisakeyaccessand expansions. attractiontotheregion.Theplanshouldanticipatetransitconnectionto complementeffortsintheNationalParkandtown. "Regional"indeeddescribestheproposedtransitservices,but theterm"commuter"hasbecometheestablished nomenclatureofthisproject.

ThePreferredAlternativeisacombinationofPackagesAandB. ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSFrailroadtracks betweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthmetroendof linestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendoflinestationin Longmont,commuterbusalongUS85betweenGreeleyand downtownDenver,interchangereconstructions,andthe Page 162 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

additionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes alongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobringlocal traffictothecorridortrainservice.Moredetailedinformation concerningthePreferredAlternativeisincludedinChapter2 AlternativesoftheFinalEIS. 197 Jan Kroeger IsupporttherailoptionoftransportingpeoplefromnorthofFortCollinsto Commentnoted. theDenverarea.ThetrafficonI25istooheavyandfastplustheroadhasto beunderconstantconstruction. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 198 Sharon Kunze I'mdefinitelyinfavorofPackageAofCDOT'sNorthI25Environmental Commentnoted. ImpactStudy.Weareindesperateneedofalternativemodesof transportation,whichwouldincludebetterandmorefrequentandinclusive Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation publictransportationandrailoptions.Transportationimprovementsare steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost LONGoverdue! Issues. 199 Chuck Kurnik IamaLongmontresidentandIpreferPackageAforthefollowingreasons:* Commentnoted. Itwillcreatetransitorienteddevelopment(TOD)opportunitiesinLongmont andallothercommunitieswithcommuterrailstations.TheseTOD'swillbe Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand verycloseto,ifnotinthetowncentersofeachofthesecommunities, transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 resultinginamoreeconomicallyvibranttowncenter.*Becausethestations –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. areintown,manydrivingmiles/yearwillbesavedvsPackageBwhere commutersarerequiredtodriveorbusseveralmilestoI25.*Itwillcreate InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, amoredirectrailroute(thanFasTracks)fromLongmonttoDenver,forall pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway communitiesfromLongmontnorth.*Itwilltightencommunitytiesforall Improvements. communitiesconnectedbyrail.*Therightofwayandatleastonerailis alreadyinplace.Thissavesyearsofworkandlotsofmoney.*Railcarsbeing Atthistime,ColoradoRailCarisnolongerinbusiness. manufacturedinFtLuptonwillcreatejobsinaruralcommunity.Bycontrast, Commuterrailvehiclesareavailablefromothermanufacturers. PackageBwillencourageincreasedtrafficonI25.Thiscontinuesthepositive feedbackloopofmoretraffic,buildmorelanes,moretraffic,buildmore lanes,etc..Thismistakehasbeenmadeinmanycitiesacrossthenation,andI hopethatCDOTwillstudythesecasesandnotrepeatthesemistakes. Industrializedcountriesthroughouttheworlddependonrailasalink betweencitycenters,andthestationsthemselvesascentersofcommerce. LettheFrontRangebealeaderincommuterrailintheNewAmericanWest.

Page 163 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

200 Amy Lavender ItwouldbegreattohavelightrailfromFtCollinstoDenver.Iwouldmuch Commentnoted. preferlightrailovertolllanes.Iwouldforeseeusinglightrailtoattend sportingevents,concerts,visitmuseumsandgototheairport. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 201 Larry Leach IwouldliketoseeOption"A",withstopsinLongmont,Berthoud,and Commentnoted. Loveland. ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF corridor.ThePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrail stationsinLongmont,Berthoud,andLoveland. 202 Christopher Leck Iamstronglyinsupportofhavingcommuterrailthatconnectsthecity Commentnoted. centersalongthefrontrange.IgrewupinChicagoandrodethetraininto thecityallthetime.IwouldusemanymoreoftheservicesinDenverifI Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation couldhoponatraintogetthere.ItalsomakesthedowntownsofLoveland steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost andLongmontmoreaccessibleformeaswell.Also,sinceIworkatCSU,I Issues. thinkUniversityclassescouldbeopeneduptoawholelotmorepeoplewho wouldcommutetocampusviatrain.Please,pleasegetthiscommuterrail going.Notdoingitnow,turnsusintoanotherbig,metroareathatdidnot getonboardearlyenough.We'llneedraileventually,wemightaswellget startednow. 203 Judy Lehn IwouldliketoseeCommuterRailputinfirst.Itmayreduceadditional Commentnoted. capacityonI25,ismoreecoefficientandwillsavemoneyinthelongrun. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Page 164 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 204 Arthur Leissa EventhoughIlivenotfarfromI25,IstronglysupportoptionAfor Commentnoted. transportationtonorthernColorado,includingI25laneadditions,butalso commuterrailalongtheBNSFrailcorridortoFortCollins. 205 Marolyn Lemming AnycommuterrailsystemfromNorthernColoradotoandfromDenvercan Commentnoted. onlyimproveexistingtheproblemsof:congestion,pollution,hwycostsand accessibility. 206 Edward Lewin Ibelievemasstransitsystemisinthebestinterestofallcommunities,rail Commentnoted. andbus. 207 Marilynn Liddell AimsCommunityCollegehasmadeacommitmenttoprovideexpanded Commentnoted. Marsi accessandprogramsthroughouttheregion,includingthepurchaseof40 acresattheintersectionofI25andCR56inBerthoud.Inamarketsurvey Therewillbeadditionalopportunitiesforcoordinationduring precedingthatacquisition,theCollegelearnedthatoneofthecommunity's finaldesignoftheprojectimprovements. expectationswastohaveAimsprovideatransportationhubatthenew Collegesite.WhileindialoguewithCDOTandNFRMPO,theCollegelearned oftwoalternativeplansforproposedmasstransitalongtheI25corridor, includingtheintersectionofCR56.TheCollegewouldprobablyhaveaslight preferenceforPlanA;however,eitherproposedplanwouldbe advantageoustoAimsandourstudents.Welookforwardtoworkingwith transportationentitiestoprovideessentialmasstransitopportunities. 208 Jordan Liebing IrecentlyreadthearticleintheLongmontTimesCallabouttheproposed BusservicealongUS287wasconsideredduringthe changestoI25betweenFortCollinsandLongmont.AsaCSUstudentwho alternativesdevelopmentprocessbutwasnotadvanced grewupinLongmont,anyofthesechangescouldhaveagreateffectonmy becausetraveltimeswerenotcompetitiveforregionalservice travels.I'mdisappointedthatnoneofthesevendisplaysoftheproposalsare andthereforeridershipwaslow. inFortCollins.Itseemslikeaprettyobviousoversight,andhopefullyone thatcanbeeasilyremedied.Withoutseeingtheproposals,Iwouldliketosay However,PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeincludes thattheabsenceofbusservicebetweenFortCollinsandLongmontwouldbe commuterrailserviceroughlyalongtheUS287corridor,andin agreataddition. additionthePreferredAlternativeincludesexpressbusservice onI25betweenHarmonyRoadand84thAvenue,withservice toFortCollinsalongHarmonyRoadandservicetoGreeley alongUS34.ExpressbusservicewillalsoserviceDenver InternationalAirportalongE470.

Page 165 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

209 Jamesand Little WESTRONGLYURGETHEADOPTIONOFOPTION"A"FORTHENORTHI25 Commentnoted. Sue PROJECT

210 Georgia Locker IwishyoutosupportPackageAintheCDOTNorthI25DraftEnvironmental Commentnoted. ImpactStatement(I25DEIS).Thiswouldofferbetterservicetothepeoplein theNorthRangeandhelptopreventsprawlalongI25.Thankyou. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 211 Camilla LoJeske Connectingcitiesthroughmasstransitwillprovidenotonlyinexpensiveand Commentnoted. cleantransportationinalldirections,butwillalsoprovidestudents,families, seniorswithbetteraccesstoeducational,cultural,medicalandathletic opportunities.PleaseseriouslyconsiderthebenefitstotheentireFront Rangebycontinuingwiththisproject. 212 James Looney IwouldliketorequestthatCDOTadoptoptionAwhichincludesrailtothe Commentnoted. project 213 Greg Ludlow IsupportOptionArecommuterrailservicebetweenDenverandnorthern Commentnoted. Colorado,includingBerthoud. 214 Lynn Lutkin Igrewupandliveduntil1972intheEastwheremasstransitwasawayof Commentnoted. life.ThelightrailinDenverhashadahugeimpactoncommutersandcitizens usingthisgreatsystem.WeinFortCollinsandnorthofDenverneedtohave ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail thesametypeofrailformanyreasons.1.impactontheenvironmentwould fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe bepositive.2.travelbycaronI25isamesswithconstantheavytrafficand NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing largefreight18wheelerswhichcontributetothewearandtearofthe toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology roadwaysandpeople'sstresslevels.3.Weshouldstarttrainingtheyoung thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail peopleandfuturechildrenhowtouserapidtransitinsteadofrelyingonthe corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors automobilesolelyfortransportation.4.MorepeoplewouldgointoDenver incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis forbusiness,culture,sports,artsiftherewereaneasier,moreefficientway corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit togetthereandback.5WeNEEDmasstransit! choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Page 166 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

215 Jo Luttrell WeshouldhavehadarailsystemalongtheFrontRangeyearsago!The Commentnoted. trafficisoutofcontrol,andwhenyouconsiderthenumberofdriverswho aredrinkinganddrivingontheirwayto/frommajorsportingevents,etc.it ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail addstotheproblemthatisI25.Irecentlysawtherailsystemgoingup alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend betweenSantaFeandAlbuquerque.Weshouldbeabletodoasimilar oflineinThornton. projecthereandIknowofmanypeoplewhowouldtakeadvantageofbeing abletotravelalongtheFrontRangeinsuchaway. Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 216 Anita Lynch InconnectionwithColoradoDepartmentofTransportation's(CDOT)NorthI Commentnoted. 25DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(NI25DEIS)andtoprovideviable transportationchoicesforthemovementofpeopleandgoodsinthe NorthernFrontRange(NFR),Istronglysupport:necessarysafetyupgradeson I25,masstransitcomponentsofPackageA,andmostspecificallycommuter railconnectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont, thereconnectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.

Page 167 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

217 June Macarelli Ihopeyouwillonlyconsidertheplantousetheraillinesgoingthrough Commentnoted. Longmont,LovelandandFt.Collins.Thiswillenablepeopletogettothe heartofthesetownswithouthavingtouseothertransportation.Usingabus systemalongI25isreallyapooralternative.Pleasegetus'ontrack!'Thank you! 218 Chris Macbeth WefullysupportoptionA Commentnoted. 219 Louis MacDonald IsupportPkgA.It'stimewemovedintothe21stcentury.Thanks Commentnoted. 220 Fred Madden Afterreadinganop/edintheColoradoanthismorning,andthenreading Commentnoted. section2.2oftheEIS,Iagreewiththeop/edauthorthatoptionAisthe preferredapproach.OptionBwould,inmyopinion,dolittletoreducemiles ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail driven.Ialsobelievelightrailwouldbeembracedhavingdoneonlylimited fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe commutingtoDenver,it'senoughthatIwouldnotseekemploymentbut NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing withinalimitedrangeofhome.Lightrailmightprovidemoreopportunity toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology andflexibilityforNorthernColoradofamilies.Intheend,a20%price thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail premiumtogetlightrailandupgradedI25infrastructureseemsa corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors reasonablepricetopayfortheflexibilityitwillprovideandthechanceto incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis reducemilesdriven.Thanks. corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Commuterraildoeshelpreducevehiclemilesoftravel(VMT). However,theBRTserviceofPackageBoffsetsVMTaswell. AnotherfactorregardingtheamountofVMTisthetypeof highwayexpansion.ThetolledlanesofPackageBdonot attractasmuchtrafficasthenewgeneralpurposelane (combinedwithTEL)ofPackageA(PreferredAlternative).For thisreasonthe2035analysisshowsthatPackageBgenerates theleastamountofVMTcomparedtoPackageAorthe PreferredAlternative,byasmallamount.SeeChapter4 TransportationImpactsformoredetail. 221 Andrea Maga Iamwritingtovoicemysupportforapassenger/commuterrailservice Commentnoted. betweenFt.CollinsandDenver,andbeyond.

Page 168 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

222 Keith Mahoney Wherearetheproposals,packageAandpackageB,locatedonyourwebsite? Informationabouttheprojectalternatives,includingthe PreferredAlternativeareincludedontheprojectwebsiteat: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/northi25eisandin Chapter2oftheDraftEIS,locatedat: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/northi25eis/deis pdf/deisvolume1/05%20 %202.0%20Alternatives_DEIS_Oct%202008.pdf/view 223 Mary Mangelsen Isupportplan#1.Havingthecommuterrailintothenorthmetroareawould Commentnoted.Weassumethatbyplan#1youarereferring reducethetrafficnotonlyonI25butalsoalongHighway287.Thiswould toPackageA. givepeoplemoreemploymentopportunitieswithouttheworryof commutingbycarduetogascosts. Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.CommuterrailofPackageAandthePreferredAlternative providesanalternatemodeforI25andUS287travelers;but theprojectedridershipresultsinonlyaminimaleffecton highwaytraffic. 224 Jack Margolis IlikeOptionAasdescribedintoday'sColoradoan.MilanKarspeckSoapbox Commentnoted. articlealsolikesit.MoreInterstatelanesandrailalongthecurrentBNSFrail corridor. 225 Elizabeth Marr IsupportnecessarysafetyupgradesonI25,masstransitcomponentsof Commentnoted. PackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrailconnectingcitycenterson existingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,thereconnectingwithDenver MetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes. 226 Debra Marsden Pleasenotethatthesearemypersonalopinionsandnotnecessarilythe Commentnoted. opinionsoftheLCGPCasawhole.Itisimperativethatwetakethelongview whendevelopingtransportationinfrastructure.Tothatend,Ibelievethat Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand PackageAwouldbemoresustainableandmoreenvironmentallyfriendly transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 thanPackageB.ThereforeIamverymuchinfavorofPackageA.Theuseof –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. railalongtheBSNFcorridor,asopposedtoincreasingtheuseofinternal combustionenginevehiclesonI25,isclearlymoredesirable.Wemustmove inthedirectionofdisengagingourselvesfromforeignoilsupplies,astheywill becomemoreandmorevolatileandscarceinthefuture.WhileIdo Page 169 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

understandthatrailtransportstillmayusepetroleumfuels,itdoessomore efficiently.Additionally,theincreaseddevelopmentofcommerceand servicesalongaraillinewouldcreateamorecongenialurbanenvironment thantoplaceallnorthsouthtransitalongtheI25corridor. 227 Christopher Marshall Weneedmorerail.TherearealreadytracksandarightofwayfromFort Commentnoted. CollinstoDenver.ItisTIMEFORRAIL.Duh! ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend oflineinThornton.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementationstep, pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. 228 Terrie Martin IsupportPackageA.Itappearsthatthispackageoffersthemost Commentnoted. transportationoptions.Ihavemorecommentsandquestions,butthatisa goodsummation.Thankyoufortheopportunitytoofferouropinions. 229 Patricia Maslowski Alightrailsystemorarailsystemwithitsowntracksmakesthemostsense ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail tome.Peoplecanchange,andfrankly,I25isanightmareandmorelanes fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe willjustbringmorevehicles.Publictransportationissafer,moreefficient, NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing lesspolluting,andbringscommunitytogether.Oneofthecharacteristicsthat toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology hasharmedoursocietyistheanonymityofsuburbsandhighways. thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail DowntownLovelandisatreasurebecauseofthesmallbusinesses,the corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors communityinvolvement,thearts.Efficiencydoesnotacommunitymake, incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis andoursolitaryvehiclesandcrowdedhighwaysarenotconducivetoquality corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit oflife.Pleasehavethevisionandforesighttothinkofthegenerations choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand comingup.Wecannotcontinuethisway.Thenearcollapseoftheauto isconsistentwithRTDplans. industrythathasignoredrealityfor30yearsoughttobeproofofthat.We mustmakechanges,andarailsystemthatallowspeopletoparktheircarsor InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, takebusesorjitneystothestationswherewecanthenread,stareoutthe pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway window,dowork,orcommunicatewithourneighborswouldbeavast Improvements. improvementoverourdysfunctionalhighwaysystemnow.Andthisdoesn't eventakeintoaccountthepollutionanddiminishingofoilreserves.Iwant tosay,Comeon,Americans,let'sbetheinnovators,thepragmatists,the visionariesweknowwecanbe.Thankyou.

Page 170 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

230 Carla Massaro IaminfavorofOptionAwithanexception.Initiatethecommuterrailfrom Commentnoted. FortCollinstoLongmontimmediately.DonotaddanyadditionallanestoI 25.OnlyperformsafetyadditionstoI25.Downtownsneedtheeconomic Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation stimuluswhichrailwillprovideandthat'swherethepeoplelive(canbiketo steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost train).Suggestthetrainhaveroomtotransportthebikesalso.Thisiswhat Issues. theObama/Ritteradministrationsareseekinggreentransportationnot morepollution.ThefrontrangeisalreadyoverEPAstandardsforsmog.By InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, addingmoreblacktop,wewillbecontributingtothisproblemandinjuring pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway populationhealth. Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning.

Thecommuterrailbicyclepolicieshavenotbeenestablished, butmightbesimilartothoseofRTD.RTDcurrentlyallowsfour bicyclespervehicleonitslightrailvehicleswithoutanytime restrictions.RTDhasnodetailedpoliciesforbicycleson commuterrailvehiclesbutisexpectedtomaintainatleastthe sameaccessibilityascurrentlyexistsonlightrailvehicles. 231 Stephanie McDaniel IwouldliketoseetheI25northernColoradotrain,optionA,implemented. Commentnoted. AtrainfromFortCollinsintoDenverisaseriousneed.Thankyou. 232 Bridget McDonell IsupportPKGA.Thankyou. Commentnoted. 233 Sandra McLuckie IamwritingtosupportPackageAofCDOT'sNorthI25EnvironmentalImpact Commentnoted. Study.ImovedbacktoColoradoafterhavinglivedinthePortland,Oregon areaforaboutfifteenyears.DuringthoseyearsOregoninstalledtheMAX ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail lightrail.Whenthelightrailwasexpandedtothewestside,whichiswhereI fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe lived,theridershipinlessthanayearsurpassedthequotathatwaspredicted NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing aftertwoyearsinexistence.IpersonallyrodethelightrailasmuchasIcould toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology andthiswasbeforethehighgasolineprices.IsayprotectbeautifulColorado thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail environmentasmuchasispossible.Takingmanycarsofftheroadwillgreatly corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors helpColoradojustasitdidforOregon. incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. Page 171 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

234 Kevan McNaught CDOThaspreselectedonly2proposalsforthepublictochoosefrom.Each AttheprojectonsetaPurposeandNeedstatementis includesveryexpensivemasstransitthatonlyatiny%ofthecommuting developed.Itconsiderscommunityobjectives,inputsolicited populationwilluse,accordingtoCDOT'sownprojections.Whymustthese fromcitizensandstakeholdersandfuturelanduseplansinthe automaticallybeincluded?Clearly,thepublicisvotingw/their regionamongotherthings.Thisstatementcallsoutthe transportationchoices,sowhyshoveterriblyexpensivebus&lightraildown deficiencyoftransportationchoicesinnorthernColoradoand ourthroats? identifiesneedtoprovideamultimodalsolution.Awiderange oftransportationalternatives(over100)wereevaluatedand reviewedwiththepublictodeterminetheirapplicabilityinthe corridor.Throughanextensive,systematicevaluationprocess andpublicinputtransportationalternativeswereeliminated and/orpairedwitheachothertodevelopasetof improvementsthataddressestheprojectgoals.Thetwo packagesthatbestaddressedtheproject’sPurposeandNeed andhadsupportfromthecommunitieswerePackagesAandB. Furtherevaluationofthosepackagesandadditionalinputfrom theproject’stwoadvisorycommitteesledtothedevelopment ofthesinglePreferredAlternativethatisevaluatedintheFinal EIS.Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceived throughouttheEIS,howevernotethatvotingisnotapartof theprocess. 235 Gene Michieli IsupportoptionAforthenorthI25project.Itwilltakethispartofthestate Commentnoted. intothefutureastransportationcostsincreaseandspacediminishes. 236 Ryan Miller IaminfullsupportofatrainbetweenFortCollinsandDenver!!!Buildit!!! Commentnoted. 237 Jennifer Milner Ilikethisplan:ToexpandI25tothreelaneseachdirectionfromDenver Commentnoted. throughatleastMulberry(possiblyWellington,Ican'trecall)Formass transitpurposes,italsoaddsalineofrailtransitalongexistingrailroadsto connectthecitycentersofFortCollins,Loveland&Longmonttoone another.Onecouldthenintheory,getallthewaytoBoulderanddowntown Denverusingthisrailsystem. 238 Carolyn Mita IunderstoodfromtheColoradoannewspaperthatthecommentperiodran CDOTacceptedcommentsthroughtheentirecommentperiod throughJanuary,2009.Inowseea12/30/08deadlineatthissite.Pleasetell endingDecember31,2008.Youroriginalcommentwas meitisstillpossibleformycommentstobeconsidered! includedascommentIDnumber862,belowwitharesponse.

Page 172 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

239 Art Mitchell IspokeatthemeetingsatbothLovelandandFt.Collins.Itseemsthatthe Commentnoted. overwhelmingopinionwastohaverailtransitandthatthetaxpayerswere willingtopayforit.Thefairweatherbussystemmaybecheapertobuildbut Railtransitdoeshaveahigherrateofeconomicstimulus itdoesnotprovideasmucheconomicstimulusasrailtransit.Dr.Beverly comparedtobus,althoughexactstatisticsarenotavailable. Scott,generalmanagerandCEOofMetropolitanAtlantaRailTransit Overtime,thereturnontheinvestmentisgreaterfromrail, Authoritynotesthatstudieshaveshownthateverydollarinvestedinrail althoughstartupcostsaremuchhigherthanbus. transitgeneratessixdollarsineconomicreturnandeverybilliondollars investedinrailtransitcreates35,000jobs.Railtransitridershiphasgrownby RTD’sfundinggapfortheFasTracksprogramisaresultof 32%since1995.MysourceistheNovember2008issueofRAILWAYAGE rapidlyescalatingcostsforcommoditiesandmaterialsonthe Magazine.Myfearisthatsomuchmoneywillbespentonstudiesthatmost worldmarket,combinedwiththeeconomicslowdownandthe ofthemoneywillbeconsumedtothepointthattherewillbeonlyenough correspondingdownwardimpactoncurrentandforecastsales moneytobuildaninferiorbussystemcontrarytothepublicdesire.Thenews andusetaxrevenues.Thisproject'splanningexpendituresare thatIheardaboutFASTTRACKSisthatsomuchmoneywasspentonstudies lessthan1%oftheproject'stotalcost. thatthecompletionoftherailsystemcannotbecompletedasplanned.They saynowthatthelinecannotbecompletedtoLongmontasplannedhowever Inordertoprovidethemostaccurateopinionofprobablecost willendattheFlatironsMallinBroomfield,some24milesshortofgoal.This FHWAandCDOTconductedaCostEstimateReview.Thecost maydoomthewholeprojecttofailureandcausetaxpayerstorejectfuture estimatereviewisanunbiasedriskbasedreviewtoverifythe railtransitplans.Endthestudiesandstopwastingtaxpayermoney.Justshut accuracyandreasonablenessofthecurrenttotalcostestimate upandbuildtherailsystemthatthetaxpayerswant. tocompletetheprojectandtodevelopaprobabilityrangefor thecostestimatethatrepresentsthecurrentstageofproject design.Partofthisstudyistoalsoreviewtheproposed constructionscheduletodetermineitsimpactontheproject cost.Duringthecourseofthereviewtheteamidentifiedand discussednumerousthreatsandopportunities.Athreatis anythingthatcanaddtothecostoftheproject.An opportunityisanythingthatcanreducethecostoftheproject.

CostEstimateReviewyieldsadollaramountforwhichthe projecthasa70%likelihoodofbeingconstructed.This probabilisticanalysisresultedinacostestimateatthe70% confidencelevelof$9,474.9million(inyearof expenditure[YOE])forthePreferredAlternativeoftheNorthI 25Project.ThecostforPhaseIatthe70%confidencelevelwas $1,271.2million(YOE).

Inordertoprovidethemostaccuratecostestimatespossible Page 173 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

forthisproject,FHWAandCDOTconductedaCostEstimate Review.Thisexercisereviewseachlineitemforconstruction andidentifiesthethreatsandopportunitiesthatcouldimpact thequantityandthepriceofthatitem.Thisreviewisaweek longprocessandprovidesboththestateandfederalagencies reassurancethattheprojectcanreasonablybeexpectedtobe fundedunderthecurrentlyanticipatedfundingstream. 240 Art Mitchell Sincewearetalkingaboutatransitsystemthatwillcarryuswellintothe Afullrangeofrailtechnologies,includingelectrifiedthirdrail, futurewewillneedasystemthatwillnotneedreplacinginjustafewyears wasevaluated.ThisevaluationisdocumentedinChapter2of andwillnotbeoutgrowninafewyears.Commuterrailtransithasbeen theEIS.Commuterrailwasfoundtobethemosteffective successfulinmetropolitanareasforover150years.Largermetroareashave solutionforthiscorridor.Phasingofprojectimprovements replacedbusrouteswithlightrailandrailcommuterroutesbecauseof drewupontheproject’spurposeandneed(definedinChapter efficiency.Weneedatransportationsystemthatleavesassmallcarbonfoot 1oftheEIS).Phasingincludesearlyimplementationofbus printaspossibleforthefuture.Railtransitmeetsthoseneeds.Onpage22of serviceonI25duetoitslowcostandeaseofimplementation theDecember2008issueofRAILWAYAGEMagazineisaninterestingpie andalsoprovidesaccesstotransitforindividualseastofI25 chart.Thechartshowsrailefficiencycomparedtoallotherlandbased whomaynotdriveoruseexpressbustogettothecommuter transportationmediumsincludingwater.Railtransports40%ofallfreightin rail. theUSA.Truckscarry30%ofallfreight.Waterandpipelineeachcarry15%of allfreight.Intheenergyconsumptioncharttrucksuse65%ofallenergyused totransportfreight.Wateruses18%.Pipelineuses9%.Railroadsuseonly8% oftheenergyusedforcountry'stransportationneeds.Sinceabusisbasically atruckthatcarriespassengersandapassengercarisjustafancyboxcarthat carriespassengers.Thesameenergysavingsandlessercarbonfootprintcan beclaimedcomparingbustorailtransit.Electrificationthroughthirdrail poweredbyColorado'swindfarmscanreducethecarbonfootprintforrail transittonearzero.Thirdrailelectrificationhasbeensuccessfullyusedinthe NewYorkareaforover100years.Thirdrailischeapertomaintainandhas noheightrestrictions.Inmyopinion,Bustransitisjustastopgapmeasure untilitisoutgrownbyincreasingpopulationandisreplacedbyrailtransit. Let'sgrowupandbuilditrightfromthebeginningandnotwastetime, moneyandenergyonastopgapmeasurethatwillbeoutgrowninashort periodoftime.ThankYou. 241 Art Mitchell Anothercommentaboutconcernaboutwildlifebeingeffectedbyincreased Commentnoted. commuterrailtraffic.TwomonthsagoIwassenttoSouthOwlCanyon (NorthofWellington)tochangeswitchtiesunderaswitchfrog.Afrogis Manyanimalsadapttonoisefrombothhighwayandrail Page 174 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

wherethetworailscrossandisthenoisiestpartofaswitchandtakesthe sources. mostbeating.Inahollowedoutpartofthetie,directlyunderthepointof thefrogwasamousenest.Thousandsofwheelsclatteroverthatfrogevery daywithnoseemingeffectontheresidentsbelow.Irunandfireasteam locomotiveattheColoradoRailroadMuseum.Whenwewererunningthe steamenginelastOctoberweweretryingtouseupallthecoalinthetender soitwouldbecleanforthewinter.Atthebottomofthecoalpileintheair spacesbetweenthelumpsofcoalIfound5mousenests.Obviously,riding aroundonatenderofasteamlocomotivedidn'tbotherthemeither.Thanks. 242 Barbara Mitteis IwanttocastmysupportforpackageAfortheDEIS.Thisisduetorailbeing Commentnoted. constructedthroughexistingtownsandcities.Ithinkthelongtermvalue fromtheinvestmentwouldbemuchgreaterfortheseexistingcommunities, ratherthanencouragingnewcommunitiesnexttoI25.Alsoinregardsto homelandsecurity,itwouldbewisetoseparatethevariousmeansof transportation. 243 Dianne Moeller IsupportpackageAbecauseitmostactivelyincorporatespublic Commentnoted. transportationoptions 244 Daniel Money IsupportOptionAandwouldliketourgeitsadoption Commentnoted. 245 Denise Montagu I'mhearingtalkofcommuterlightrailbetweenFortCollinsandDenver. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail True?What'sthetimeline? fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 246 Bill Moorcroft Ifavorcommuterrailoptions.AsIunderstandit,optionAcontains Commentnoted. commuterrailandthereforeIfavorit. Page 175 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

247 Debbie Moors I'mwritingtoexpressmysupportofOptionAforacommuterrailsystem Commentnoted. whichstopsinBerthoud 248 Elizabeth Morisette IwouldliketoseearailsystembuilttoeasethetrafficonI25.IknowI Commentnoted. wouldusethesystemtogointoDenverandalsototheairport.Comingfrom anurbanarea(WashingtonDC)Iwouldlovetoseealternativetransportation methodsinColorado. 249 Dabney Moulton IhavelivedinColoradofor17+yearsandtraveledfromcornertocornerwith Commentnoted. childrenintravelsports.Mychildrenareincollegeandessentiallyoutofthe house,butmydesiretotakethetimetoexplorethefrontrangehasgrown.I don'twanttodrivewithoneortwoinmycarwhenIcouldsitbackandridea train.Iwasanarmybratgrowingupandhavelivedandvisitedaroundthe world.ThetransportationalternativeswerewonderfulwhereIcouldtake advantageoftrainsandsubways.Itisalsohealthierfortheenvironmentas wellasthebody.IsupportoptionAwiththetrainstationscentrallylocated wherethepeoplelive.MyparentsliveintheNorthernVirginiaareaandwith theexpandedtrainservicestheretheyrarelytakeacarintoDC.Itisso convenient.Thankyouforanopportunitytocomment. 250 James Moulton AsaresidentoftheFrontRange,IstronglysupportoptionAforNorthI25.I Commentnoted. believehavingthecommuterrailsystemforpublictransportationalongthe FrontRangewillnotonlybebestfortheenvironment,butitwillalsobebest Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand forbusinessandcommerce.Itwillattractbusinessesalongtherailcorridor transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 nearthestations.Riderswillbeabletoreachtheirworksites,aswellas –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. restaurants,retailcentersandentertainmentvenueswithminimal environmentalimpact.Thankyouforyourconsideration. 251 Michelle Myers WeneedtoquitexpandingI25afterthislastphaseofhaving34lanes.We Commentnoted. needacommuterrailthatusestheexistingBNSFline.Itwouldhelpthe economicsofdowntowneconomiesandcreateaparalleltransportation InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, systemthatdecreasesthetrafficonI25andthefeederroutes.Keepmore$ pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway localandhelpingALLcommunitiesbothfinanciallyandmoreimportantly Improvements. withtheirqualityoflife.Ifyoucangetoffinthedowntownareayouusually decreaseyourtravelimpactby1modeoftransportation.Nomoretraffic lanesonI25!Let'smovetocommuterrailonanexistingline,BNSF.Let'ssay yestoamodeoftransportationthatdoesnotusepetroleum.

Page 176 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

252 Ben Myers NorthI25EISProjectTeam,OnbehalfoftheMummyRangeInstitute,I Commentnoted. wouldliketoconveythefollowingcommentsregardingtheNorthI25Draft EIS.Ofthealternativeslisted,wesupportPackageA.However,PackageA Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingairqualityand mustbereworkedtoavoidseriousenvironmentalharmandsetaprecedent wetlands,theFinalEISpresentscomparativeinformationfor forrapidtransitinnorthernColorado.Specifically,weareconcernedwiththe thethreebuildalternative(thePreferredAlternative,Package estimateddecreaseinairqualityanddiminishedwetlandenvironments AandPackageB)andtheNoActionAlternativeforthese comparedtothenoactionalternative.PackageAshouldofferanimproved topics.AsdescribedinSection3.5–AirQualitytheairquality futureforairqualityandwetlandsovernoaction,andthisiseasilyattainable emissionsformostairpollutantswouldbesimilarinyear2035 byreducingoreliminatingtheproposedexpansionofI25infavorof forallofthealternatives,andwouldbelowerthanexisting increasedcommuterrailservice.ThecommuterrailportionofPackageA,as levelsasaresultofimprovementsinvehiclesemissionsover describedintheDEIS,islittlemorethana"token"movetowardregional time.Withregardtowetlands,asdescribedinSection3.8– rapidtransit.Itwillnotbesufficienttomitigatetheenvironmentalimpactsof Wetlands–thePreferredAlternativewouldhavetoleasttotal increasedtravel,norwillitbeconvenientenoughtosignificantlychange wetlandimpactsofthebuildalternatives.Wetlandimpactswill behavioramonglocalcommuters.Acommuterrailpackageshouldnotonly bemitigatedinaccordancewithpoliciesestablishedbyUSACE. reduceenvironmentalimpactsofregionaltravel,butshiftpreferencesfrom individualvehicletravel.Apackagetrulycenteredaroundcommuterrail Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand wouldhavethesecondarybenefitofeconomicallystrengtheningthe transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 historicalcoreareasofFortCollins,Loveland,andLongmont,whereasa –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. packagerelyingonI25expansionwillencouragenewandunnecessary developmentalongtheinterstatecorridortothedetrimentofthedowntown InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, regions.Thankyouforcreatingavisionforrailbasedrapidtransitin pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway northernColorado,butpleasemodifyPackageAtomakeitameaningful Improvements. one.WelookforwardtoviewingtheFinalEIS. 253 Stephanie Neid IamstronglyinfavorofcommuterrailtotheSouthFortCollinsTransit Commentnoted.ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageA Center. includecommuterrailwithastopattheFortCollinssouth transitcenter. 254 Joel Nevison NorthI25EIS:IsupportCommuterrailalternativesAandG.Thesetwo PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeeachincludeone(the connectthelargestpopulationcentersinNorthernColorado.Placingstations same)commuterrailline;itisnotclearwhatyourefertowith inlocationscentraltoconcentrationsofpopulationyieldsthehighest "A"and"G".However,thecommuterrailofPackageAandthe convenienceofuse.Thisalsoenableslinkingtothelargestnumberofother PreferredAlternativeisontheBNSFalignmentservingthe localtransitoptions.IbelievetheUSAispastduetodevelopviabletransit populationcentersofFortCollins,Loveland,andLongmont, alternativestoprivateautomobiles.Thankyou. andcontinuingontotheFasTracksNorthMetrolineandDUS. Thecommuterrailhasconnectionstofeederbuses,local transitroutes,andtheRTDFasTrackssystem.

Page 177 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

255 Cheri Nichols Istronglyfavorworkingtowardgreateravailabilityanduseofpublic/mass Commentnoted. transportationmeans,therefore,IsupportPackageAforourregion. 256 Bob Norris WeinLongmonthavebeenfortoolongunderservedrelativetotheRTD ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail taxeswehavebeenpaying.Wewouldbenefitinmanywaysfromlightrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe andnotmuchfromwideningofI25.TheI25congestionwouldbemore NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing effectivelyandenvironmentallysoundlyaddressedbyasignificant toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology investmentinvanpoolswhichwouldalsohelpcreatejobsmorequickly thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail anotherinitiativethatwouldbehelpfulonmanyfrontsistoencourage corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors employerstopromotetelecommutingformanyjobs.Finally,weshouldadd incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis alargeenergywastingfinestofolksexceedingthealreadyenergywasting corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit speedlimitonI25.Theproceedscouldbeusedforhighwayefficiency choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand projects. isconsistentwithRTDplans.

ThePreferredAlternativealsoincludesanumberofcongestion managementmeasuressuchasvanpooling.Specifically carpool/vanpoollotsareplannedat11locationsalongI25. Otherprojectmeasuresincludeincidentmanagement programs,rampmeteringandintelligenttransportation systems;howevertelecommutingisnotaproposedproject strategy.

Thereiscurrentlynodedicatedrevenuestream(taxes)for theseimprovements,andtheyarenotincludedaspartof RTD'splans.Notetheproposedserviceslargelyservenorthern frontrangecommunitieswhichareoutsideoftheRTDdistrict. 257 Peter ONeill IstronglyprefertheI25NorthPackageAbuildplan.Primarilythechoiceis Commentnoted. betweenservingexistingpopulationcentersandusingandsustainingexisting compactcivilinfrastructureinPackageAandbuildingacompletelynew, Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand sprawlingmetropolisof"I25North"inPackageB.EventhoughIlivewithin transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 earshotofI25,Iprefertheformerbecauseitisoverallcheaperatthistime –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. whenthenationissoheavilyindebt,ismoreenergyefficientasfuelprices aresuretosurgeagain,andmaintainsthecharacterandidentitiesofthe WhilePackageAcostslessthanPackageB,thePreferred NorthFrontRangecities.PackageA,togetherwiththeMasonSt.Corridor AlternativeidentifiedintheFEISismoreexpensivethaneither plan,willbreathenewlifeintotheincreasingnumberofvacantbuildings package.ThisisaresultofthePreferredAlternativecombining alongCollegeAve.thuscounteringurbandecay.Itwillalsosupportthe elementsfrombothpackagesintoasingleimprovement Page 178 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

heritageoftheN.FrontRangeasbeingcenteredontheBNSFRRandUS287 package.Itisworthnotinghowever,thatthecostperuserfor andofI25asanearby,uncongestedbypassforlongrange,interstatetraffic. thePreferredAlternativeislessthanPackageAasaresultofits abilitytoaccommodatemoreusers. 258 Patriciaand Palmer WethinkthatplanAisthebestsolutionandisworththecost.Itprovidesthe Commentnoted. Gordon mostandbestoptionsforcitizenslivinginN.E.Coloradotointeractina responsiblewaywiththerestofthestateandforthefutureofour environmentbothlocallyandforthewholeplanet.Asourpopulationages weneedtoprovidesuitabletransportationoptionstogetallpeople especiallyolderfolksareliablemeanstogetaround.Drivingbecomesavery challengingexperiencetopeopleatanoldage.Weneedareliablewaytoget toshoppingcentersanddoctorsofficesinasafemanner.Manycityofficials haveexpressedthehighcostofrail,butifwebroughtbusinessesand manufacturingtotheareathatproducedrailproductswecouldincreasejobs anddecreasethepubliccosttoinstallandmaintainthesystem.Andalso perhapssellsomeofthemanyhomesthathavebeenbuilttonewresidents. WecannotallworkinretailatplaceslikeCentera. 259 Catherine Parkhurst IpreferpackageAforthealternatives. Commentnoted. 260 Marcia Patton AsIreviewedthedraftEISitisuncleartomehoweitherAlternativeAorB Eachofthethreebuildpackagesprovidetransitserviceto Mallory providesreasonabletransportationlinkstokeydestinationssuchasDIA, DenverUnionStation,thusconnectingtothehubofRTD's Denversportsandperformingartscomplexesandtheskiareas.Also,itisnot FasTrackssystem.Inparticular,thePreferredAlternative clearhowmajordestinationssuchaspeoplewhoworkdowntown,atthe providesthreedirecttransitconnectionstodowntownDenver DenverFederalCenteretc.wouldconnectwithespeciallytherailorbus anditssports,entertainment,jobsandactivitycenters.The option.Ingeneral,Iliketheideaofrailthatconnectsexistingcommunities AlternativealsoincludesadirectexpressbusconnectiontoDIA ratherthanmoreinvestmentintheI25mess.Weneedviableoptionsto fornorthernColoradoresidents.CommuterrailontheBNSF singlepassengervehiclesthatdoesnotpromotemoresprawl.Increasing waschosentoconnectcitycenters,andwouldoperateasan densityandoptionsbetweenandwithincities,andmakingthosethatuseI extensionoftheRTDNorthMetrolinetoDenverUnionStation 25helppayforimprovementsmakessense. (DUS),indowntownDenver. 261 G.Wayne Peak Ifavoracombinationofbusrapidtransitandcommuterrailprovidedthat Commentnoted. bothcanbemadetoarticulatewithDenver'slightrailsystem. 262 Kirk Petty Tosaythatthisprocessismovingataglacialpacewouldbetookind.I Commentnoted. startedworkingwithgroups15yearsagotryingtogetFrontRangepassenger railgoing,andpeoplehavebeenaskingforitlouderandloudersincethen. Stillitdoesn'tseemtobeanyclosernowthanitwasthen.Thishasbeen studiedtoDEATH,andthemoneythathasbeenspentonthesestudiescould Page 179 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

haveboughtusedlocomotivesandcars,andwewouldhaveserviceNOW. BillRichardsonbecamegovernorofNewMexico,andwhenhefoundout howlongandhowexpensiveitwastogetthefedsinvolvedjustdiditonhis own.WithinafewmonthsNewMexicoresidentshadtherailserviceoutof Albuquerquetheyhadbeenaskingfor,usingandupgradingexistingtracks.It willsoonbeextendedtoSantaFe,andNMhasaskedCOtojoinin,butwe aredraggingourfeetwithstudyafterstudy.Whenwillwequitthrowingall thismoneyawayonstudiesandjustdowhatthetaxpayershavebeenasking foratleasttwodecades?NewMexicohasshownitcanbedonewithout havingtostudyittodeathandmakeitallsounnecessarilyexpensiveand difficult! 263 Brad Pickert IsupportOption"A"foraCommuterRailSystemfromFortCollinstoDenver Commentnoted. withastopsinLoveland,LongmontandinBerthoud!!! 264 Kathryn Plummer WeMUSTlooktomasstransitfortheI25corridor.Iapproveofallmass Commentnoted. transit,butespeciallyatrainthroughthedowntownsofFt. Collins/Loveland/Berthoud/Longmont/etc.Alsohavingabustransit(theone InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, thatissimilartolightrail)alongI25willbelargelyuseful.Merelyadding pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway lanestoanexistinghighwayshasbeenshown,timeandagain,torelieve Improvements. trafficforonlyashorttime,ifatall.Thankyouverymuchforallyourefforts. SupportPackageA. 265 Kate Polk PackageAistheBESTwaytogo!Please,pleasegothisroute! Commentnoted. 266 Zachary Rae IhavebeenaresidentofNorthernColoradoforthetwentyoneyearsofmy Commentnoted. being.AslongasIcanremembertraffichasbeenheavyonI25anditseems togetworseeachyear.Ibelievethatarailbasedtransitsystemisthemost effectiveplanforI25.Busesandlaneexpansionsonlyaddfutureproblems totheI25nightmare.Soon,CDOTwillhavetoexpandagainasthearea continuestogrow.Expansionwillespeciallybecomeimportantwhenthe nationaleconomyimproves.Railtransitallowsforadditionstobemade whileonlyhavingtoexpandtherailareaafewfeet,comparedtolane expansion.Expansiondoesnotneedtohappenasfrequentlysincemultiple trains,aslongasitismanagedwell,canbeononetrack.Finally,thecoststo passengersisworthitbecausegascanbejustasexpensiveifnotmore expensive.Itcanbecosteffectiveforthosebuildingandmaintainingthe systembecausetheygainthemoneybackthroughthefares.I,asanative Page 180 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

NorthernColoradoresidentsupportanykindofrapidrailtransitandaslong asitisbyrail. 267 Kim Redd IbelievetheoptionthatincludesrailserviceforNorthernColorado(Option Commentnoted. A,railtransit)isbest.Notonlyfromacongestionreliefstandpoint,vs.more vehicletrafficonourroads,butfromasafetyandmobilitystandpoint.In WhilethePreferredAlternativedoesincludearobustnetwork addition,railtransitwilluselesspetroleum,andwillpreservethenatureof oftransitalternativesfornorthernColoradotravelers,italso ourcommunitiesinNorthernColorado(Loveland,Longmont,FortCollins, includesimprovementstoI25.Theseimprovementsare etc.).Idonotwanttoseetheautomobiledominatetheevolutionofthe necessarytoaddresstheaginginfrastructure,safetyconcerns landscapeinNorthernColorado,andresultinasituationlikeLosAngeles.I andanticipatedcongestionasaresultofgrowthinnorthern alsodonotbelievethat(more)bustrafficonI25isagoodthing,or Colorado.Considerationwasgiventoatransitonlyalternative increasingthecapacityofI25ingeneral.Thishighwayisaracetrack,andis butitwasfoundthatthisoptioncouldnotadequatelyaddress alreadytoodangerous.PleaseminimizetheemphasisonI25inNorthern themobilityandinfrastructureneedsalongthecorridor. Colorado.Thankyou!! 268 William Reeves Areyouconsideringasoundwallon25southof20?(justsouthof34.)Any AreasalongI25impactedbytrafficnoiseweredescribedand increaseofsoundwouldbedetrimentaltoourrighttopeaceandquiet. consideredformitigationmeasuresinSection3.6ofthisFinal EIS.Foramitigationmeasuresuchasabarriertobe recommended,itmustmeetcertainfeasibilityand reasonablenesscriteria.ThebarrierevaluatednearI25and LarimerCountyRoad20wasfoundnottoprovideatleastthe minimumnoisereductionneededandthereforehasnotbeen recommendedintheFinalEIS. 269 Michael Reikofski Iwouldliketoexpressmypreferenceforanoptionthatincludesrailservice Commentnoted. onthefrontrangeespeciallyusingthecorridoralreadyavailablethroughthe townsofFortCollins,Loveland,LongmontandintoDenver.Mydreamisto somedaytakethetrainfrommyhometownofLovelandintoUnionStationin downtownDenver,attendaRockiesgameandcomehomethesameway. Whatapleasuretonothavetodrivethattripatall!Iamanewlyreformed masstransitcommuterontheTransfortbussystembetweenLovelandand FortCollins.IhavebeenridingsinceMarch2008.Thestressreductionis definitelyworththeextra30minutesonmyonewaycommute.Asimilar opportunitytocommutebetweenthedowntownareasofthefrontrange communitieswouldmakedayorweekendoutingssomuchmore pleasurable.NothavingtodriveouttothepresentI25corridor,but bicyclingorwalkingtothedowntownrailstationwouldbeanotherplusfor meandmywife. Page 181 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

270 Traudl Renner IappreciatetheeffortsoftheTransportationDepartmenttolookata Quietzonesarethepreferredtrainhornmitigationidentified solutiontotheI25project.Ihavetwothoughtsandcomments.Havingbeen intheEIS.Theimplementationofquietzoneswillrequirethe atrainuserforthebetterpartofmylifeIsupporttheideaofdevelopinga consentandleadershipoftheaffectedlocalgovernments. commuterlinealongtheFrontRange.Ibelieve,itwillbedifficulttomakethe lineprofitable,oratleastsustainable,duetotheautomobilecultureinthis Avarietyofstationsandservicepatternswereexaminedto countryandtherelativelowdensityofpopulation.Therailneedstobemade determineoptimalridership. awfullyattractivetothepopulation(schedules,connectionpoints,priceper rideetc.)ortherejustsimplywillnotbeenoughusage.Iagree,thatarail Inadditiontoanextensiveevaluationofrailstationlocations systemcouldhelpimproveourdowntowns.Howeverthiswillonlyhappenin thePreferredAlternativeincludesarobustfeederbusnetwork contextwithreducingthenoisecurrentlyproducedbytheloudtrainhorns. tomaximizethenumberofresidentsandemployeesableto Thehornsareblownseveraltimesduringthenight,aswellasduringtheday, accessthetrain.Therailalignmentisalsoservedbythelocal atadecibellevelof90to113.Iftheplantoroutemoretrainsforcommuter transitsystemsinFortCollinsandLoveland.Thetraveldemand raildoesnotincludeeitheranefforttorevisetheFederalPolicyontrain modeltakesallofthesefactorsintoaccountalongwithtravel hornsortheestablishmentofQuietZones,thedevelopmentofthe time,fares,populationandemploymentprojectionswhen downtownsjustsimplywillnothappenasdesired.Onthecontrary,more generatingtheforecastedridershipforthecommuterrailline currentresidentswillhavetorelocateoutofthedowntownareasandareas in2035. alongthetrainlinestopreservetheirqualityoflife,sanityandhealth.Avery recentlypublishedstudyinJAMAconfirmedinanoverwhelmingwaythe negativeeffectofnoiseandinterruptedsleeponcardiachealthinawaynot evenexpectedbythemedicalcommunity.Downtowndevelopment, customersfordowntownbusinessesandtrainusagegohandinhandand needtobeconsideredtogether.NorthernColoradocommunitiesneedthe supportoftherailroadstosolvethisproblemjustlikeRTDsetasideseveral millionforthecreationofQuietZonesalongtheproposedcommuterrailin theBoulder,Lafayette,Longmontarea.Thankyouforyourconsideration.It willmakeadifferenceinwhetherIcanremainacitizenofLovelandand becomeatrainuseronceagain. 271 Laura Reynolds IsupportPackageA.Ibelievethatitwouldbethehealthychoiceforour Commentnoted. planet. 272 John Riecke Plan"A",please.Atrainthatactuallystopsinthedestinationcityisinfinitely Commentnoted. preferabletoabusthatstopsonthehighway.Gettingoffthehighwayisthe wholepoint.Trainswillalsoattractmorecommuters,peoplewhowould neverridethebus,eventhe"justasgoodaslightrail"BRT.Busesaren'tas good,asusefuloraspleasantasrail,particularlyonlongertrips.Bitethe bulletandbuildthebetteralternativecommuterrail. Page 182 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

273 Gwyneth Robe Itisvitaltocreateareadilyaccessibleandconvenientrapidmasstransit Commentnoted. systeminColorado.TheconnectionofFrontRangetownswithDenverbya railsystemisprudentandenvironmentallysound.WhyshouldDenverand Coloradobesoreliantonautoswhenbettersolutionsareavailable?Package AandcommuterrailwillbringColoradotoagreenerandmorecommuter friendlyera.IusedtocommutefromConnecticuttoNewYorkCityand Bostonbytrainandthereisnothingbetter. 274 Martha Roden Morethananything,IwouldlovetoseeafasttrainrunningfromWyoming Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 toNewMexicooratleastfromFortCollinstoDenverorColoradoSprings. mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, MyhusbandandIliveinFortCollinsandalmostnevergotoDenverbecause and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring ofthedrive.AndIcanonlyimaginehowharditisforpeoplewhohaveto thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere commutedaily.Atrainwouldprovideawayforpeopletoquicklygetto determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot Denverwithoutpollutingintheircars.Itwouldcertainlygetpeopleoffthe meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of roadanditwouldalsoletpeoplereadorsleeportalk,withoutworrying theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing aboutotherdrivers.Afasttrainreallymakessense.Doitnow,whileyoustill necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat haveroomdownthemiddleofI25.Otherwise,Coloradowillgothewayof theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto Californiaaddinglaneafterlanetotheirfreewaysandonlyincreasing manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe traffic.Whatadisaster! themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 275 Angie Rohnke ThankyouforyourworkontheNorthI25EIS.AfterreviewingthemI Commentnoted. stronglyencourageyoutogowithacombinationofthecommuterrail&bus options.AftertravelingtheworldandexperiencinghowEurope,Asiaand largerUScitieshandletraffic,railisthebestlongtermoption.Itismore expensivenow,butthebesttoaddontointhefuturetohandleincreased volume.Pleasealsodonotconsiderdieseltrains;ifColoradoistryingtobea "green"state,weneedtouseoptionsthatcanuserenewableresourcesand Page 183 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

reducepollution.Tosupporttherailtraffic,busserviceshouldbeutilizedto gettoareasnotdirectlyontheraillines.Goodbusroutesareallreadyin serviceinmanyNorthColo.towns.Thankyouforyourtimeonthisproject.I lookforwardtocommutingbytraininthefuture. 276 John Rohrbaugh Wedon'thavethepopulationdensityalongnorthI25tosupportcommuter TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout rail,sopleasedon'twastemytaxmoneyonsuchboondoggles.Wedohave throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed significantcongestiononnorthI25,sopleasedoaddathirdlaneandplease inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess.The doupgradetheinterchangesthatneedit. PreferredAlternativeincludesacombinationofhighwayand transitimprovementsinordertomeettheproject'sneedsto addresssafety,aginginfrastructure,mobility,efficientfreight movement,andincreasemodaloptions.Itincludesinterchange modificationsandadditionallanesonI25,aswellasregional transitimprovements.Whiletherailtransitsystemitselfmay notprovideapositivereturnoninvestmentdirectly,itcan providemanyindirectbenefitsincludingimprovedmobilityfor citizens. 277 Holmes Rolston IpreferalternativeA,primarilybecauseitbeginsmovingtowardlightrail, Commentnoted. whichIthinkistheprimarydirectionformasstransitinthefuture. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 278 Michael Rowe Asacommuterrailactivistfor30years,aboardmemberoftheColoradoRail InadditiontoPackagesAandB,aPreferredAlternativehas PassengerAssociation,andacofounderofCitizensforCommuterRail,Iwish beenidentified,asdescribedinChapter2Alternativesofthis tostronglyendorseAlternativeAfortheNorthI25DEIS.Commuterrailfrom FinalEIS.ThePreferredAlternativecombineselementsof FortCollinssouthtoLongmontviatheBNSFrailcorridorisnotonlyalogical PackagesAandB,withsomerefinementsbasedonpublicand alternativetofurthertrafficcongestionsandmorehighwayconstruction,itis agencycommentsandupdated(year2035)traveldemand alsoalogicalnorthwardextensionofRTD'sFasTracksprogramforcommuter projections.ThePreferredAlternativeisamultimodalsolution railintheDenverBoulderLongmontBNSFcorridor.Ultimately,theLarimer withtransit(commuterrailandbusimprovements)and Page 184 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Countyrailcorridorwillbecomepartofacommuter/heavyrailservice highwayimprovements. runningfromCheyennetoAlbuquerque(wherecommuterrailisalready operational).Decreasingoilresources,spiralingfuelcosts,environmental ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements concerns,andthewearandtearonthehumanpsychecausebytraffic onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF congestionandcommutingbyautomobile,areallgoodreasonstosupport corridor.Inaddition,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor, theimplementationofcommuterrailasoutlinedinAlternativeAatthe expressbusalongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusserviceare earliestpossibledate.Inthefuture,commuterrailshouldalsobeconsidered includedinthePreferredAlternative.Intermsofhighway fortheUP'sGreeleyDenvercorridor. improvements,thePreferredAlternativeincludessafety improvementsthroughoutthecorridor,theadditionofgeneral purposelanesonI25betweenSH14andSH66,tolledexpress lanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS36,andinterchange improvements.SeeChapter2Alternativesfordetails.

ThePreferredAlternativewouldbeconstructedinphasesover timeasfundingbecomesavailable.Withregardtocommuter rail,Phase1includesrightofwayacquisition.Phase2includes implementationofcommuterrailfromFortCollinsto LongmontconnectingtoRTD’splannedNorthwestRailline. Phase3includesimplementationofthefinalportionof commuterrailfromLongmontconnectingtoRTD’splanned NorthMetroline.SeeChapter8PhasedProject Implementationfordetails.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailinthefrontrangeI25andI70 corridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudyservesa differentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS.The commuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialfrontrangerail service,orfuturerailservicealongUS85. 279 Carol Rush TheLeagueofWomenVotersofLarimerCountywouldliketoexpressits Commentsnoted. supportformajorcomponentsofPackageAintheColoradoDepartmentof Transportation(CDOT)NorthI25DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(I Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand 25DEIS).WebelievetheNorthernFrontRangewouldbenefitimmensely transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 fromtheeconomicgrowththatwouldresultfrominfrastructureinvestments –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. Page 185 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

of(a)commuterrailconnectingcitiesalongHighway287(b)bustransit connectingGreeleyandDenverand(c)feederandlocalbustransitthat facilitateaccesstocommuterrail.TheNationalLeagueofWomenVotersand theLeagueofWomenVotersofColoradosupporttheadditionofmass transittoconnectourcommunities,supportinternaldevelopment,minimize airpollutionandsprawlandgiveresidentsandworkersasafeand economicalmeanstotravelregardlesstheirage,physicalabilityorincome. Leaguespolicyistopromotesocialandeconomicjustice,andthehealthand safetyofallAmericansandsowevalueaccesstotransportation, transportationsystemsthataffordbetteraccesstohousingandjobs,and energyefficientandenvironmentallysoundtransportation.Takentogether, thesecontributetothehealth,wellbeingandselfsufficiencyforindividuals andfamiliesafuturethatLWVofLarimerCountywouldwishforeveryonein theNorthernFrontRange.WefeelthatcomponentsofPackageAlisted abovebestmeetsthesegoals.SpokespersonLeagueofWomenVotersof LarimerCounty2651NCR29Loveland,CO805389706675077 280 Barbara Rutstein IstronglysupportOptionAasIthinkitiscriticaltohavetransportationinthe Commentnoted. citycenterswhenatallfeasible.Idonotfavormovinghousingand businessestotheinterstatehighway.Itthenbecomesalocalroadand Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand anotherinterstateisthenneeded.Itisbestinthelongruntoinvestininter transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 citytransitandconvenience.Ifweusetheinterstatewethenneedhuge –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. parkinglotstoencouragepeopletodrivetotheinterstatetotakea bus/train.Withinthecitythisislesslikelyiftherearebusesthatgotolocal ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements stations.Nowisthetimetogetstartedonsuchaprogram. onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF corridorbetweenthecitycenters.Inaddition,feederbus serviceandmodificationstolocalcitybusroutestoservethe commuterrailstationsareincludedinthePreferred Alternative.Parkinglotsofvariedsize(dependingonthe locationandalternative)arealsoincludedalongI25,toserve carpoolersinPackageA,toserveBRTandcarpoolersin PackageB,andtoserveexpressbuspatronsandcarpoolersin thePreferredAlternative.SeeChapter2Alternativesfordetails.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. Page 186 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

281 Bill Ryan Morelanesandrail.IactuallypreferhighspeedraillikeI'veusedinJapan Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 andGermany.Whynot? mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1 PurposeandNeedduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstation spacingnecessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdetermined thattheseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivity tomanynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

CDOTwillbeconductingaInterregionalConnectivityStudyfor variouspotentialcorridorsinthestate.CDOTisstudyingrail alongtheI70corridorfromtheJeffersonCountyGovernment ComplextothemountainsandskiresortsasapartoftheI70 MountainProgrammaticEIS (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i70mountaincorridor). TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25andI70corridors.Therail serviceconsideredbythesestudiesservesadifferentpurpose andneedthantheNorthI25EIS.Thecommuterrailproposed inPackageAorthePreferredAlternativedoesnotpreclude theseotherpotentialrailservices.Throughoutthe developmentofthePreferredAlternative,theEISteamhas beenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 282 DeeDee Sabin Ithinkthattransportationissueswillvastlyimpactallareasofourlives.I Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal thinkweneedafastmoving,railsystemthattiesintotrueneedsofour combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA citizens. andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment,

Page 187 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 283 Harry Safstrom ABSOLUTLYfocusonthecommuterrailalternative.Allweather Commentnoted. transportationsafercleanerabilitytoaddseatsinahurrysupportsTOD. Usebusesasfeederslike(Ihatetosayit)Californiahasdonesuccessfully. 284 Ruth Sanders IamwritinginsupportofpackageA,basedonmybeliefthat,overthelong Commentnoted. term,ahealthycommuterrailsystemlinkingournorthernfrontrangewillbe themostenergyefficient,environmentallysensitive,andmostconduciveto Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand quality,sustainabledevelopment.Ultimately,thoseattributeswillalsomake transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 itthemostcostefficient,ifthetruecostsofhighwaysandcarsarereally –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. weighed,whichtheyoftenarenotinthesestudies.AndIbelievethepublic willsupportthis.Wemaynothave$4agallongasrightatthemoment,but InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, wecannotforgetthatitwillreturn,andpeople'sdemandformasstransitwill pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway continuetogrow,asitalreadyhas.Buildingmorehighwaysjustencourages Improvements. thewasteofenergy,andinvitescontinuedhighmaintenancecosts,which Coloradothenstrugglestofund.Beyondallthecost,environmental,and sustainabilityargumentsthatcanbemadeI'msureplentyofpeopleare makingthemIbelievepeoplewillsupportthisasthebestlongterm Page 188 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

solution,andthat'scritical.I'veseentheeffortstosupportmasstransit alternativesamongthefrontrangecommunities,includingherein Longmont,whereitwastheoneissuethatpeopleseemedtoagreeon, regardlessofpoliticalideologyandthatleadershipwasshownwiththe citizenapprovalofFasTracksandtheagreementofsomanycitiesan municipalitiescomingtogetheraroundit.IimploreCDOTtopleasegeton board! 285 Susana Santamaria IreadaneditorialdescribingtwooptionsforI25transportation Commentnoted. improvements.OptionAwasdescribedasarailproject,connectingnorthern citiesbytrain.Theotherwasa'parkandride'idea.Iamgreatlyinfavorof therailconcept,asitsoundslikesomethingIandmanypeopleIknowwould beabletousefrequently.Americaneedstoutilizeraillinesmorefrequently andmoreefficientlyforpassengeruse,ashasbeendonesosuccessfullyin Europe.Thankyouforyourtime. 286 Scott Sarbaugh IaminsupportoftheDEISPackageA.TheNorthernCOareaneeds Commentnoted. commuterrail,notmorecongestedhighways. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 287 Bob Schmid IpreferwideningI25tolightrail.Lightrailwon'tgowhereIhaveto.Howdo Commentnoted.Eachofthebuildalternativesunder Igetaround(andbringbackpurchases)afterI'mdroppedoff? considerationincludeI25highwayimprovements,aswellas transitimprovements.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Page 189 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Thealternativeseachprovidefeederbusserviceand connectionstolocalbusroutesatcitycentersanddowntown Denvertohelpprovidetransittravelersaccesstotheir destinations.However,transitdoesnotservealltravelers.It doesnotservealloriginsanddestinations,andisnot conducivetoalltrippurposes,suchassomeshoppingtrips.For thisreason,highwayimprovementsareincludedineachofthe alternatives.Forexample,thePreferredAlternativeincludes safetyimprovementsthroughoutthecorridor,theadditionof generalpurposelanesonI25betweenSH14andSH66,tolled expresslanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS36,and interchangeimprovements.SeeChapter2Alternativesfor details. 288 Susan Seawalt ThesectionofI25betweenLongmontandFortCollinsisjustplainscary... TheconstructionalongI25wouldupgradethegeometryto waystomakeitsaferwouldbegreatlyappreciatedIcurrentlyavoiditatall meetcurrentdesignstandardsandimprovesafety. costs.MergingtrafficandtryingtotaketheexitatCenteraisputtingyourlife Interchangesandrampterminalswillalsobeupgradedto atrisk.Wouldlovetoseethingssafer. improvetheirgeometryandsafety. 289 Ronald Segul Iwouldjustliketoentermyoppositiontoarailsystemunlessitisan Afullrangeofrailtechnologies,includingmonorail,was overheadmonorailthatparallelstheintrastatehighwayswithconnectingbus evaluated.Monorailwasfoundtohavesubstantiallyhigher serviceintothecitiesitservices. costsandwouldoperateatlowerspeedsthanother technologies,renderingitimpracticableforthisproject.This evaluationisdocumentedinChapter2oftheEIS.Commuter railontheBNSFcorridorwithconnectingbusservicewas foundtobethemosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor. CommuterrailalongI25wasscreenedoutasitprovidesless accesstopopulationcentersthantheBNSFcorridor. 290 Frank Sell I'mallinfavortodevelopacommuterrailsystem.Weneedtolookinthefar Commentnoted. termandnotmakedecisionsforjustthenearterm. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Page 190 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

291 Rich Shannon Tables22and29,summarizingtheinterchanges,appearstohaveswitched ThetableshavebeencorrectedintheFinalEIS. thedescriptionsofCrossroadsandUS34.ThetablesshowCrossroads currentlyasasubstandardcloverleafandUS34asasubstandarddiamond. Crossroadsisadiamond,notacloverleaf.US34iscurrentlyacloverleaf. Thanksandgoodluck. 292 Richard Shannon Pleasemakeitclearinthedocumentsthattheuseofroundaboutsattheexit TheroundaboutscurrentlybeingconstructedatCrossroads rampsoninterchangesmaybeaviableoptioninsomelocations,subjectto Boulevardcouldaccommodatefuturetrafficvolumesif finaldesignconsiderations.TheCenteraMetropolitanDistrictiscurrently additionallaneswereadded.Additionally,thestandard helpingtofundconstructionofroundaboutsasaninterimimprovementat diamondshownatallPreferredAlternativeinterchange theCrossroadsInterchange.Throughoutthedesignprocesswehavebeen locationsclearsanareathatdoesnotprecludetheuseof assuredbyCDOTrepresentativesthateveryeffortwillbemadetotryto roundaboutsforintersectioncontrol.Textstatingthishasbeen preservethisinvestmentwhenthefullreconstructionoftheinterchangeis addedintheFinalEISinterchangesection. doneinthefuture.Weunderstandthisissubjecttofinaldesign considerations.However,wethinkitisimportantthatareferenceto roundaboutsasapotentialcomponentofreconstructedinterchangesbe moreclearlystatedinthedocuments.Thankyou. 293 Michael Shernick It'sbeenshownbymanystudiesthataddingnewlanesforautotraffic Commentnoted. actuallyINCREASEScongestion,soIstronglyurgeCDOTtodomorethanonly addnewlanes.BusRapidTransit,lightrail,andHOVlanesallmakethebest ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail sense. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 294 Douglas Shinkle IsupportthenecessarysafetyupgradesonI25,masstransitcomponentsof Commentnoted. PackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrailconnectingcitycenterson existingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,thereconnectingwithDenver Page 191 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

MetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.WhileIthinkbusrapidtransitisagood choiceinsomeareas,Idonotthinkit'sappropriatefortheI25corridor.It wouldalsoconcentratealltransitoptionsalongI25,andnotservethelarge populationsandexistingtownsandinfrastructureinLoveland,Ft.Collins, Berthoud,etc. 295 Randall Shinn MywifeandIthinkthattheApackagewouldbethebestoption.Wethinkit Commentnoted. wouldgetmoreuse. 296 Susan Shirley I'dliketoconveyhighsupportforOptionAaddinglinesforcommuterrailto Commentnoted. I25.Itusesexistingrailcorridorandconnectstownswherepeoplealready live.Thankyouforyourhardworkonsolvingtoughproblems.I'masenior citizenandneedreliablenoncartransportationoptions. 297 Bill Shirley Wearedefinitelyinfavorofthecommuterrail,OptionA,alternative. Commentnoted. 298 Randy Shortridge Ihaveacommentrelativetocommuterrailalignments:Ibelieveitisof PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeincludecommuterrail criticalimportancetohavestationslocatedatpopulationcentersandnot alongtheBNSFcorridorsinceitconnectscitycenters. alonginterstatefreewayalignmentsforseveralreasons:Freewayalignments CommuterrailstationsareplannedfordowntownFt.Collins, usuallyhaveverylowpedestriandensitiesoutsideofmajormetropolitan ColoradoStateUniversity,southFt.Collins,northLoveland, areas,theyserveautoandnotpedestrianorienteduses,theyrequiremore downtownLoveland,Berthoud,northLongmont,Longmont, intermodal(car/bus/train)changesthanwillhappenaturbanstations andErie.Travelerswillaccessthesestationsviawalking, (pedestrian/bike/kissandride),theyrequiremoreparkingcapacityfor bicycling,bus,andauto,andtheanalysisconfirmsthatincity singleuses(commuters).FortCollinswillflourishandtherailwillsucceedif centersthewalk,bicycle,andbusaccessformsahigher thealignmentconnectsthroughtheheartofthecityandisnotrelegatedto percentagecomparedtothesituationwhenstationsare thefarfringeofthecommunity.Iwouldbehappytobeabletohavefurther locatedalongtheI25corridor. input. 299 Erika Siebenthal yay,weneedthis! CDOTisuncertainastowhatprojectalternative/component thecommenterisreferringto;FHWAandCDOTwouldliketo thankyouforyourinvolvement. 300 Linda Silverthorn IjustwantedtostatemysupportofnecessarysafetyupgradesonI25,mass Commentnoted. transitcomponentsofPackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrail connectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,there connectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes.Iwantto supportalloftheworktohaveLongmontconnectedintothesysteminany andallwayspossible.

Page 192 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

301 Kelly Smith Iwouldliketoexpressmyopinionandvisionfortheregionaltransportation Commentnoted. systeminColorado.Ibelievearailisthebestsolutionforcommutertraffic forseveralreasons:1.Itdoesn'tcongestanalreadycongestedexpressway.2. Itismoreconvenientandcomfortablethereforewilllikelybeusedmore frequentlythanabus.3.Itisamodelfor21stcenturytransportation. 302 Darren Smith IwouldliketoputmyvoteinforNorthI25EISPackageA.Thereare Commentnoted. hundredsifnotthousandswhocommutefromFortCollins,Lovelandand GreeleytoBoulderandLongmont.IknowthatIwouldusetherailsystemifit TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout wereputinplace.EitherwayIdon'tthinktheNoActionAlternativeisaREAL throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed alternativebecausethetrafficonI25isbecominghorrible.Thanks! inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 303 Andy Smith IbelievethatPackageAistheonlyfeasibleoptionifviewedwitha Commentnoted. communitydevelopmentperspective.ThecriticalelementofPackageAis thecommuterrail.IpresumethatavastmajorityofNorthernColorado Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand residentsalreadylivewithin1mileofthehistoricandcurrentprimarynorth transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 southtravelcorridor,thatbeingUS287,whichhappenstoparalleltheBNSF –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. railline.Thiscorridorwasthebasisformost,ifnotall,urbandevelopmentin LarimerCounty,andNorthwestBoulderCounty.Smartgrowthprinciples encouragetransportationsolutionstobebuiltwherepeopleliveandwork. Becauseofthecomp.plandensitygoalsofmostofthemunicipalitiesin LarimerCountyandNWBoulderCounty,PackageAwouldnotaddressonlya currenttransportationneed,butalsoafutureoneaswell.PackageAwill helprelieveautodependency,savemoneyonfutureroadinfrastructure costs,andhelpfacilitatesoundeconomicredevelopmentintheolderpartsof Longmont,FortCollins,andLoveland.OnewaytorelievepressureonI25is tolessenthedemandonthehighway,andnotjustincreasingthesupply providedbythehighway.Thanksfortakingmycomments. 304 Karen Smith WhatagreatadditionitwouldbetoournorthFrontRangecommunitiesif Commentnoted. wewereconnectedbytrainandalsotoDenver'stransportationsystems! Pleaselet'smakeithappen. 305 Thomas Sneider AlthoughIamamemberoftheEnvironmentalAdvisoryBoardofLarimer Commentnoted. County,mycommentsherearesolelymyownpersonalviews.Istrongly supportAlternativeAwithitsemphasisoncommuterrailrunningthrough Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand Page 193 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

extanturbancentersaswellasneededimprovementstoI25.Onlythis transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 alternativehasthepotentialofencouragingcorecitygrowthand –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. discouragingtheexurbansprawlthatnegativelyimpactstheenvironment andspursgreaterlossofouragriculturallands. 306 Kent Solt IamwritinginsupportoftheproposedPackageA.Ibelievethispackage Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal doesthebestjobofaddressingthelongtermtransportationneedsof combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA NorthernColorado.Addingbothcommuterrailthroughmunicipal andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon downtowns(phase1)andtwoadditionalnontolledlanestoI25(phase2,if theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI necessary)willdramaticallyincreasethemobilityofourregionalworkforce 25. particularlylowerincomeworkers.We'veheardtimeandtimeagainfrom localemployersthatthelackofworkforcemobilityintheregionmakesit Thethreebuildalternativeseachprovideacombinationof verydifficulttoattractanadequatenumberofemployeesagain,particularly highwayimprovementsandregionaltransitservices.A lowerskill,lowerincomeworkers.WithPackageA,andinparticularthe potentialbenefitofthecommuterrailofPackageAandthe commuterrailelement,landuseandeconomicdevelopmentwouldshift PreferredAlternativelocatedontheBNSFcorridorthroughcity somegrowthbacktowardurbancenters.PackageAsupportsvibrant centersisthatitwouldprovidegreateropportunityforTransit downtownsandestablishedbusinesscentersbyofferingamultimodal OrientedDevelopmentnearstations.Notethatlandusepolicy systemoftransportationthatencouragesnewcommercialandresidential istheresponsibilityofthelocalmunicipalities. developmentoptionsinurbancores.Iamveryexcitedaboutthepossibility ofbringingcommuterrailthroughtheheartofmanyNFRmunicipalities. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand AccordingtorecentAmericanPublicTransitAssociationstatistics,commuter transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 railridershiphasincreasedby5.4%throughthefirsthalfof2008versusthe –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. sameperiodin2007.And,significantly,ridershiphashistoricallynotbeen tooresponsivetofluctuationsingasprices.Thecommuterrailelementof Quietzonesarethepreferredtrainhornmitigationidentified PackageAwilllikelyinvolvetheinstallationofrailroadquietzonesthrough intheEIS.Theimplementationofquietzoneswillrequirethe populationcenters.EstablishingquietzonesalongtheBNSFrailcrossingsin consentandleadershipfromtheaffectedlocalgovernments. Lovelandhasbecomeatoppriorityforcitizens.Unlessenoughpublic pressureisappliedtothefederalgovernmenttooverturnits2005law requiringstricterrequirements(includingsoundingthetrainhornformore sustainedperiodsoftimeateachcrossing)theissueofquietzoneswill continuetobeamajorconcernfortheurbanresidentsoftheNFR. 307 Sylvia Spearman MyhusbandandIstronglysupportOptionA,ascommuterrailprovidesthe Commentnoted. bestlongtermsolution. 308 Holly Spoor PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASEoptionA!Since1999whenIwascommutingto Commentnoted. Littletontohelpcareformyailingfather,Ihavehoped&prayedforsome typeofrailconnectionbetweenFt.CollinsandDenver!YES,Iwoulduseit!!! Page 194 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

309 Elizabeth Springer IattendedthefirstmeetinginFortCollinsandhavefollowedtheprocess Commentnoted. withgreatinterest.PublictransportationamongtheFrontRangecities makesgoodsense.IhavetravelledextensivelyinboththeUSandEurope NewYork,Chicago,Atlanta,Boston,SanFrancisco,AthensGreece,Vienna Austria,twoweeksinSwitzerland,Paristonameafew.Itworkssowell andisapleasure.PleasepleaseselectOptionAwhichputsthestationsinthe citiesandtownswherethepeopleare!It'samazingthatwehavetherailroad rightofwayyetcan'tmaketheobviousdecisiontouseit.Fromdowntown FortCollinsthefasttrackwouldfacilitatetravelforcommuters,shoppers, entertainmentvenuesinDenver,seniorcitizens,25,000studentsatCSU.Asa seniorcitizenthiswouldmakevisitingoursonandfamilyeasy,safe,andfun. WecouldboardinFortCollins,getoffatUnionStation,takethelightrailand arrivewithinwalkingdistanceofhishome.WealreadygettoParkMeadows orLittletononexistinglightrail.Whoopee.Again,OPTIONAistheonlygood choice.I25isHellonWheels.Thankyou. 310 Robert Springer IfavoroptionA Commentnoted. 311 Garry Steen MypreferenceisOptionA,therailoption,butwouldlikeconsiderationgiven Afullrangeoftransittechnologies,includingmonorailandmag toaelevatedrail,suchasmonorailormaglevoption.Thiscouldmove lev,wasevaluatedforthisproject.Monorailwasfoundtohave peopleefficientlyandquicklywithoutcompoundingothertrafficissues(truck substantiallyhighercostsandwouldoperateatlowerspeeds andcar,bicycle,pedestrian,groundrail),andpotentiallylessimpactfrom thanothertechnologies,renderingitimpracticableforthis weather,orotherenvironmentalissues. project.Maglevwasfoundtohavehighcosts,atechnology thatisnotreadilyavailable,andacomplexityofconstruction renderingitimpracticableforthisproject.Thisevaluationis documentedinChapter2oftheEIS.Commuterrailwasfound tobethemosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor. 312 Michael Steger IsupportoptionAandstronglyrecommendlightrailonexistingrailrightsof Commentnoted. wayasapartofthetransportationplanfortheNorthernI25region. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Page 195 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 313 Carolyn Stegner Ifeelthatacommuterfasttrainsystemlinkingallofthefrontrangecities Commentnoted. shouldhavebeenstarted30or40yearsago.ItishightimefortheUnited Statestofollowothercountriesaroundtheworldbybuildingfasttrains. Constructiononourhighwaysisalwaysoutofdatebeforenewlanesare evencompleted.Fasttrainswithstationbusinesshubsrentalvehicles, shuttles,taxis,foodandshoppingwouldbeagreatwaytomaketravel safer,clearerandlessstressful.Andjustthinkhowmanynewjobswouldbe createdwiththebuildingandmaintenanceofafasttrainsystem.Letthe Coloradofrontrangebecomeagreatmasstransportationmodelfortherest ofthecountry.Let'sbefirst! 314 CarolandBill Steidle Please,pleaseproceedASAPwithimprovementstotheI25WindsorExit.It ReconstructionoftheSH392interchangeiscurrentlybeing issocongested,thetrafficlightsontheeastsidearenotadequatelyvisible, designedasaseparateaction.FortCollinsandWindsorhave heavyconstructiontrucksandgeneraltrafficwilleventuallymakethe identifiedreconstructionofthisinterchangeasapriorityand overpassinneedofrepairsanyway.Soourhopeisthatyoumakethisa areproceedingwiththisasaseparateaction.Itisanticipated priority. thattheinterchangeimprovementswillbecompletedbyfallof 2012.Theimprovementswillbeconstructedtoaccommodate futureimprovementsalongI25identifiedinthisEIS. 315 Richard& Stepp Wedoourverybesttoconserveenergy&reduceourcarbonfootprints Commentnoted. Janice everyday.Nowit'stimeforallofustomakeabig,bigdifferenceforallof NorthernColorado.ChoosePackageAofNorthI25EIS.Gas,especiallycheap gas,willnotbearoundformuchlonger.Wewouldlovetohaveanalternate todrivingourcartoDenverfordaughtervisits,etc.Weneedthegood, environmentallysoundPackageA. 316 Twila Stevens IurgethatyousupportOptionAinthetransitproposal.Itisessentialthatwe Commentnoted. havecommuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailcorridor. 317 Patricia Stewart IamverymuchinfavorofPlanA,weneedlightraildesperately.Ourregion Commentnoted. needsmasstransportation! ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail Page 196 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 318 Betty/John Stewart WestronglysupportOptionAforimprovingtransportationinnorthern Commentnoted. Colorado. 319 Jenni Stults Pleaseputmeonthelistfornotifications.Iaminfavoroftherailsystem Commentnoted. 320 Lynn Stutheit Commuterrailislongpastdueandawinwinforeverybody.Yes,itis Commentnoted. expensiveatfirst,butunlikeneverendingroadconstructionitwillpayfor itselfinafewyears...notonlymonetarily,butenvironmentally. 321 John Thieszen RegardingI25changesthatwillaffecttheMountainRangeShadows Anoisebarrierisrecommendedforthissubdivisionforboth Subdivision(exitSH392/I25),Ifeelthatnoisemitigationisaimportant,and PackagesAandBandthePreferredAlternative(seeSection3.6 desirable,partofeitherPackageAorPackageB.Idonotpreferthenoaction oftheFinalEIS). alternative,andIwouldsupporteitherPackageAorBaslongasnoise mitigation/noisebarrierisincluded.Idoliketheadditionofthebusstation ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements onpackageB,whichwouldaddconvenienttransportation.Thankyoufor onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF yourconsideration. corridor.Inaddition,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor, expressbusalongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusserviceare includedinthePreferredAlternative.Itincludesthebus stationssimilartoPackageB.Intermsofhighway improvements,thePreferredAlternativeincludessafety improvementsthroughoutthecorridor,theadditionofgeneral purposelanesonI25betweenSH14andSH66,tolledexpress lanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS36,andinterchange improvements.SeeChapter2Alternativesfordetails. 322 Gary Thomas IhavetwooverarchingconcernswiththeDEIS:Theredoesnotseemto TheEISforecastsareconservativeasnochangeintherelative enoughconsiderationoftheimpactofPeakOilandfuturehighenergycosts costofgasolineisassumed,becausepredictingthepriceoffuel andorshortages.Secondly,theredoesnotseemtobeanyincorporationof isimpracticable.TheFEISacknowledgesthatthefuturepriceof thestudyunderwayforhighspeedrail.(WhichisalsofundedbyCDOT.)That gasisanunknownandthereforeintroducesanuncertaintyinto said,IgenerallypreferOptionAsinceitincorporatescommuterrailthat theforecasts,asdescribedinsection4.2.6.6. servesthemainpopulationcentersalongtheFrontRange.TheBRTonI25 elementofOptionBwoulddrivenewurbansprawlawayfromtheexisting Afullrangeofrailtechnologiesandalignments,includinghigh populationcenters.However,Ialsolikethetolllaneconcept(withoutthe speedrailalongtheI25corridor,wasevaluated.This Page 197 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

BRT)ofOptionB.Havinggrowthpayfortheadditionalcapacityseemslikea evaluationisdocumentedinChapter2oftheEIS.Itwasfound fairandquickwaytobuildtheextralanes.Thus,Iwouldliketoseethefinal thathighspeedrailwouldnotprovideadequateaccessibilityto EISinclude;commuterrailontheBNSFcorridor,newtolllanesonI25,and thenorthernColoradocommunities.Indeed,theRocky highspeedrailserviceasdeterminedbythestudyunderwayfortheRocky MountainRailAuthority(http://rockymountainrail.org/) MountainRailAuthority.And,IwouldrecommendthatthefinalEIStohavea recentlycompletedafeasibilitystudyofhighspeedrailintheI sectiononemergencyresponsetopotentialfuelshortages.Someofthe 25andI70corridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy energyliteraturenowforecaststhatthecurrentrecessionwillinhibit servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. developmentofenergysupplies(traditionalandalternative)andthushasten ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred ashortagesituation.Inthatcase,arapidresponseofadditionaltransitwill Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. benecessaryandthisEISshouldenvisionhowsucharesponsewouldbe ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the coordinatedandplanned.Thankyouforyourconsideration. EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 323 Sandra Tinsman IstronglysupportoptionAwhichprovidescommuterrailinadditiontoI25 Commentnoted. laneadditions.Ibelievethisplansforthefutureneedsandallowsatransition fromcurrentdrivinghabitsofourpopulationtomoreefficientandultimately moreaffordableandconvenienttransportationoptions.Thisplansfor currentandeventualneedsinservicesandwillgofartowardpreparingfora sustainablefuturetransittofitthepopulationanddevelopmentpressures thatexistandareevolving. 324 Elissa Tivona Ihavelongbeenasupporterofamoreeffectivemasstransportationsystem Commentnoted. alongColorado'sFrontRangeandIwritetoexpressmysupportspecifically forcommuterrailconnectingcitycentersonexistingtrackfromFortCollins toLongmont,thereconnectingwithDenverMetroFasTracksandRTDbus routes.Thankyou. 325 Shelly Tokerud BeCreative!Useexistingtraintracksfortheruralareas&addlightrailfor Afullrangeoftransittechnologieswasevaluatedforthe alreadypopulatedareas. uniquecharacteristicsoftheNorthI25corridor.Lightrailwas eliminatedduetoitsrelativelyslowtopspeed,comparedto othertransitoptions.Also,lightrailcannotshareexistingtracks withfreighttrains.Instead,commuterrailontheexistingBNSF trackswasidentifiedinthePreferredAlternativeandPackage A,withnewtracktotheNorthMetroendoflineinThornton. Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrailcorridors,andcan Page 198 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

achievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridorsincontrasttolight rail.CommuterrailisconsistentwithRTDplansfortheNorth MetroandNorthwestrailcorridors.Notethatforsomeother Denvermetrocorridors,lightrailisappropriate;thesemodes willconnectatDenverUnionStation. 326 Teri Tracy IsupportnecessarysafetyupgradesonI25,masstransitcomponentsof Commentnoted. PackageA,andmostspecificallycommuterrailconnectingcitycenterson existingtrackfromFortCollinstoLongmont,thereconnectingwithDenver MetroFasTracksandRTDbusroutes. 327 Ralph Trenary CanIgetaprintqualitycomputerfileoftheBerthoudrailstationartworkfor CDOTwillmakesuitablegraphicfilesavailableforpublication publication? bythepress,uponrequestfollowingreleaseofthisFinalEIS. 328 Phyllis Tucker IsupporttheintentionofdevelopingaColoradofrontrangerailsystem,all ThePreferredAlternativeincludesinterchangereconstructions, thewaytoColoradoSprings,andthenPueblo,andthenontoDurango.My theadditionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes pointisthatcreatinganefficientsystemofrailtravelinthiscountryshould alongI25,commuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSanta startatastatelevelandthencontinuetoputthepassengerrailsystemback FerailroadtracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorth onthetracksacrosstheUSA. MetroendoflinestationinThorntonandtheNorthwestRail endoflinestationinLongmont,andcommuterbusalongUS 85betweenGreeleyanddowntownDenver.ThePreferred Alternativealsoassumesthatfeederbusservicewouldbe providedtobringlocaltraffictothecorridortrainservice. MoredetailedinformationconcerningthePreferred AlternativeisincludedinChapter2AlternativesoftheFinalEIS.

ThePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailservice betweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenveralongtheBNSF andSH119withaconnectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroand Northwestraillines.

CDOTisstudyingrailalongtheI70corridorfromtheJefferson CountyGovernmentComplextothemountainsandskiresorts asapartoftheI70MountainProgrammaticEIS (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i70mountaincorridor). TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25andI70corridors.Therail Page 199 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

serviceconsideredbythesestudiesservesadifferentpurpose andneedthantheNorthI25EIS.Thecommuterrailproposed inPackageAorthePreferredAlternativedoesnotpreclude theseotherpotentialrailservices.Throughoutthe developmentofthePreferredAlternative,theEISteamhas beenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 329 Marianne Tucker IprefertheAoption,wherelightrailisadded.Thesituationisdire,andIam Commentnoted. sogladsomeoneisfinallyworkingonit. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 330 Cheryl VanAckern WhilemorelanestoI25areinevitabilitynecessary,Ibelievearapid Commentnoted. transportationmethodthatoperatesindependentofthetrafficjamsonI25 isnecessary,suchasatrain.Inordertobeeffectiveanduseful,adequate numbersoftrains,frequentschedules,andbroadhoursofoperationare necessary.Trainstotheairport,downtown,andtomajorvenuesinDenver wouldbewellused. 331 Barbara VerSteeg IamcommentingregardingtheEISstatementsregardingthe2optionsfor Commentnoted. northernI25(PlanAandPlanB).IsupportPlanA,whichincludeswideningI 25,butalsoacommuterraillinethatwilljoinwithanother(FasTracks), eventuallylinkingDenverallthewaynorthtoFortCollins.Iwasbornand raisedinDenver,wenttoCSU,andnowliveinBerthoud.Over20yearsago, whenIwasatCSU,therewasdiscussionabouttheexpectedgrowthin northernColorado,alongwithrecommendationsforacommuterrailline fromFt.CollinstoDenver.Nowthegrowthishere,andwehavenorailline! Wemustimplementthisoption,aswellastheothersinPlanA.Commuters WILLusethisline,forconvenience,costsavings,andtoavoidthedangerous driveonI25.Thankyoufortheopportunitytocomment. Page 200 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

332 Nora Voytko Wouldlovetouseacommutersystem! Commentnoted. 333 Ashley Waddell Pleasemakesurerailtransportationforcommuters(beitlightrailorheavy PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeeachpropose highspeedrail)isalargepartoftheI25project.MyworkatCSUinvolves commuterrailontheBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesa neardailytripstoDenverfromFortCollins,andeverytimeIgetinmycarto BRTsystemonI25.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent gotoDenver,IthinktomyselfhowmuchmorepleasantitwouldbeifIcould technologythanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreight spendthattraveltimereading,orrelaxing,lettingsomeoneelse"drive."I railcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlonger commutedbyrailwhenIlivedinEurope(bothinFranceandtheUK)andit corridorsincontrasttolightrail.Commuterrailhasbeen wassuchapleasure.Americansmayclaimtheylovetodrivetheircars,but identifiedforthiscorridorandisconsistentwithRTDplans. whenrailtravelisconvenientandthestopswellplaced,it'strulymuchmore funANDrelaxingnottomentionbetterfortheenvironment.Thankyoufor Afullrangeofrailtechnologiesandalignments,includinghigh readingmycomments. speedrailalongtheI25corridor,wasevaluated.This evaluationisdocumentedinChapter2oftheEIS.Itwasfound thathighspeedrailwouldnotprovideadequateaccessibilityto thenorthernColoradocommunities.However,notethatCDOT willbeconductinganInterregionalConnectivityStudyfor variouspotentialcorridorsinthestate.CDOTisstudyingrail alongtheI70corridorfromtheJeffersonCountyGovernment ComplextothemountainsandskiresortsasapartoftheI70 MountainProgrammaticEIS (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i70mountaincorridor). TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25andI70corridors.Therail serviceconsideredbythesestudiesservesadifferentpurpose andneedthantheNorthI25EIS.Thecommuterrailproposed inPackageAorthePreferredAlternativedoesnotpreclude theseotherpotentialrailservices.Throughoutthe developmentofthePreferredAlternative,theEISteamhas beenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 334 Karen Wagner Commuterrail(anytransitimprovements)belongintheUS287corridor NotethatPackageAandthePreferredAlternativeservethe wherethereisadequatedensityforsuccess.TransitintheUS287corridor populationcentersofFortCollins,Loveland,Berthoud,and supportsourdowntownsandcorecommunitieshasfewerenvironmental Longmontwithcommuterrail.PackageBservesthese impacts,reducescarbonemissions,maintainsairqualityandallows populationcenterswithBRTservicetotheFortCollinsSouth individualcommunitiestobettermaintaincommunitycharacterandidentity. TransitCenter;andfeederbusservicetotheI25BRTfromthe IncontrastimprovementproposedfortheI25corridordoesjustthe othercommunities. Page 201 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

opposite.Worstofalltheywillencouragegreaterurbansprawlandthe mergingofcities.Atthatpointnoonewillwanttolivehere,Signagewill Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand read….Youarenowentering transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 Meaderiejohnstownwillikenberthoudwindsorlovelandtimnathfortcollins. –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 335 Ann Wagner IstronglysupportcommuterrailfortheI25and/orUS287corridor(s).The ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail costinvolvedwilleventuallybeconsideredminor,comparedtothe alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend alternativeofworsegridlock,fuelconsumption,andpollution. oflineinThorntonandservicecontinuingtoDenver.

RailalongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduringthe alternativesdevelopmentprocess.CommuterrailalongI25 wasscreenedoutasitprovideslessaccesstopopulation centersthantheBNSFcorridor.Therefore,thePreferred AlternativeincludescommuterrailservicebetweenFortCollins anddowntownDenveralongtheBNSFandSH119witha connectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines. 336 George Wallace Ourfamilyprefersthecommuterrailalternative.Letsstrengthenourcity Commentnoted. centersandnotaddtosprawlalongI25 Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 337 Matthew Wallenstein Istronglyfavoranemphasisonregionalrailservice.Ideally,itshouldprovide Commentnoted. apracticalandspeedyalternativetoLongmont,Loveland,Boulder,and Denver. 338 Pat Walsh AsanolderpersonwhomakesfrequenttripstoDenver,Ifeelthatan Commentnoted. alternateformoftransportationisessential! 339 Ralph Walsh IvoteforoptionA.Wehavetheexistingtracksthatareunderutilized.Having Commentnoted. beentoEuropeandtrulyrealizingthebenefititprovidesoverthere,I realizedthatweAmericansarebehindthe8balloverhere.Commutertrains TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout areabsolutelyneedednow. throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Page 202 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 340 Jennifer Walton Hi,IcurrentlyliveinFortCollinsandcommutetoworkinBoulder5daysa Commentnoted. week.IhavebeenaresidentofFortCollinsforabout4years,andmadea consciouschoicetocontinuelivingthereratherthanmovebecauseIfeelthe ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred qualityoflifeisbetterformeIamlookingatthisprocessfromtwo AlternativeindeedservesthepopulationcentersofFort perspectives:oneasacitizenofnorthernColorado,andoneasanexpertin Collins,Loveland,Berthoud,andLongmont;continuingonto environmentalpolicy.Citizenview:Drivingisstressful,expensive(car theNorthMetrocorridorthroughThornton.Atransfertothe maintenance,gas,etc.),andcanbeunpleasantincertainareasalongthat NorthwestrailtoBoulderwillbepossibleinLongmont.The commute.I'dgivemyleftfoottobeabletorelaxonatrainanddomywork commuterrailcouldbedieselorelectricmultipleunits.As whileridingtoBoulderandhomeeachday.Icouldsaveputtingwearand vehicletechnologyisevolvingrapidlywithcleandieseland tearonmycarforotherthings,ratherthanjustgettingtowork. otheroptions,thevehicletypewillbereassessedpriorto Environmentalpolicyexpertview:PuttinginatrainthatwouldrunfromFort implementationofcommuterrailintheNorthI25corridor. CollinsdowntoBoulderandDenveristherightchoicebecauseitwillbring Pleasenotethestudyused2035growthprojectionsfromthe furthereconomicvitalitytoareasthatdon'tseemuchtraffic,suchas NorthFrontRangeMPOandtheDenverRegionalCouncilof Loveland,BerthoudandLongmont.Peoplecouldmovetoareasthatare Governments. morecomfortableforthem,spendmoney,andyetcontinuetoworkwhere theychoose.Furthermore,airpollutionwouldbereducedseveraltimesover Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand becausethenumberofpeoplewhocommutefromnorthtosouthandvice transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 versawhowouldinsteadrideatrainismorethanenoughtodisplacethe –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. byproductsproducedbyatrain.Thestudiesthatweredoneandhavebeen presenteddonottakeintoaccounttherecentgrowthintheareaorthe numberofpeoplethatdonotuseHwy25fortheircommute.Thetraincould berunelectrically,onsteam,orbyusingacleanerformofdiesel.Think aboutwhatitcoulddofortheeconomyuphereandhowitwillhelpusclean upourairquality.PuttinginatrainistherightchoicefornorthernColorado. 341 lorna Watts Weneedtohavelightrailfromftcollins/lovelandtodenverthetrafficis ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail gettingworseandweneedtosaveenergyandtakecareoftheenvironment. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe it'stheanswer.they'redoingitinnewmexicofromsantafeto NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing albuquerque.theyarelayingthetracksrightinthemedianof125!letsdoit toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand Page 203 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

isconsistentwithRTDplans. 342 Doug Wayker Ithinkthewaytogo,istothinklightrail/highspeedbetweenFt.Collinsand ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Denver. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1 PurposeandNeed,duetolimitedstationsandgreaterstation spacingnecessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdetermined thattheseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivity tomanynortherncommunities. 343 Vincent Wayland Isupportanyoptionthatincludescommuterrail. Commentnoted. 344 Philipand Weber WerelocatedtoLoveland11yearsago,andwewereshockedatthattimeat Commentnoted. Betty theresistancetolightrail.WelivedinthemetropolitanareasofChicago, ClevelandandNewYorkCity.Weutilizedtherailsystemsavailable.We ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail endorseI25DEISPackageA.Wewereparticularlyimpressedwiththeplan fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe tousetheexistingraillinebetweenFortCollinsandLongmontbefore NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing connectingtotheFasTracksandRTDlinesintheDenverarea.Wedofully toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology supportchangesneededtoI25forsafetyreasons. thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. Page 204 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 345 Marion Wells IsupportPackageA Commentnoted. 346 Marian Wemple Asanover40yearresidentofFortCollins,Iamfrustratedbythelackof Commentnoted. publictransportationonthefrontrange.Trafficcongestionkeepsgrowing, yetwedonothaveadequate,orsometimesany,meanstotravelwithinor betweencities.Specifically,commuterrailfromFortCollinsto&from Longmontisacryingneed.Pleaseadaptto21stCenturyneeds! 347 Ronald Wemple IfavorplanAwhichincludesaraillinktoLongmont.Imuchpreferpublic Commentnoted. transportationandIhavefamilyinBoulder.Ibelieveatrainisfaster,more comfortable,safer,andmoreconvenientthanabussinceitwillgothrough ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred citycenters.Atrainisalsomorereliableinbadweather.ThankYou. AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridor. However,PackageBincludesBRTonI25,andexpressbus servicealongI25isincludedinthePreferredAlternativeto providegreateraccesstotransitforallcommunities.TheBRT andexpressbuswouldprovidecompetitivetraveltimesto privateautosandcommuterrailbyutilizingthemanagedlanes wherepossible,dependingonthespecifictriporiginand destination.Forexample,thetraveltimebetweenDenverand FortCollinsis93minutesforPackageAcommuterrail;70 minutesforPackageBBRT;94minutesforPreferred Alternativecommuterrail;and63minutesforPreferred Alternativeexpressbusin2035. 348 Phillip White IhavelookedattheproposedchangestotheUS34andI25interchangeand RecentimprovementsattheUS34/I25interchangeremoved Ibelievethatthepublicwouldbebetterservedifthephase1andphase2 twolooprampsandupgradedconnectionstoI25toeliminate proposalswereswapped.IsaythisNOTbasedontimedtrafficflow,buton theshortweavesectionandimprovedriver'sabilitytomerge safety.Merging25mphtrafficintoandoutof75mphtrafficinsucha ontoI25.Phase1improvementswillretainthispartial crampedandbusyspaceasthecloverleaf(designedfor1960's1970'straffic cloverleafconfigurationandimprovetheadjacentintersection volumes)isjustaskingforsevere/fatalaccidents.Iwouldpersonallyliketo (CenterraParkwayandUS34)toaninterchange.This seethatinterchangeblownuptomorrowsotherebuildingcouldstart improvementwillreducethelongdelaysandqueuesforUS34 sooner.Idon'tthinkwaiting2030minutestogetthroughthecurrentphase travelersaccessingCenterra.SubsequentphasesofUS34/I25 1intersectionsisthathighofapriceinordertosavelives.ThankYou. improvementwouldprovidedirectconnectrampsbetweenUS Page 205 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

34andI25forusebyregionaltravelersandadiamond interchangeforI25travelersaccessingdestinationsadjacent toI25suchasCenterraandtheoutletmall. 349 Lisa Widdekind IsupportcommuterrailservicealongtheI25corridorthatconnects Commentnoted. communities'downtownsandprovidesaccesstoadditionalalternate transportation.Wouldn'titbewonderfultonotneedacartogettowork?It ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail ismuchbetterfortheenvironmentandencouragescommunityasopposed alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend tosprawl.Italsoallowspeopletohaveaccesstomoreemployment oflineinThorntonwithservicecontinuingtoDenver.Rail opportunitiesandmakespeopleslivesmoreproductiveandenjoyablewhen alongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduringthealternatives theydon'tspendhoursdrivingeveryday.Thinkofhowmuchitwould developmentprocess.CommuterrailalongI25wasscreened improveourqualityoflife! outasitprovideslessaccesstopopulationcentersthanthe BNSFcorridor. 350 Marcus Wiley OptionAisthebestchoicebyfar.FocusingonI25willonlyencourage Commentnoted. developmentalongI25,causingissueswithtowntaxrevenuesandblighted towncenters. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 351 Karen Wilken Istronglysupport:1)themasstransitcomponentsofPackageAusing Commentnoted. existingrailtoconnectcitycentersfromFortCollinstoLongmont,there connectingwithDenverFasTracksandRTDbusroutesand2)safetyupgrades toI25. 352 Helen Wilks IencouragetheadoptionofPackageA.IliveinLoveland,butmyemployeris Commentnoted. on119betweenLongmontandBoulder,andIhavelongwishedforamass transitoptionbetweenLovelandandBoulder.IthinkthatPackageAwould bewelcomedbymanycommuterswhotravelamongthenorthernfront rangecities.ThankyoufortheopportunitytosubmitcommentsonthisEIS. 353 Ryan Will IamwritingtoexpressmysupportforrailconnectionsbetweenNorthernCo Commentnoted. citiesofFortCollins,Loveland,Greeley,andintoDenver,andmyopposition toexpandingI25byaddingadditionallanes. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroend oflineinThorntonwithservicecontinuingtoDenver. Commentnoted.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Page 206 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 354 KathleenM Wolf PLEASEsupportapublictransportationoptionpreferablyatraintofacilitate Commentnoted. movementfromFortCollinstoDIAandDenver.Iamwillingtocompletea questionnaireifavailable.Thankyou. 355 Ken Wood Yes,weneedI25widenedasap.Asthecurrentprojectswrapup,let'sget Commentnoted. thenextphaseor2designedandbuiltimmediately!SoundslikeoptionAis thebest.CanwestartbywideningI25,whichisneededNOW.Wecanplan Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation forbus/trainsnowandbuildthemwhentheyaremoreeconomically steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost feasible.Thanks. Issues. 356 Kathryn Woolhiser IheartilysupportlightrailandbustravelbetweenFortCollinsandDenver. Commentnoted. ThetrafficisterribleonI25aseveryoneknowsandaddingmorelanesto highwaysjustencouragesmorecarsandmoretraffic. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 357 David Woolhiser Irankcommuterrailasmyhighestpreference,withbusrapidtransitasa Commentnoted. secondchoice.Ineconomiccomparisons,theexternalcostsassociatedwith existingtransportmustbeconsidered. 358 Sara Wright IstronglyrecommendthatalightrailsystembeimplementedintheNorthI Commentnoted. 25corridorwithastopinBerthoud.Lightrailworksverywellwherealready inplaceinDenver,aswellasinothercitiesaroundthecountry.Thisisthe ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail mostfarsightedoption. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis Page 207 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 359 Leo Yahna IwouldliketoregistermysupportforPACKAGEAofCDOT'sNorthI25 Commentnoted. EnvironmentalImpactStatement.Commuterrailcanbeamajorbenefitto thenorthI25transportationcorridor. 360 Karl Zeller AstimegoesbytheneedtomakeI25widerandwiderwillcontinuewith Commentnoted. populationgrowth.Tocontinuetosupportthefreewayonlyisbecoming moreandmoreridiculous.Itistimetobitethebulletandputinarailsystem InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, thatwouldserveallColoradoansandtourists.It'saqualityoflifeissueas pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway well.IwanttoseeaWellington(orbetteryetCheyenne)toDenver(better Improvements. yetColoradoSprings)railwaybeforeyouspendanothercentonI25.Isay thisbeinganI25useraverage3xperweek. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver. PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingtometroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 Page 208 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 CommentsSubmittedviaProjectWebSite

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 361 Victor Zeuzem IwouldlikeacopyoftheHighwayTrafficNoiseImpactReportandacopyof HighwaynoiseimpactsfortheprojectarediscussedintheFinal thestate'snoisepolicy.Thankyou. EISSection3.6.Additionaltechnicaldetailcanbefoundinthe FinalEISAppendixC,whichisavailableforreviewattheCDOT Region4officeinGreeley.

CDOT’snoisepolicyandguidelines,alongwithotherrelated information,areavailableonlineat: http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/environmental/noise/g uidelinespolicies. 362 Robert Zimmerer ThisopportunitytocommentwasbroughttomyattentionbyMilan Commentnoted. Karspeck.IstronglysupportOPTIONAbecauseitrevivespassengerservice onexistingRRwhichpassesthroughthecentersofLongmont,Berthoud, Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingfunding,pleaserefer Loveland,FtCollins,andCSU.Whythepassengercarscanevenbe toGeneralComment#0–FundingandCostIssues. manufacturedinFt.LuptonnotChina! Wemustplanforthefuturewhenprivateautomobileswillnolongerbethe Atthistime,ColoradoRailCarisnolongerinbusiness. dominantformofpersonaltravel.Itwaspossibleuntilthelate1920'stotake Commuterrailvehiclesareavailablefromothermanufacturers. thetramfromDenvertotheCUBouldercampusandtoEldoradoSprings. Theopportunityloomslargethatmassivegovernmentfundingof infrastructurewillbeavailablefromtheObamaAdministrationandOPTION Aisjustthesortofprojectwhichwillbefunded. 363 Petition: PETITIONTEXT: Commentnoted.ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageA We,theundersigned,expressoursupportforCommuterRail,alongHwy287 includecommuterrailfromFortCollins,alongtheBNSF fromFortCollinstoDenver.MetroFasTracksconnectionsasdescribedin corridorwithnewtracktotheNorthMetroendoflinein PackageAofCDOT’sNorthI25DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement.We Thornton,withservicecontinuingtoDenver. supportthemasstransitcomponentsofPackageAandnecessarysafety upgradesonI25.(421Signatures) InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Page 209 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

364 Greg Ackerman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 365 Daniel Adams Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 366 Kate Adams Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 367 Kurt Adams Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 368 Deborah Aiharp Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 369 LeRoy Anderson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 370 Michael Aneas Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 371 Larry Archer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 372 Veronica Arvidson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 373 Mohammed Aslami Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 374 Sharon Atkinson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 375 Elaine Axon Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 376 Teri Bage Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 377 James Bage Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 378 Michael Bagley Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 379 Angela Bain Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 380 Ron Baker Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 381 Deanna Ball Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 382 Jane Ball Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 383 Jennifer Barnett Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 384 Michael Barnhardt Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 385 Gwyn Bass Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 386 Justin Batzke Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 387 Greg Baumgorder Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 388 Sean Beal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 210 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

389 Michael BeckGiffon Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 390 Sarah Bennett Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 391 Clayton Benton Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 392 Risa Benvengz Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 393 Joyce Benz Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 394 Eleni Berquist Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 395 Lynda Bidlake Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 396 Katie Bieger Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 397 Jill Billinger Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 398 Clint Black Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 399 Blaine Blaesing Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 400 Mark Blair Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 401 Carolyn Blair Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 402 Bryan Blakely Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 403 Sonia Blaluly Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 404 KBldgettSignedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 405 Chris& Bolton Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Jeanne

406 Adam Bowen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 407 Linda Bowman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 408 Paul Boyne Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 409 Jill Brammer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 410 Amy Broccoli Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 411 Christi Brockway Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 412 Lori Brown Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 211 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

413 Thomas Brown Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 414 Janne Buchal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 415 Kristina BulikHocurn Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 416 Karel Bunce Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 417 Amy Burch Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 418 Susan Burnett Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 419 Alycia Butler Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 420 Kevin Caffrey Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 421 Julie Caffrey Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 422 Angela Callow Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Mosher

423 Jill Campbell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 424 John Cantrell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 425 Eliza Carney Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 426 Mary Carraher Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Kewter

427 Mike Carrleri Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 428 Barbara Case Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 429 John Case Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 430 Joyce Caufman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 431 Kevin Chandler Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 432 Ana Child Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 433 Caroline Christianson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 434 Amy Circle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above.

Page 212 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

435 Marc Cittone Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 436 Jenifer Cline Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 437 Jan Coffey Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 438 Martha Coleman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 439 Janet Collins Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 440 Lori Croley Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 441 MaryJanet Cross Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 442 Irma Crump Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 443 John Cummings Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 444 Matt Dale Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 445 Ryan Dallas Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 446 Julie Darter Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 447 Greg Davenport Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 448 Linda Davis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 449 Dave Debaor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 450 David DeBout Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 451 Karen Dembrun Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 452 Leslie Dermopy Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 453 Ceryse Devaney Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 454 Paul Deylr Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 455 Gary Dinkel Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 456 Julia Dowling Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 457 Leo Dowling Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 458 Dan Doyle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 459 Susan Drase Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 213 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

460 Mary Ducas Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 461 Sarah Duncan Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 462 Sally Duniven Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 463 Sam Dunlap Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 464 Taylor Dunn Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 465 Jim Dupre Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 466 Amy Durham Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 467 Amy Durham Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 468 Franz Ecker Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 469 Michele Edwards Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 470 Candi Edwards Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 471 Matt Edwards Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 472 David Elgoth Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 473 Julia Engle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 474 Jeannie Essling Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 475 Mark Evans Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 476 Mark Evans Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 477 Garrett Ewing Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 478 Elizabeth Fagan Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 479 Danny Felker Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 480 Danny Felker Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 481 Veronica Fialkowski Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 482 Arthur Finck Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 483 Sally Fitt Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 484 Louise Fjgld Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 214 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

485 Jill Fletcher Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 486 Nola Freeman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 487 Larry Freyer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 488 Jeremy Fritz Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 489 Sharon Gale Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 490 Jimmy Gantenbrin Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 491 Angela Garza Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 492 Frank Gergdy Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 493 Daniel GIbson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 494 Elileen Gibson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 495 Elizabeth Gillespie Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 496 Connie Golden Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 497 David Golden Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 498 Kay Goll Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 499 Erick Gomez Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 500 Michael Green Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 501 Carmen Griess Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 502 Gebrida Guerrero Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 503 Kay Gutierrez Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 504 Sheryl Harrell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 505 Penny Harrington Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 506 Kelli Harris Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 507 Ann Harroun Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 508 Rene Hart Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 509 Jan Hawn Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 215 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

510 Lewis Headrick Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 511 Tom Hennessy Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 512 Sally Henry Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 513 Nancy Herter Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 514 Mary Hill Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 515 Jeffery Hills Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 516 Naomi Hipp Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 517 Arlene Hoffman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 518 Olga Hollins Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 519 Janet Honstein Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 520 Scott Hood Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 521 Janice Hooper Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 522 Pat Horton Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 523 Carole Hossan Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 524 Larry Houstein Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 525 Amber Hoxeng Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 526 Christine Hubbard Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 527 Sean Huges Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 528 Melissa Inscore Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 529 Kathleen James Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 530 Jeramy Jasmann Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 531 Darnel Jenkins Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 532 Sheryl Johnson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 533 Scott Johnson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 534 Laura Johnson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 216 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

535 Randy Johnson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 536 Ellyn Johnson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 537 Christi Johnson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 538 Steve Jungemann Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 539 Nancy Kain Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 540 Lindsay Kapsinow Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 541 Karen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 542 Steve Kelsen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 543 Brian Kennedy Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 544 Ryan Kent Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 545 Lynn Kincanon Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 546 Sally Kisselbach Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 547 Megan Knapp Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 548 Ashleigh Knapp Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 549 Abby Korte Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 550 Wayde Kruegr Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 551 Nancy Kubik Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 552 Tim Kubik Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 553 Stephanie Kyptor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 554 Laura LaBelle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 555 Peggy Lafferty Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 556 Patricia Laky Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 557 Cindy Lange Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 558 Pam Leamons Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 559 Erin Leeper Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 217 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

560 Linda Leon Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 561 Laura Lewis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 562 G.Mark Lewis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 563 Genella Liams Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 564 Barbara Liebler Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 565 Sharon Lillis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 566 Julius Lisi Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 567 Brenda Lobato Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 568 Ginny Lowe Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 569 Barbara M Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 570 Mary Magruder Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 571 Marianne Mahoney Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 572 Art Makath Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 573 Diane Mamak Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 574 Taylor Manes Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 575 Jeffrey Mansfield Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 576 Letha Markham Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 577 Ronald Markwood Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 578 Carla Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 579 Robert Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 580 Carla Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 581 Carla Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 582 Ed Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 583 Morgan Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 584 Jocelyn Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 218 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

585 Karen Massaro Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 586 Terri McBride Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 587 Jim McBride Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 588 Johanna McCahan Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 589 Kristin Mcclery Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 590 Jessica McConnell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 591 Derek McCoy Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 592 Valerie McCullough Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 593 Steven McDonough Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 594 Sharon McGee Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 595 Shanda McGuire Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 596 Ryan McMullen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 597 John McQuillan Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 598 Pat McVey Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 599 Laura Medeiros Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 600 Cathleen Mekwen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 601 Andrea Mello Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 602 Ruth Merrill Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 603 Mary Michael Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Justice

604 Karen Michiels Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 605 Dawn Middleton Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 606 Tiffanie Miller Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 607 Charlotte Miller Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 608 Steve Miller Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 219 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

609 Alicia Miller Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 610 Aaron Miller Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 611 Debi Miner Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 612 Heanep Minto Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 613 Linda Mitchelle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 614 Robert Moffitt Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 615 Judith Mollohem Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 616 Earl Mollohen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 617 Albertha Moorlag Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 618 Marcos Morales Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 619 Kathleen Morello Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 620 Michelle Moritz Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 621 Veronica Mosher Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 622 Frances Mosher Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 623 Erik Nagle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 624 Sharon Nesland Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 625 Jim Neubecker Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 626 Edward Norman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 627 Ben Obark Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 628 Lening Olivas Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 629 Ramona Olson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 630 Caroline Orman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 631 Jack Orman Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 632 Richard Ortega Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 633 Stephanie Ortega Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 220 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

634 Ashleah Ortega Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 635 Gwen Ostby Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 636 Warren Oster Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 637 William Oswalt Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 638 Rocky Padden Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 639 Rick Padden Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 640 Richard Paenr Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 641 Mel Paulson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 642 Sarah Perkins Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 643 Wayne Phillips Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 644 Nancy Phillips Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 645 Linet Phillips Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 646 Nancy Phillips Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 647 Maynard Pollock Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 648 Freda Pollock Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 649 Gerald Portugal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 650 Gerald Portugal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 651 Ruth Portugal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 652 Cathleen Powers Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 653 Edwin Pringle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 654 Kaitlin Pritchard Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 655 Trudy Proctor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 656 Matthew Purvis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 657 Esther Quinonez Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 658 Sariah Quist Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 221 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

659 Jose ROscar Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 660 Michael Radler Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 661 Helen Ramirez Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 662 Scott Randolph Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 663 Todd Rascco Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 664 Cassie Rasch Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 665 John Rector Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 666 Dave Reed Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 667 John Remole Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 668 Riley Rhodes Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 669 Vernon Richardson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 670 Pat Riechmann Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 671 Melissa Riehl Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 672 Russell Riggins Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 673 Kathy Ringis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 674 Marlana Rivera Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 675 Maria Robbins Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 676 Carol Roderick Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 677 Laurl Rodriguez Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 678 Tina Roeses Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 679 Robert Rogers Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 680 Diana Royce Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 681 Joseph Ruffatti Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 682 Tamela Russell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 683 Sandy Russell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 222 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

684 William Russell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 685 Royal Sand Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 686 Brent Sandahl Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 687 Linda Sandahl Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 688 Brandon Sandahl Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 689 Linda Sandahl Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 690 Shanon Sander Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 691 Michael Sanders Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 692 Jack Saxton Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 693 Judy SayreGeim Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 694 Donald Schaal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 695 Donald Schaal Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 696 Ben Schanke Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 697 Carl Scheddon Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 698 Elizabeth Scherer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 699 Christine Scherr Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 700 Andrea Schoen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 701 Max Schoen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 702 Alex Schoen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 703 Maddie Schoen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 704 Chris Schoen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 705 Carolyn Schoolcraft Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 706 Serene Schwader Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 707 Peg Scott Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 708 Natasha Shabalis Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 223 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

709 Mary Shaffer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 710 Al Shakon Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 711 Linda Sherrod Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 712 Nancy Silfven Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 713 Laura Smith Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 714 Kim Smith Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 715 Brittany Smith Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 716 Christine Sobolewski Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 717 Gail Solt Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 718 Jan Sommars Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 719 Deborah Stackeln Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 720 Perry Stamp Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 721 Peter Standiford Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 722 Kenneth Starlin Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 723 Susan Steele Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 724 Rob Stewart Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 725 Rob Stewart Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 726 Sharon Stockwell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 727 Randa Stone Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 728 Craig Stoner Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 729 Teger Stouffer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 730 Lisa Swanson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 731 Cynthia Swanson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 732 Mark Taitsel Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 733 Carolyn Taylor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 224 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

734 Melissa Taylor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 735 Melissa Taylor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 736 Monty Taylor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 737 Nancy Tellez Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 738 Chelsea Templin Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Hladky

739 Cindy TennantDean Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 740 Voan TeresaShaffer Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 741 Melissa Thomas Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 742 Mike Thompson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 743 Gary Thor Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 744 Wayne Tobey Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 745 Max Tower Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 746 Ralph Trenary Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 747 Holly Trenary Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 748 Ruth Trujillo Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 749 Stefanie Tuder Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 750 Irine Turner Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 751 Terri Tuttle Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 752 Linda Vissat Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 753 Kelsey Volk Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 754 Dan Volk Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 755 Terri Volk Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 756 Ashley Waddell Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 757 Vic Wagner Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 225 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

758 Diane Walker Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 759 Patricia Walls Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 760 Jennifer Walton Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 761 Douglas Waratuke Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 762 Shawna Washam Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 763 Janell Weber Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 764 James Weber Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 765 Katherine Wells Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 766 Katherine West Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 767 Diane Westervelt Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 768 Melinda Whitacre Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 769 Tony White Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 770 Dolores Williams Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 771 Anne Wilseck Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 772 Thomas Wilson Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 773 Alisha Wolfe Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 774 Helen Wolfe Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 775 Laura Wolfe Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 776 Keith Wolfe Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 777 Altyun Wood Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 778 Irma Woollen Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 779 Kathleen Worthington Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 780 Lee Worthington Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 781 Linda Wray Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 782 Tara Wricht Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Page 226 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 FrontRangeonTrackCitizensPetition

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

783 Alice Ylarraz Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 784 Sharla Younce Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 785 Von Zahounek Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 786 Renee Zahourek Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. 787 Emily Zielinski Signedpetition,seeabove. Seepetitionresponse,above. Guherrez

788 Anonymous Anonymous Ibelievethattheinitialcostofrailwillbehighbutinthefuturethosecosts Commentnoted. wouldbeminimizedcomparedtoroadimprovements.Theairqualitywould definitelybeimprovedusingrail.Railtransportsmorepeoplethanbusescan Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand onecanalwaysaddanotherrailcar,lightrailwillhavemoreofaneconomic transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 impactonthecommunitiesanditwouldeliminatesprawlbecausethe –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. densitywouldcreatenearrailservice.PlanAseemstobethemostviable, economic,environmentalimpactlessthanPlanB. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 789 Janice Arnold IamsolikingproposedpackageA.Wesodesperatelyneedasystemthatis Commentnoted. accessible,convenientandenvironmentallysuperiortoourpresent“hopin thecaranddrive”mentality.PackageAconnectsthewholenorthColorado frontrangeinawaythatwouldmakeourpartoftheworldaleaderin businessandqualityforlife.IseethateitherplanAorBmodernizesthe intersectionoftheI25andhighwayUS34,weoftenavoidusingthatone nowbecauseofitbeingdangerouslydesigned(backinthedayofoptimizing easementbeforesafety)WhenwemovedtoLovelandin1990Ihadto bicycleandbumridestomyjobinFtCollinswhenmycarbrokedown.NowI canrideabusMSat6AMto6PM.NowthecompanyIworkforisrelocating Page 227 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

fromLovelandtoLongmontandIwouldreallyliketobeabletojusthopona train.Notnormal,butI’mafanofpublictransportation. 790 Gloria Austin InmyopinionacombinationofAandbplanswouldbeappropriate.The Commentnoted. trainisamustdo.TheadditionalproposedlaneofI25howevershouldbe designedasacarpoolortolllanetopromoteridershipofthetrainandto Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingthecombining encouragecarpooling. elementsofthebuildpackages,pleaseseeGeneralResponse #0–DecisionmakingProcess. 791 Gloria Austin Althoughthereisatemporarydiptogasolineprices,itwouldbevery Commentnoted. shortsightedtoprocrastinateamasstransitsolutionsuchastheI25train further.Wemustresolvetheupcomingtransportationchallenges,andthe Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation proposedtrainisanimportantfirststep. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 792 Scott Banzhaf PreferoptionA,strongusershipwillberealizedwithbringingtherailand Commentnoted. busservicesthroughthepopulationcenters85corridorandthe287corridor. OptionAalsowillstrengthenthecommunitydesignaroundatransitoriented Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand developmentdesignmodels.Transitorienteddevelopmentandtransit transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 stationswillhaveastrongerimpactforthepositiveratherthanfeedingusers –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. totheI25corridorpleaseassesstheaccessandusabilityratherthanup frontcapitalcosts. 793 Andrew Bartlett I’velivedhere19years.I’veseenI25getquiteabitmorebusyoverthose Commentnoted. years.IstronglysupporttheoptionAthatyouhavethatimprovestherail transitaspect.Myworryisthattherailsideofitisgoingtogetboggeddown InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, andthehighwaywideningpartisgoingtobefullspeedahead.Andthisis pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway historical.CDOThasbeenwideningthehighwaysforquiteafewyearsand Improvements. they’reverynewinthecommuterrailbusiness.SoI’mwondering,Iguess myworry,atleastbepacedtogoalongatleastasfastasthehighway Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand project.Isawyourstatisticsshowingalittlegrowthinexpectedtrafficafter transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 thewidening,andIthinkit’sgoingtobehuge,especiallywhenyougetthree –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. newlanestoWeldCounty.Youcanfillitallupwithcarsinnotime,theway theircountycommissionerswillallowanydevelopment.AndsoIdon’tsee Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation thetimeasbeingthatmuchimprovedbythewidening.Ithinkitwillbe steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost more,threelanesofhorribletrafficeachwayinsteadoftwo,assoonasall Issues. thenewdevelopmentinWeldCountyandpartsofLarimerblend.SoifIwere runningthezoo,I’dgowiththecommuterrailandthenoactionalternative Page 228 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

onI25 794 Russ Batz Iamfirmlyforleastcarbonfootprint.ThepublictransportationdownI25 Commentnoted. whichhasgrowncommerciallyandresidentiallyasColorado’sspine.Fort CollinstoColoradoSpringsandwestfromI25toVail. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver. PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 795 Ken Bennett Ifallwedoisaddmorelaneswhatwewillhaveisjustmorecongestionand Commentnoted. futurerepair.Weneedtohavecommuterrailthroughthefrontrange communitiesonexistingrail.Thiswillbeextremelycosteffective.The Page 229 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

economicgrowththatwouldoccurinourdowntownswillhelppayforthe developmentandwereducecongestiononI25reduceemissionsand expandtransportationoptionsforconsumers. 796 Chris& Bolton AndthefirsttimeItalkedtoanyoneaboutrailservicealongtheBurlington Commentnoted. Jeanne Northernlinewasin1995.Andtheyatthattimehadapersonwhoworked forthemnationallywhowastryingtopromotepassengerrailontheir ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail existinglines.Sincethattimewehaven’tdonemuchaboutit.Butthey,at fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe thatpointtheywereveryinterestedinpromotingit,senttheguytoFort NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing Collins,wehadameetingwithhim.AndsoI’vebeenthinkingaboutbeing toDenver.ConnectionscouldbemadeatDenverUnionStation abletoridethatlineintoDenverandDIAforalongtime.Ihopethatit’snot forotherdestinations,suchasDIA. goingtotakeanother18years.Butmycommentsfocusaroundrailservice ontheexistingraillinesfromFortCollinstoDenver.Itmakesthemostsense. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, ItistheheartofoptionA.AndanythingelsecouldgoawayinoptionA,if pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway thathappens,andwewouldhavearealimprovementintransportationfor Improvements. theFrontRange.That’sallwehavetodo,andwecouldseeamazing,good changestoourdowntownareas,tothesafetyofthepeoplegoingfromhere Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand tothere.Railsafetyissofaraboveanythingthehighwayshaveeverbeen transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 abletodothatIdon’tknowwhyanyonedoesn’tmentionit.Ifyoulookatrail –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. safetyandyoulookatCDOT’seven,andI’veexaminedthatpointtopoint downI25,there’snocomparison.Railissomuchsafer.Youcando Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation somethingwhileyou’reriding,andyoursavingenergy,you’rehelpingourair steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost quality.It’ssoconvenient.Thecostpermile,perpassengermileovera20– Issues. yearperiodisjustsomuchlessthananyotherwayyou’reevergoingtoget fromFortCollinstoDenver.AndIagreethatthewaypackageAandpackage Baresetupdoesn’tshowwhatagreatsolutionpassengerrailonthe BurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailis.Sothat’swhatweneedtodo.That’s maybeallweneedtodo. 797 Bob Brewster Ifavorcommuterrailbyfarovereverythingintheplan.Iliketheideaof Commentnoted. incrementalimplementationbecauseitcanbedone,dependingonthe railroad’smood,itcanbedonefasterandmorecheaplytofocusonourreal Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation transportationproblems,andthatinvolvespeakhour.Wecouldstartpeak steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost hourcommuterrail,that’swhyit’scalledcommuterrail,becauseit’sgeared Issues. tocommuters,andstartonthatandperhapsinthebeginningreachDenver bywayoftheBoulderlinewithouttransfer.Forcingpeopletotransfertrains ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail costsridership.Noteverybodywilltoleratetheconnection. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe Page 230 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Idon’tknowiftherailroadisinsistingonadoubletrackalignmentallthe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing way.Iftheyare,thenthere’snotawholelotyoucandoaboutthat.But toDenver.Theserviceisplannedforallday,with30minute wouldtheybewillingtodocertainpassingsidingsthatwouldpermitapeak serviceinthepeakperiodstoservecommuters,and60minute houroperation.Therailroadcallsitanoperatingwindow.Inotherwords, offpeakservicetoservetravelerswithotherpurposesand wouldtherailroadallowingapeakhouroperatingwindowtoreducethe schedules. needforalloftheinfrastructureupfrontandmaketheimprovementsas demandgrows.Youcanfunditasyougo,somethinglikethat.Provethe TheBNSFisnotrequiringdoubletrack,butdoesrequire valueoftheservicefirst,andyoumightfindtheflowofdollarstomore provisionofamaintenanceroadandsomesectionsofpassing servicemoreeasilyachieved. trackforoperationofasingletracksystem.Theoperating Let’ssee.Regardingthebuses,theBRTconcept,thelastplaceonthisplanet agreementwiththeBNSFwillbedevelopedinlaterstages. youwanttoputbuspassengersisinthemiddleofaninterstatehighway,if PackageAassumesadoubletracksystem,andthePreferred that’swhatthey’replanningondoingwiththestations.Youhavesafety Alternativeassumessingletrackandamaintenanceroadwith issues,thenoiseofpassingtraffic,spraywhenit’swetorsnowy,the somesectionsofpassingtrack(BecausePackageAcommuter occasionalcrashthatcanvaultvehiclesorpartsofvehiclesoverconcrete railincludesadoubletracksystem,aparallelmaintenanceroad barriers.It’sadangerousplacetoputpeople.Anybusstationsreallyneedto wouldnotbeneeded.Maintenanceaccesswouldbeprovided beofftotheside,offtheline. bythesecondtrackinPackageA). Buseswillneverattracttheridershipthetrainswill.That’sprettymucha provenfact.Theyarealsoverysubjecttoweatherrestrictions.Inabarrier ThePreferredAlternativeincludesexpressbusserviceon separatedlane,allittakesisonepetrifieddrivertovirtuallybringtheHOV bufferseparatedTELlanesonI25;thestationsareofftothe buslanetoahalt,somebodytooafraidtodriveinsnowyconditions.You sideforsomeofthereasonsyouciteamongotherreasons,in havedestroyedanysemblanceofspeedinanHOVBRTsystem.Samething,if contrasttothemedianstationsofBRTinPackageB.Yes,rail thereisacrashinanHOVlane,youalsoloseanyadvantageofthatmodeof typicallyattractsmoreridersthanbusservice.Theridership travel.Busesarealsofarmoreuncomfortablethanatrain.AndImademy ratiobetweenthetwomodesdependsonavarietyoffactors livingonbuses,bytheway,forover39years,soIknowwhatI’mtalking foreachcorridor'suniquecharacteristicsandtravelmarkets. about. ThisfactorisincludedintheFinalEIStraveldemandmodel. Iwouldsaytheprimarygoalofthiswouldbetogetsomesemblanceof passengerrailserviceoperatingasquicklyaspossible.Perhapsthebully PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin pulpitofthegovernorwouldhelp,notunlikeNewMexicoGovernor Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Richardson,whoaccomplishedcommuterrailinbasicallytheblinkofaneye Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit comparedtothewaytheseprojectsaregoinginthisstate.AndIcertainly improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA hopethatthereisanoverlapbetweentheNorthI25corridorandtheentire andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand FrontRangeCommuterRailconcepttoshareexpensesforequipmentand Greeley,andextendingtometroDenver.Theextensionof theabilitytoruntrainsthroughwithoutchangingtrainsinDenvertogofrom transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded oneendofthestatetotheother,fromCheyennetoAlbuquerque,forthat bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis matter.Thereareprobablygreatsavingsindoingthat.Andthetrainsofthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of proposedservicedoneedtotravelonthroughtoDenverUnionStation.And alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare Page 231 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

forthatmatter,theideaofnotrunningcommuterrailontheUnionPacific destinedforCheyenne. tracksfromGreeleytoDenverreallyneedstobeexaminedagainusingthe sameformulaIjustoutlinedfortheBNSFalignmentfromFortCollinsto Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 Denver.Isuspectthenumbersdon’tlookgoodforthatatthispoint,but mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, again,apeakhourservicemightmakesomesensewiththecooperationof and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring theUnionPacific. thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere WhenImentiontheideaofpeakhourrailservice,itcancertainlybe determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot augmentedbyoffpeakbusservicesforthelighterloaddemandsbetween meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of peakhoursandafterpeakhourintheevening,sopeopledoesn’tgetifthey theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing canonlyusethetrainoneway,forexample.Thisisdoneelsewhere,where necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat youdon’thaveenoughpeopletowarrantthecostofoperatingafulltrain.A theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto buswillsuffice,tracingthesameapproximaterouteofthetrain.Busesdon’t manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe haveasmuchdifficultyintheoffpeakhours,asarule. themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

WhiletheNorthI25PreferredAlternativedoesnotincluderail servicebetweenGreeleyandDenveralongtheUPRR,theDraft EISidentifiesthepossibilityoffutureinterregionalrailservice alongotherexistingrailcorridorsanddoesnotprecludethis possibility.US85CommuterBusservice,includedintheNorth I25EISPreferredAlternativeandPackageA,wouldprovide transitservicetothecommunitiesalongUS85andcouldactas aprecursortocommuterrailservicealongthatcorridor.BothI 25ExpressBusandUS85CommuterBuscouldsupplement futurerailservicealongtheUPRRcorridorifcommuterrail servicewereimplemented.

Page 232 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

798 Mona Claycomb IpreferpackageAwithcommuterrail.Theonlineplacesaystheexisting Commentnoted. singlerailindowntownLovelandwillnotbewidenedtouseableraildueto thenegativeimpactonthehistoricdepotbuilding.Ifthatisso,whycan’tthe TheplatforminLovelandisadjacenttothedepot;thereare buildingbepurchased,movedandusedforthecommuterrailstations? tentativeplanstousethedepotbuildingasyousuggestthatdo notrequiretheprojecttomovethebuilding. 799 Caroline Creager IjustwantedtogivemysupportofoptionAfortherailsystemthroughthe Commentnoted. downtownareasofBerthoud,orLongmont,LovelandandFortCollins.That’s bothpersonalandasabusinessownerinBerthoud.Thecommunityof Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal Berthoud,theChamberofCommerceofBerthoud,wesupporttheoptionA. combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA 85percentoftheresidentsofBerthoudcommutetotheirworkplace andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludea commuterrailstationinBerthoud. 800 Greg Crowell RegardingpackageAthecurrentroutingofcommuterrailalongCR7will Commentnoted. haveanegativeimpactonthecommunitiesofRinn,WyndhamHillsand individualhomes.Thisrouteexpandstransportationcorridorswellbeyond ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail existingimpactzones.Abetteralternativewouldbetousethehwy119andI fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe 25rightofwaysfortheentirecommuterrailroute.Thereseemstobelittle NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing benefittoextendingthecommuterraillinesouthofLongmont,rail toDenver.Forinformationonthedecisionmakingprocess passengerscouldtransfertoFasTracksinLongmontversuscontinuingtothe usedtoestablishthePreferredAlternative,pleaseseeGeneral FasTracksstationinThornton.Athirdoptionthatoffersgeneralpurposelane Response#0–DecisionmakingProcess. expansionandbusservicewouldprovidethemostserviceforleastcost. DuringthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternativemuch considerationwasgiventotheneedforthesectionof commuterrailbetweenthetwoFasTracks'raillines(North MetroandNorthwest)thatgenerallyparallelsSH119andCR7. Theproject'stwoadvisorycommitteesreviewedinformation aboutthecostofthatsectionofthelinecomparedtothe traveltimesavingsandridershipincreases.Throughthis evaluationofcostsandbenefitsthecommitteesrecommended retainingtheentirecommuterrailalignmentinthePreferred Alternative.

AppendixFoftheAlternativeDevelopmentandScreening Report(FHUandJacobs,2011)incorporatedbyreferencein Page 233 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thisEISdocumentsathoroughreviewofdifferentalignments toconnectthetwoFasTrackscorridors(NorthMetroand NorthwestRail).Somealignmentspresentedtoomuchoutof directiontravel,otherspresentedaccessconflictswiththeI25 frontageroadandothersimpactedenvironmentalresources includingwetlandsand4(f).Thisevaluationidentifiedthatthe alignmentonSH119andCR7asthepreferredalignment becauseitwouldresultinlessoutofdirectiontravel,no conflictwithI25frontageroadaccess,andminimalimpactto sensitiveresources.

YouarecorrectthatPackageBBRTserviceandthePreferred AlternativeExpressBusservicealongI25wouldcostlessthan commuterrailservice$116millionand$114million, respectivelycomparedto$649millionforcommuterrail.The PreferredAlternativeincludesbothExpressBusonI25and CommuterrailbetweenFortCollinsandDenverandresultsin higherridership,improvedconvenience,improvedtraveltime andincreasedmodaloptionsfornorthernColoradotravelers. 801 Keith Dameron IliveinDenver.Bigproponent,packageA.Weabsolutelyneedtherailpiece ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail inthispuzzle.PackageB,there’snorailpiece,andthat’satravesty,sad,I fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe don’tknow.ThecostofpackageAisshownmuchhigherthanB.Thereare NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing somecoststhatcanbechangedinpackageA.Youdonotneedtodouble toDenver.Theserviceisplannedforallday,with30minute tracktheentireroutefromLongmonttoFortCollinstomaketheservice serviceinthepeakperiodstoservecommuters,and60minute work.Youcanhavepassingsidingsateachstation;inotherwords,atevery offpeakservicetoservetravelerswithotherpurposesand stationthetrackswouldbesplit.Butyoucansingletrackagoodportionof schedules.PackageAassumesadoubletracksystem,andthe thatrailroadrightofway.Saveshugeamountsofmoneyincapitaloutlay. PreferredAlternativeassumessingletrackandamaintenance Theheadwayswillstillworkwithpassingsidings,andI’mnotconvincedyou roadwithsomesectionsofpassingtrack(BecausePackageA need30minuteheadwayspeakperiodtobesuccessful.That’swhatthey’re commuterrailincludesadoubletracksystem,aparallel tellingmeisthereasonthey’regoingtodoubletrackalmostallofthat maintenanceroadwouldnotbeneeded.Maintenanceaccess sectionoftrack,wastomeet30minutepeakperiodthings.Unnecessary. wouldbeprovidedbythesecondtrackinPackageA). Youcangetexcellentridership,45minuteorhourheadwaysonthattrack. Youdon’thavetodo30minute.Saveyouahugeamountofmoney. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation TheproposednewtrackfromLongmonttoThorntondoesnothavetobean steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost initialpartofthisprogram.Itcanbeaddedinlaterwhendemandandother Issues. financialresourcesaretheretodothat.Buildingnewtrack,Longmontto Page 234 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Thornton,isgoingtobeextremelyexpensivetoputin.Thosetwoitems,the Afterevaluationfoundthatitwasfeasible,incontrastto rightofwayfromLongmonttoThornton,andthedoubletrackingLongmont PackageA,thecommuterrailofthePreferredAlternative toFortCollins,inflatethecostofpackageA,anditcouldbethesameorless assumesasingletrack(withsomepassingtrack)asyou thanpackageB,justusingthosetwoitems.Iguessmydisappointmentisthat suggest.Thisdoesachieveacostsavings.Thirtyminute they’reshowingpackageAsoexpensivethatit’sforcingeverybodytolean headwaysinthepeakperiodattractnotablymoreridersthan towardspackageB,whenIdon’tthinkit’sthebestanswer,meaningthey’re hourlyheadways;asindicatedbytheridershipforecasting inflatingthecostofpackageA.Itwouldnothavetobedonetobesuccessful. model.ThephasingofcommuterrailforthePreferred Ridership.Historically,theexpertsthatpredictwhatridershipwillbeonrail AlternativeisdescribedinChapter8PhasedProject transitsystemsunderestimatethatnumber.Iknowthyuseaformula,but Implementation.Theinitialcommuterrailsegmentisidentified theformulaiswrong.ItwaswrongoneveryoneofRTD’scorridorssofar. betweenLongmontandLovelandforPhase2;thesegment RTD’sridershipexceededtheirprojectednumbers10and15yearsdownthe betweenThorntonandLongmontwouldbeatalaterstage. roadonopeningday.Historically,tollroadsoverestimatethenumberof users.E470,justinthelastyearortwo,finallyreachedtheirprojected Ridershipforecastsarepreparedwithastateofthepractice numbersthattheexpertssaidtheywouldhaveonthedayE470opened.If traveldemandmodel.TheFinalEISacknowledgesthat infactyouweretotakethetollroadnumbersthatthey’reusingandreduce ridershipforecastingisnotanexactscience,asdescribedin itby50percent,andtakethetransitridershiponthecommuterrailand section4.2.6.6.Theuncertaintiesoftheforecastsaredueto increaseitby50percent,itwouldchangethewholecostestimatesand,I necessarymodelingassumptionsaboutthefuture. think,bemuchmoreaccurateastowhat’sgoingtohappen.Thatwould makepackageAmuchmorefiscallyattractive. InformationaboutE470anditsnumberofuserscanbefound IapplaudtheproposalforcommuterbusfromGreeleytoFortLuptonor athttp://www.e470.com.Notethetolledexpresslanes(TEL) Brighton,I’mnotsurewhereitgoes,inpackageA.Verygood.Couldpossibly ofthePreferredAlternativedifferfromtheE470tollway.The beconvertedtoapassengercommuterrailprojectdowntheroad.Existing TELarefreetohighoccupantvehiclesbutchargeatollto tracksthere. singleoccupantvehicles,asopposedtotheE470tollway I’mabigfanofdoingsomething.Weabsolutelyneedtoexpandthe whichtollsallvehicles.TheTELisamanagedlanethatwill highways,inadditiontoaddingthecommuterrailonthisproject.TREXisan alwaysprovideareliabletraveltime,incontrasttothe excellentexampleofahighwaywideningprojectwitharailtransit adjacentgeneralpurposelaneswhichcanbecomecongested connection,railtransitlink,also.Andithasproventobeextremely inthefuture. successful.Thisprojectwouldbenefitfromtheacknowledgementthatthe highwayexpansionandthecommuterraillinkwouldmakethismuchmore US85CommuterBusservice,includedintheNorthI25EIS palatableandacceptableandsuccessfultoeverybody. PreferredAlternativeandPackageA,wouldprovidetransit I’llclosewiththis.PackageBleansheavilyontheassumptionthatmost servicetothecommunitiesalongUS85andcouldactasa peoplewilldriveorwanttodrivetowheretheyneedtogoandwanttogo. precursortocommuterrailservicealongthatcorridor. PackageAacknowledgesthatthereisalargenumberofpeoplethateither can’tdrive,medicalreasonsorage,theveryelderly,theyoung,peoplelike Notethathighwayexpansionisincludedinallthreepackages that,disabled,disabilitiespreventdriving.Andtherearepeoplewho underconsideration.Thepreferredalternativeisacombination shouldn’tdrive.Statistically,wehaveahugenumberofpeopleinthisstate ofPackagesAandB.ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSF Page 235 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thatdonothaveinsuranceorareunderdrivingrestraintaction,don’thavea railroadtracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorth license.Addinglanesdoesn’timprovethenumberofsafedrivers,and metroendoflinestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendof commuterrailsystemprovidesexcellentopportunityforpeoplethateither linestationinLongmont,commuterbusalongUS85between can’tdon’torshouldn’tdrivetobeabletogetwherethey’regoing. GreeleyanddowntownDenver,interchangereconstructions, andtheadditionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpress lanesalongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobring localtraffictothecorridortrainservice. 802 Keith Dameron I’vehadfamilyforwellover25yearslivinginLongmont,however,soI’m Notethathighwayexpansionisincludedinallthreepackages verymotivatedinthisarea,andI’mverymuchaffectedbyhowtherail underconsideration.Thepreferredalternativeisacombination travelstoDenver.I’mretiredfromtheColoradoStatePatrol,soI’m ofPackagesAandB.ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSF somewhatfamiliarwithtraffic.AndIgraduatedfromDenverHighSchool,so railroadtracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorth I’mfamiliarwiththefactthatCDOThasactuallybeentalkingaboutwidening metroendoflinestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendof I25sinceIwasinhighschoolinthe1970’snorthofHighway7.Itjusttook linestationinLongmont,commuterbusalongUS85between them30yearstoactuallystartdoingthat. GreeleyanddowntownDenver,interchangereconstructions, Couple,threecomments.PackageA,certainlymuchbetterproposed andtheadditionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpress solution.Notincludingcommuterrail,whichpackageBfailstoinclude,isa lanesalongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobring travesty,inmyopinion.Notappropriatetonotconsiderthat.TREXisan localtraffictothecorridortrainservice.Moredetailed excellentexampleofhowwideningahighwayandaddingatransit,rail informationconcerningthePreferredAlternativeisincludedin transitcomponentcanbebeneficial,andcertainlyneedstobeconsidered. Chapter2AlternativesoftheFinalEIS. Iamverymuchconcerned,whatIseeasinflatedcostinpackageAthat makesitlookunfavorablyfromafiscalstandpoint.Specifically,twoitems ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail thatjumpout.OneisthatIdon’tbelieveit’snecessarytodoubletrackfrom fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe FortCollinsallthewaytoLongmontinitially.Youcouldgetbywithpassing NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing sidingsveryeasilyforavastmajorityofthatanddoubletrackateachofthe toDenver.Theserviceisplannedforallday,with30minute stationsandsaveahugeamountofcapitalcost.I’mnotconvincedyou serviceinthepeakperiodstoservecommuters,and60minute absolutelyneed30minuteheadwaystobesuccessfulpeakperiod;45 offpeakservicetoservetravelerswithotherpurposesand minuteorhourmightwork.Andagain,thesavedcapitalcostwouldcertainly schedules.Thirtyminuteheadwaysinthepeakperiodattracts makethisbetter. notablymoreridersthanhourlypeakperiodheadways,as IguessI’ll–nottrytogotoolonghere.I’mconcernedthat–Irealizethat indicatedbytheridershipforecastingmodel. youguysarestuckwithformulasthatsomebodyhasdeterminedthatyou useforridershiptransit.Theformulasthat–everytransitthingthat’sopened PackageAassumesadoubletracksystem,andthePreferred upanywhereintheU.S.inthelasttenyearsthatI’mawareof,theridership Alternativeassumessingletrackandamaintenanceroadwith hasexceededtheformula,ortheprediction.RTDcertainlyprovedthat.On somesectionsofpassingtrack(BecausePackageAcommuter everycorridorthey’veopenedridershipexceeded10and15yearsdownthe railincludesadoubletracksystem,aparallelmaintenanceroad roadonthemonththeyopened.Interestinglyenough,tollroads,e470 wouldnotbeneeded.Maintenanceaccesswouldbeprovided specifically,hasneverreachedit’sprojected–actually,theydidfinally.Two bythesecondtrackinPackageA). Page 236 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

yearsagoitreachedthenumbertheyweresupposedtoopenwithwellover tenyearsago. Ridershipforecastsarepreparedwithastateofthepractice Soifyouweretochangeyournumbersalittle,i.e.,saymaybe50percent regionaltraveldemandmodel.TheFinalEISacknowledgesthat morepeopleridetransitthanyouthink,themmaybe50percentlesscarsuse ridershipforecastingisnotanexactscience,asdescribedin tollroadsthanyouthink,yournumbersaregoingtobemuchbetterfor section4.2.6.6.Theuncertaintiesoftheforecastsaredueto packageA.Irealizethattheformulasarecontrolledbysomebodyoutside, necessarymodelingassumptionsaboutthefuture. nobodygetstocomeupwithabestguess.Butstatistically,wherethey’ve donestudieswhereabushasbeenput,oratrain,atrainusuallytakesmore InformationaboutE470anditsnumberofuserscanbefound passengersbyafactoroffouroverwhatridesabus,meaningthere’san athttp://www.e470.com.Notethetolledexpresslanes(TEL) awfullotofpeoplethatwouldmuchprefertobeonatrainandhaveno ofthePreferredAlternativedifferfromtheE470tollway.The desiretorideonabus. TELarefreetohighoccupantvehiclesbutchargeatollto I’vewrittenupsomecommentsandotherthings,soI’llquitthere.ButIreally singleoccupantvehicles,asopposedtotheE470tollway thinkpackageAisyouronlysolution,andI’mdisappointedthatpackageB whichtollsallvehicles.TheTELisamanagedlanethatwill failstoincludetherailcomponent.Iguessthelastthingis,youcouldinfact alwaysprovideareliabletraveltime,incontrasttothe usetherailasamitigatingfactorforwhileyouputI25underconstruction adjacentgeneralpurposelaneswhichcanbecomecongested forthefiveto15yearsitwilltaketodotheworkthere.Andifyouhada inthefuture. transitcomponent,youactuallyprovidemitigation.Andthefedsusuallyhave togivemitigationdollarsforthat.Soconsiderusingthat.Andimplementit Yes,railtypicallyattractsmoreridersthanbusservice.The byphasing.Youcouldstartwithsomepeakperiodandverylittleoffpeak ridershipratiobetweenthetwomodesdependsonavarietyof rightofwayandusealltheexistingtrackwithjustafewsidings.There’salot factorsforeachcorridor'suniquecharacteristicsandtravel wecandowithcommuterrailthatdoesn’trequireitalltobebuiltatonce. markets.ThisfactorisincludedintheFEIStraveldemand Thankyou. model.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

803 Nora Dixon Well,I’mverymuchhopingthattherewillbetraintransportation,andIlike Commentnoted. theideaofutilizingthetracksthatarealreadyhereintownonMasonStreet. AndoneofthereasonsthatIlikethetrainisthequalityoflife,thatwhen you’reridingatrainforadistance,you’rerealizing,andyoucanreadand relaxratherthandriving.AndIwouldliketosee,Ijustthinktheidealwould beatrainsystemthatgoesfromFortCollinsthroughallthetownsdownto Denver.AndIthinkanotherplusforthatisthatwouldhelpwithkeepingthe centersoftownsvital.I’veexperiencedthislivingoutsideofChicagointhe Page 237 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

suburbs,andthetrainstationateachtownintoChicagowasatthecenterof town.Andyougetoffthetrain,andthathelpswithrestaurantsdowntown andkeepingthedowntownvital. 804 Mark Enos IwanttoregistermydesiretohavepackageAapprovedsothatthe Commentnoted. commuterrail,theFasTracks,comesupthroughLongmont,too,andgoesup the287corridorthroughLovelandandallthewayuptoFortCollinsthat way,becauseIjustthinkthatwillimpactwithpeople.Itwillbenefitmore people,forcommutersandstuffalongtheFrontRangehere,becausethe populationcenterisalongthatcorridor.Anditwillhelpthedowntownareas ofLongmont,Loveland,FortCollinsbyconnectingthemtoDenverviaarail system.SoIthinkthatwillhelpwithallthedowntownareasgettingmore shoppingandstufflikethat.That’sit. 805 Paul Febvre Firstofall,Iwanttoshowmysupportveryclearlyinfavorofthetrain Commentnoted. becauseIthinkit’stheonlysafeandpracticalwaytotransportpeople quickly,especiallywhenitsnows.Imean,thebusseemsfantastic,butina InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, snowstormit’skindofoutoffashion.However,Iwanttoverystronglyecho pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway thecommentsofthegentlemanwhospokeinfrontofme.We’reapplying Improvements. 20thcenturysolutionstoa21stcenturysituation.Atraingoing40milesan hourjusttotally–Idon’twanttobederogatory,buttrainsgo200milesan Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 houralloverEurope,alloverJapan,alloverChina,andIdon’tknowwhythe mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, Denvermetroareadoesnotembracethosetechnologies.IguessIknowwhy, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring becausemaybeit’saquestionofmoneyorwhatever.Butwe’restill thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere embracingtotallyoutfashionedtechnologies.That’sit. determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. Page 238 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 806 Buzz Feldman PlanAisthelogicaloption.PlanBrequiresaddinglanestotheI25endlessly, Commentnoted. thathasnotworkedinCA.Thereisnoreasontobelieveitwouldworkhere. Commuterrailworkswellelsewhereinthecounty,reducestraffic,reduces pollution. 807 Irene Fortune I’dliketothankthegroupforgivingusachancetoaskquestions,because, Ridershipprojectionsarebasedontraveldemandforecasting goodnessknows,I’vehadquiteafew.AndI’vegottengoodinformation,so modelthatiscalibratedtoexistingconditionsbutusesfuture thanks.I’maproponentofrailmasstransit.Isay,builditandtheywillcome. landusesofpopulationandemploymenttoestimatetransit Whenwe,myhusbandandI,wereconsideringmovingtotheFrontRangein demandintheyear2035.RidershipprojectionsintheDenver 2004,wedroveupI25throughDenver,andIsaid,they’rebuildingrail.We metroareahaverecentlybeenupdatedtoreflecthighertransit thought,ofcourse,anyareawhereyourpopulationlivesinastraightlineis use.TheFinalEISconsideredtheimpactoftheseupdatesto anobviousplaceformasstransit,andthey’redoingit.So,check,gotthat, ridershipinthenorthernColoradoregion. movedon.AndwhenwegothereayearandahalflaterandIstartedreading thepaperandIlearnedthatFasTrackswaslimitedtoDenvermetro,Ifelt Theregionalstudyareaisadesignatednonattainmentarea gypped.AndsohereIamtoday,missingtransitandthejoyoftakingitthat forozone,whichisacolorlessgas.The"browncloud"maybe I’vehadinotherplacesthatI’vetraveledtoandworkedandlived. madeupofparticulatematterfromdust,aresultof Iwantedtoquestionthattheprojectedmasstransitcommuterrailridership agriculturalandindustrialsourcesinadditiontotransportation. seemsreallylowtome.Iunderstandthesurveysweredonelike2000,‘90s. Mostpollutantsintheregionalstudyareaareprojectedtobe Howmanypeoplelikemehavemovedheresincethenandsaid,hey,where’s lowerinthefutureduetoemissionscontrolsonmorevehicles. themasstransit?(showofhands)Yeah.Sowe’reherenow.AndthenIread thatSeattleandSanJoseandSanDiegowerethecomparisoncities,transit TheprojectalternativesareexpectedtomeettheNational systems.AndifIthinkofonebigdifferencebetweenhereandthere,it’sthe AmbientAirQualityStandards. weather.Seattle,itrails300daysayear.Herewe’vegotsun300daysayear. Putthosestationsinplaceswherepeoplecanwalkandbiketoandgetto, CommuterbusfromGreeleytoDenverisincludedasapartof andtheywillcome. thePreferredAlternative,asiscommuterrailalongtheBNSF Thiscountrykindofdivertedfromtherestoftheindustrialworldabout50 RRROWwhichwouldconnecttotheFasTrackslineswhich yearsagobybuildinghighwaysandbecomingamorecarbasedeconomy. connecttoDenverUnionStation. Andit’sbeenagoodexperiment,butourroadsurfacesarecrummy.Andif youthinkI25isbad,comebacktoMichiganwithme.It’sreallybadthere. Andthecarbasedeconomy–andnowpeoplehavehadacreditscarelike, seemstohavefinallyhittheirheart.Peopleareconserving.Andweallknow there’sahugeglobalimbalancebetweenusasadebtornationandother Page 239 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

countiesasalendernation,andIwouldbesurprisedifthatdebtor/lender relationshipworksitoutintimeforustoeverseecreditagainlikewe’vehad inthelast20yearsthathavebuiltthecarbasedeconomy. Alsowhatcameout,aboutthesametimethatthestudywentuponthe Internet,theGlobalEnergyOutlookreportfor2008cameout,whichsaidthe fuel–oilreservesarebeingdepletedataratemuchfasterthanwas projectedjustayearago.Wealsoreadthatprojectswheretheoilcosts70, 80,$100abarreltogetitoutofthegroundandmakeaprofitarebeingshut downinanticipationofthedaywhenoilwillcostthatmuchagain.And bottomlineforthatreportwas,in2030theyexpectoilat$200abarrel.They thinkpeopleknowthat.They’relookingforoptions,andwedon’thave optionshere.We’relookingforoptions. I’dliketosayonethingaboutairquality.Iwas,onSeptember2ndofthis yearIwasuponLong’sPeak,thatway(indicating),ontheshoulderofLong’s Peak.Itwasanovercastdaylikethis,buttheceilingwashighenoughIcould seeabovethecloudlayerandbelowthecloudlayer.Andabovethecloud layertherewasthattypicalbrowncloudthatwesee,thin,dissipates,you know,we’veallseethatbrowncloud.Belowthecloudlayertheairwasthe colorofmud.Itlookedscary.Andyoucan’tseeit.It’slikewhenyou’re drivingintoDenver,youlookaheadandthink,oh,I’mdrivingintothat?But whenyougetthereitdoesn’tlookthatbad.Itlookedbad.It’shere.It’sus. We’redoingit. So,thisbeing2008,peoplearelookingforawaytoconserve,they’redoing thingsdifferently.AndsoIwouldsaygivethemoptions.Commuterbusfrom GreeleytoDenverlookslikeaveryeasythingtodo.That’syourcheapest option.Givethosepeopleanoption,getssomecarsofftheroad,letspeople knowhownicethatis.LetDenverknow,hey,we’recoming,bereadytostart dealingwithuswhenwedoarriveenmasse.Commuterrailwouldbemy nextwish.Tome,it’sworthittogetasclosetoDenveronrail,ascloseto UnionStationonrailaswecanget.SotheextradistancepastLongmont,to meit’sabsolutelyworthit.Andthethirdstepwouldbetopromotethenew optionsasmuchaswecan.Therehavebeenlotsofstudiesthatsaidwhen peopleknowthatotherpeoplearedoingit,othernormalpeoplelikemeare ridingthebus,youknow,howevernormalyouthinkIam,theywilldoittoo. Igotomeetings.WhoelseknowsthatLoveland’sbusridershipisup19to20 percentoverlastyear?AndFortCollinsisup10percent.Andbackin2001– Page 240 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

2004,23of31ballotmeasuresformasstransitwerevotedin11different states,andsomeofthosepeoplewillbecominghere. Sowe’remissingmasstransithere.Ifwegavethatagoodshot,wecould thenevaluatehowmanymorelanesweneed.ButIsaybuilditandtheywill come,andtheywillride.Thankyou. 808 David Gregg ImuchpreferoptionA.Ifeelthatitwillleadtoappropriateurbanizationof Commentnoted. ourtowncores.OptionBwillencouragemoresatelliteurbanizationalong theI25corridor.Thisinevitablefuturepopulationgrowthismore Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand appropriateattheexistingtowncenters,aswouldbeencouragedbythe transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 commuterrailofoptionA.Ithinkexcessivesatellitegrowthwillbe –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. detrimentaltothesuccessofouttowncenters. 809 Cecil Gutierrez Thankyou.AndI’mherespeakingasanindividualthisevening.ButIhave,I Commentnoted. wouldliketourgetheadoptionofmostofoptionAastheprimary alternative,mostlybecauseofalotoftheotherreasonsthathavebeen Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand statedherealreadyandwerestatedinthelastcoupleofmeetingsthelast transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 coupleofnights.ButIwanttoaddonemorethingheretonight,andthatis –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. theeconomicimpactthatcommuterrailwouldhavethrough–forallofour communities.Alotofourcommunities–FortCollinshasalreadyspentalot ofmoney,Longmonthasspentalotofmoney,Lovelandisintheprocessof takingalookatspendingalotofmoneyonourdowntowns,inorderforusto beabletocreateaviableandeconomicdowntowntoallofourcities,the heartandsoulofallofourcities.Commuterrailthroughthedowntowns wouldhaveagreateconomicimpacttoitforourcitiesandwouldjustensure andhelpensuresomeofthateconomicviabilitythatwe’relookingofinthe downtownareas,inthecoreareasofallorourcities.AndwithoptionAwe getkindofthebestofbothworlds.WearelookingatexpansionofI25and upgradingI25aswellasthecommuterrailthroughtheFrontRange.Andso yougetthebestofbothworldswithoptionA.WhereaswithoptionByou arereallytakingalookatjusttheexpansionofI25.Soforme,optionA makesagreaterdealofsenseeconomicallyinalmosteveryway.Sothat’s whyI’murgingtheadoptionofOptionA.Thankyou. 810 Ann Harroun AndIcameherefromameetingwithmybroker,whichiskindofasadthing Commentnoted. todotoday.AndIseeournationasinbigtransition.Andwedon’tknow wherethat’sgoingtosugaroffyet.Wewon’tknowforawhile.Butwehave InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, beenaprofligatenation,profligateinourenergyuseandourborrowingand pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Page 241 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

spendingandrunningupofdebtasanation,andasindividuals.Andthat Improvements. wholehouseofcardsiscollapsingrightnow.Itshardtopredictwhereitwill comedown.Butthere’sgoingtobeabigshift.Andmybrokerissayingit Forecastsarepreparedwithastateofthepracticeregional maybe2010beforeweseeanyturnaround.Whengaspriceswentskyhigh, traveldemandmodel.TheFEISacknowledgesthatridership peoplelearnedtodothingsinadifferentway.Theyactuallytriedridingthe forecastingisnotanexactscience,andnecessaryassumptions busandridingtheirbicyclesandwalkinganddoinganythingtheycouldto introduceanuncertaintyintotheforecasts.TheFEIS conservemoney.Andtheyfoundoutthattheycandoit.Thepricescame acknowledgesthatthefuturepriceofgasisoneofthese down,andtheymaygobacktotheoldway.Butiftheydo,priceswillgo unknownsasdescribedinsection4.2.6.6. rightstraightbackupagain.Sopeopledoadjustandtheywilladjust.I’ma bigbelieverinmaintenance,andIthinkallourhighwaysneedtobetaken careof.IdrovetoMaineandbackthisSeptember,thehighestpricesofgas. Andoneofthoseplaces,IthinkitwasOhio,aswewentthrough,itwas almostimpossibletododgethepotholesintheroad.AndI’mgladmycar isn’toutofline,butI’mamazedthatitisn’t.Withthemarketdown,people arepayingofftheirdebtandsavingmoneyforthefirsttimeinalongtime, andtheeraofprofligacyisover.SoI’mwonderhowaccurateyour assumptionsarebaseduponfiguresfromseveralyearsback,afewyears back,notalot.ButIthink,giventhechangesthatarecomingforindividuals thatplanAisourfuture,andplanBlookstomelikesoyesterday. 811 Roger Hoffmann Thanksforlettingmespeak. [A]TheDraftEIScommentperiodwasextendeduntil [A]Andfirstageneralcommentaboutthecommentperioditself.Giventhe December31,2008. complexityofboththeproblemyou’retryingtosolve,we’retryingtosolve, andofthevariousalternativesandthecomparisons,andgiventhatthis [B]ThealternativesincludedintheDEISweretheresultof commentperiodextendsnotonlyovertheelectionperiodthatjust screeningandcoordinationwiththepublicandstakeholders. concludedbutalsoseveralholidays,majorholidays,Iwouldreallyliketosee However,thePreferredAlternativeasdocumentedinthisFinal thecommentperiodextendedbyamonthtotheendofJanuary.Ithinkthat EISisacombinationofcomponentsofPackageAandPackage wouldbemuchmorereasonablebecause,again,giventhecomplexityand B. theamountofinformationinthedocuments,thelooking–I’vetakena cursorylookatthedocumentsthatareavailableontheweb,butIhavenot [C]Itisnecessaryforthesetofimprovementstohaveboth hadachancetodigestthem.It’sgoingtotakealittlewhile.AndIthinkyou highwayandtransitelementsinordertomeettheproject’s reallywanttomakesurethatyoudoagoodjobofthis.SoIwouldurgethat purposeandneed.Theforecastsindicatethatevenwitha tobelonger. robustsetoftransitimprovements,thesearenotsufficientby [B]Ataglance,oneofthethingsthatInoteisthatthecouplingofthe themselvestomeetthecorridordemand.Further,bothbus variouspackages,orthewaythepackagesarecontrived,tendstoleadto andrailarebeingproposedaspartofthePreferredAlternative certaincomparisonswhichIthinkbiastheconclusiontowardspackageB. intheFEIS. AndIthinkthat’sveryunfortunate. Page 242 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

[C]Ithinkwhenyoulookat,forexample,impactstoairquality,youlookat [D]TheFinalEISincludestraveltimesfromavarietyoforigins costs,andtherearesomeotherfactorsdrivingthosecostdifferencesaswell anddestinations,Chapter4TransportationImpactsoftheEIS thatI’dliketocover,butIthinkthatthatveryunfortunate,speciallythe providestraveltimesbyprojectsegmentbytravelmode.For inclusionoftheexpansion,amajorexpansionofI25withtherailoption.To ExamplethePreferredAlternativetraveltimeviacommuter me,thatseemslikeandunfairbiastowardstheoutcomes,sotowardsyour railbetweenFortCollinsSouthTransitCenterandLoveland listofcomparisonsthatI’veseenthere.Andalotofpeoplewilljustreally wouldbe9minutes.TraveltimefromLovelandtoBerthoud lookdownthelistandseewherethecheckmarkisinthecolumn.Andwhere wouldbe10minutes.TraveltimebetweenBerthoudand thatistodayreallypredisposessomebodytosay,packageBmustmake Longmont'sSugarMillStationwouldbe18minutes.Similar sense.Ithinkwhenyoureallylookatcomparing,forexample,BRTwithrail, segmentsoftraveltimeareprovidedforprivateautotravelon thegentlemanforBNSFhasalreadytouchedonsomeofthosethings,butI I25,expressbusandcommuterbusonUS85.Inclusionofthe thinkreallyweoughttocompareapplestoapples.Andthat’ssomethingthat railsegmentbetweenLongmontandNorthMetrowillbe weshoulddo.It’spossiblethatasridershipontheraillinestakeoff,we phasedintheFinalEIS. mightneedlessinvestmentinthehighwayitself. [E]Thefeederlinesaredesignedtoserveasconnectingtransit [D]Generally,thetransittimescomparisonshouldlookatthetimingsuchas betweenlocalcommunitiesandmaintrunklinetransitservice. –othertimings,forexample,Loveland,downtownLovelandandpointssouth Theoperatorforthefeederlineshasnotbeenidentifiedatthis andcomparethataswell.Ithinkjustlookingfromasouthtransitcenter,as pointintime.Itcouldbethelocalcommunitytransitagencies, again,theBNSFrepnoted,isalittlebitunfairandmisleadingintermsof CDOT,oranewregionaltransitagency. overalltransittimes. [F]SeeresponsetoComment#1,above,andChapter8Phased [E]Relatedtothat,I’dliketosee–understandthetransitassumptions ProjectImplementationofthisFinalEISregarding especiallyastheypertaintothebusfeederlinesthatwillhavetosupporta implementationofthePreferredAlternativeovertime. BRT.Now,IcantellyouasaresidentofLoveland,andinhavingtalkedtoa lotofpeopleinFortCollinswhousethetransitupthere,mostofthe–many [G]ThePreferredAlternativehasbeendesignedto oftheusersoftheFortCollinsbussystem,localbussystem,isterribly accommodatetheMasonCorridorBRTproject,andwas inadequate.Butit’sheadandshouldersabovewhatwehaveinLoveland. developedacknowledgingtheimportanceofthedowntown There’sbeenverylittlelocalcommitmenttolocaltransit.SoI’dliketosee communities. whattherequirementswouldbeandwhowillpayforthosetomakethat successfulandtoprovidethekindofridershipthatrailwouldobviouslyoffer. [H]Noted.

[F]IwouldliketosaythatI’mgladtherecordofdecisionandthepreferred [I]Asyoumention,thetransitservices,asprovidedbyeither alternativeswillreallyconsideraphasedimplementation.Ithinkthat’s PackagesA,B,andthePreferredAlternative,offeramodefor especiallyimportantintermsofrail.Oneofthethingsthatbumpedupthe regionaltripsthatismorefuelefficientthanindividualprivate cost,Inoticedfromapreviousversionofthepackagestothesubsequent automobiles.NotethatduetolesstrafficonI25,totalenergy one,thatactuallypushedthecosttonearlyahalfbilliondollarsofdifference, useforPackageB(360,371BTU)islessthanthatofPackageA havemore–highforpackageA,wastheinclusionofthelinkfromLongmont (361,900BTU)orthePreferredAlternative(362,222BTU). Page 243 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

downtoUnionStation.AndIwouldliketoseethattreatedasifthat’sa Whilecommuterrailoffersanenergyefficienttransportation phasedimplementation.Itmaybetherightsolutionlongterm,butwedon’t mode,itdoesnotovercomethetrafficdifferencesamongthe knowwhat’sreallygoingtohappenwithRTD.Rightnowthereisongoing alternatives.Allcriteriapollutantconcentrationsweremodeled discussions.Ithinkwereallyneedtofocusoncompletingthefirstsegment, forthePreferredAlternative.Thecriteriapollutantsmodeledin withtheassumptionthatRTDwillprobablybeinvolvedinalongterm theFinalEISincludecarbonmonoxide(CO),particulatematter solutionfromLongmontsouth,andtakethehalfbilliondollarsbackoutof (PM10andPM2.5),nitrogendioxide(Nox),volatileorganic theequation.Thecostsbecomeroughlycomparative. compounds(VOCs),andmobilesourceairtoxics(MSATs). Regardingparticulatesgeneratedfromrubbertiresonhard [G]Therereally–Iwanttopointtosomething,I’mnotsureiftheanalysis surface,particulatematterfromonroadmobilesourcesis coveredit,butthere’sbeenamajorinvestmentinFortCollinsandin generatedmostlyfromdieselexhaust,notrubberonhard Loveland,inourcommunitiesgenerallyandofvaluingdowntown,and surfaces.Particulatematterisalsogeneratedfromdust(gravel investmentinthat.FortCollinshasdevelopedtheMasonStcorridorplan. orsandroadsandconstructionsites)andfromnonmobile ClearlytheBNSForientedlinewouldtagrightinwiththat,thatwhole sourcessuchasconstructionequipment. conceptofinvestmentaswell.Ithinkwedon’twantodo,thelastthingwe anttodoisunderminethedowntownsbysendingamarketsignalthatall Operatingandmaintenancecostsforallofthebuildpackages transportationiscenteredalongtheI25corridor.Terrible,Terriblemistake havebeenestimatedandareincludedinChapter2.0. intermsofthecommunitiesoverall.

[H]Itwasmentionedaboutrailcrossingtimes,andIthinkthatwasvery misleading,bythepreviousspeaker.Clearly,we’renottalkingaboutfreight linesandfreight,longfreighttrainsthatmoveandtakeseveralminutesof ourtimeatanycrossinginFortCollins.It’sabiggerproblemthanherein Loveland,butit’senoughofanannoyance.We’retalkingabouttensecond passagetimesforcommuterrail.AndIthinkit’ssomethingeverybodyneeds tokeepinmind.We’retalkingaboutperhapsfreeingupvehicletraffictime onthehighways,aspeoplethatcanusetherailwouldusethat,andIthink theinconveniencewouldbefairlyminor.

[I]Anotherquickpointisthatthetechnologyforrailreallymakessensein termsofourenergypicturegloballyandnationally.It’ssomuchmorereadily adaptabletochangingenergytechnologies,ailis,thatis,ascomparedwith rubbertiredtransit,andespecially,orcourse,comparedwithautomobiles. Thereasonforthatistherelativenumberofunitsthatyouhavetoaddress intermsofchangingtheconfiguration.Also,I’mespeciallyconcernedabout thelongtermmaintenancecosts.Weoughttoconsiderthat.Rightnow we’reinasuddendipofoilprices.Idon’tthinkanybodybelieves,inthe Page 244 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

energyfield,thiswilllast.Thecoastofpavementandofmaintaining highwaysisgoingtoonlyincreaseovertime.Notwithstandingthislittledip we’vegotgoingonrightnowthateverybodyisverygratefulfor,we’regoing toseethelongtermpictureincreasingthecostofoilproducts,andofcourse asphaltbeingapartofthatandrubbertiresbeingpartofthataswell.I’m alsoconcerned,andIhopewe’llgivethoughtto,theairimpactsofthe comparativetransitoperationsaswell.Obviouslyyou’llcutdownonthe ozonesomewhat,andsomeoftheemissions,byusingtransitofanykind. Butagain,partoftheproblemisrubbertiresonhardsurface;theparticulate aspectsofthatneedtobeconsideredaswell. IknowI’mtakingalotoftime,butthankyou.I’mgoingtobesubmittingmy commentsinwriting.Iwouldencourageotherpeopletodothat.Thankyou verymuchforhostingthis.

812 Brian Holcombe I’dliketocommentrealbriefly.I’dliketofollowupregardingthecomment TheDraftEIScommentperiodwasextendedtoDecember31, periodforthedraftEIS.I’mamemberonlineoftheSmartTripswebsite.I 2008.Attheonsetoftheproject,alackofmodalalternatives reallyengageinalternativetransportationinFortCollins.AndIdidn’thear wasidentifiedasaregionalneedtobeaddressedbythe aboutthecommentperiodbeginninguntiltodayonanemailinFortCollins. proposedsolution.Yourattemptsattravelingbyalternative Therearealotofusthatarehavingthathappen.We’vebeenveryengaged modearelaudable;noteeachofthepackagesunder inthegeneralelectioncomingupintoearlyNovember,andalotofpeople considerationdramaticallyimprovesregionaltransitservices. havebeencaughtoffguard.SoIwouldliketomirrorRoger’ssentimentin Theridershipforecastsindicatethetransitserviceswouldbe extendingthecommentperioduntilJanuary31,2009,forthedraftEIS. usedbyeverydaycommutersaswellaslessregulartravelers Oneofthebigkeystonesoftheneedforprocessisthepublicinvolvement, suchasyourself. andweneedtodoabetterjobofreachingouttoourcommunities.Ihaven’t receivedanemailfromanyofthealternativetransportationgroupsinFort ThePreferredAlternativeisamultimodalsolutionwithbus, Collinsregardingtheprocess.Sowereallyneedtodoabetterjobofreaching rail,andhighwayimprovementsthatwasdevelopedfroma outtothesecommunities,gettingmoreoftheyoungpeopleengagedwho combinationofPackageAandBcomponents.ThePreferred arealot–peoplewhoareveryinterestedinprojectslikethis,andgettingus Alternativeincludesinterchangereconstructions,theaddition tothesemeetings,gettingourcommentlettersoutthere. ofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanesalongI25, I’dliketobrieflyshareanexperiencethatIhad.Inthefallof2007mywife commuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailroad andIbecamecarless.Wesoldouronlycarandweregoingtomakeagoof tracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthMetroend commutingwithoutone.However,Iworkforanonprofitthatworks oflinestationinThorntonandtheNorthwestRailendofline statewide.AndIcommutetotheDenver/Boulderareafivetotentimesa stationinLongmont,andcommuterbusalongUS85between month.I’mnotexactlytheeverydaycommuterthatprogramslikeSmartTrips GreeleyanddowntownDenver.ThePreferredAlternativealso appealto,whereyou’repayingafeeforaseatinavanfivedaysaweek. assumesthatfeederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobring Unfortunately,programslikeSmartTripsdon’taccommodatepeoplewho localtraffictothecorridortrainservice.Moredetailed

Page 245 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

onlycommute,let’ssay,onetothreedaysaweek.Itdoesn’tmakesense informationconcerningthePreferredAlternativeisincludedin financiallyforus.Andunfortunately,there’snotanalternativeprogram Chapter2AlternativesoftheFinalEIS. there. SoItriedeveryoptionoutthere.ItriedtostealaseatonSmartTripsfrom friendsthatcommute,andtheyweren’tcomfortabledoingthat.Itriedriding theGreyhound,whichisthegreatbusservicethatwehavetoDenverright now(laughter),atnoononthewaysouthandatmidnightonthewayhome. Somywife,myfiancéeatthetime,wasnonetoopleasedwhenIhada businessmeetinginDenverintheafternoonandwouldcrawlintobed around1:45inthemorning,ifthebuswasontime.OtheroptionsI attemptedwerethebuslinetosouthLovelandandthengettingonmyroad bikeandtakingthattoLongmont,whereIcouldhopontheregionalRTD systemintoBoulderandthenhoponanotherbusintoDenver.Sothatwas anotheroption.IalsotriedoneotheroptionwhereIwouldcommuteat6:00 inthemorningwithotherfriendswhocommutedtoBoulderandthenagain waituntilmidnighttocomebackontheGreyhoundbus. Sowereallydon’thaveaviablealternativetransportationoramasstransit systembetweenFortCollins–reallybetweensouthLovelandandLongmont iswherethebulkofthegapis.AndIfindthathardtobelieveand disappointing.AndI’mreallyexcitedtoseethatwe’reinthisprocessto wherewe’remakingpositiveprogress. Astelecommutingandflexschedulinggrow,therearemorepeoplecoming intosituationslikemeandlikemanyofmyfriends.Weneedanoptiontoget usalltoBoulder,weneedanoptiontogetusalltoDenverforourjobs,but noteveryday.Perhapswe’retravelingtwotothreedaysaweek.Sopeople likemeareonlygrowing. Andfinally,todiscussthefinancingoftheproject,Iappreciatetheindepth financialanalysisbytheyoungladyoverhereinthecorner.Iwouldsaythat it’simportanttobalancetheexpenseofaprogramlikethis.Andasshe pointedoutandasmanypeoplepointedout,arailsystemisamore expensiveoptionimmediately.Thelongtermcosts,however,diminish significantlyversusothermasstransitoptions.Andquitefrankly,theservice ismuchimproved.Idon’tknowhowmuchtimealotofpeoplehavespent ridingregionalbuses.Theycanworkreallywellandtheycannotworkreally well.Regionalrailtransit,however,isoftentimesextremelyefficient, extremelycomfortable,andextremelycosteffective.AndI’mwillingtopay Page 246 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thathigherservicecostforamasstransitrailsysteminourregion. SowiththatI’dliketoclosebyjustsayingthatIplantosubmitmoredetailed commentsafterIhavetimetoreviewthedraftEIS,andIplantospreadthe wordthroughouttheFortCollinscommunitysowecangetmorepeopleat thesemeetingsandmorepeopleengaged.Thankyou. 813 Blue Hovatter I’dliketoechoalotofwhateverybodywastalkingaboutalreadyasfaras InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, thelackofanI25commuterrailoption.I’mnotaproponentofbuildouton pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway I25,andIenjoytheideaofhavingdenseurbanpopulationcenters.AndI Improvements. alsowanttoechothethoughtsabouttheRockyMountainRailAuthority, becausetheprojectthat’sgoingondowninNewMexicothatpeoplehave Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 referencedisalsopartofalargervisionforanentireFrontRangecommuter mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, railsystemthatwouldallowustotravelfromCheyennetoAlbuquerqueona and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring highspeedrailsystem. thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere Iwasdownat–therewasaconferencetwoweekendsagofortheRock determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot MountainRailAuthoritywhicharepresentativefromtheNorthI25DEIS meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of studywasat.Butoneoftheinterestingthingsthattheynotedintheir theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing studies–theydidanicelittlecomputermockupofwhatitwouldbe,how necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat quicklyandwhatsortofspeedstheywouldbeabletogetbyusingthe theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto existingraillines,theBurlingtonNorthernraillinesthattheytalkedaboutin manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe thisstudy.Andtheythrewitout.Theybasicallysaidthatthisisn’tgoingto themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor. workbecausethespeedsaren’tthere,andpeoplearen’tgoingtoride somethingifthespeedsaren’tthere. TheRockyMountainRailAuthority Sotheirmainmodelwasto,asthisstudysortofdoes,whichiscomeoutof (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility Longmont,oreithersomewherearoundtheFrederick/Firestonearea,and studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 runahighspeedrailupI25.Thebeautyofthiswasthiswasanother mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy opportunitytofreeup–itwasoneofthefirsttimesI’veactuallyheardan servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. interestingwayforustobeabletofreeuptheseBurlingtonNorthernlines ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred here,andthatwasthattheywouldbewillingtotradetimeontheirhigh Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. speedlinethatwouldmeetonthenorthsideofFortCollinswiththe ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the BurlingtonNorthernlinesandthenreconnectwiththeBurlingtonNorthern EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. LinesdownnearLongmontandallowtheBurlingtonNortherntrainstoget offofgoingthroughthemiddleofLovelandandFortCollinsandgetonthe ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail highspeedlineandavoidourcommunityentirely. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe AndIthinkthatthisisagreatalternative,becausethenitdoeswhatweneed NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing todo,whichisfreeupthoseraillinesforregionaltravel.TheMPOhasdone toDenver.CommuterrailontheBNSFwaschosentoconnect studies,andyoucanseethatalotofFortCollinsandLovelandandWindsor citycenters. Page 247 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

andGreeley,alotofthetrips,themajorityofthetripsthatwemakeare withinthattriangle.ThattrianglebetweenFortCollins,LovelandandGreeley RailalongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduringthe iswherewemostlydoourtravelinthisarea.Andifwewanttocomeupwith alternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thisalternativewas aviablealternative,weneedtocomeupwithanalterativethathelpsusas determinedtobeinfeasiblebecausecentralrailalignments individualcommunitiestogetourselvesmovingforward,butitalsoneedsto wouldcostuptofourtimesmorethanalignmentsalongan allowustheoptionstogetdowntoDenver,becauseIdowanttogotoDIA,I existingtrack.Therefore,thePreferredAlternativeincludes dowanttogoseeaRockiesgame,Idowanttogocheckouttheart commuterrailservicebetweenFortCollinsanddowntown museums.Butitdoesn’tneedtobeaneverydaything. DenveralongtheBNSFandSH119withaconnectionto Thegentlemantalkedaboutearlier,Idon’twanttoliveinabedroom FasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines.Further, communityofDenver,butIdowanttogetthere.SoIwouldalsoliketoecho ExpressBusservicewouldbeprovidedalongI25.Traveltimes thethoughtthatIreallyjustfeellikethesealternativereallywerepushing ontheExpressBuswouldbecompetitivewithautotraveltimes moretowardsabusrapidtransitandaddinglanes.AndI,too,havelived inthecorridor. aroundthecountry,andI’veseenLosAngelesandI’veseenChicagoandI’ve seesomeoftheseplaceswheremoreroadsandmoreroadsmeansmore TheI25improvementswillbedesignedtocurrentstandards clogging.EvenwithinourowncommunityyoucanlookdowntheHarmony andguidelinesandwillimprovesafetyintermsofsight corridor,andmorelanesmeantmoretrafficandmorecongestion,andit distanceandgradualinclinestohelptruckersandmotorist doesn’tdoanythingtofreeupthespace. traversesteephills. Yeah,andtheotherpiecethatIwantedtoechowasthegentleman’s commentsaboutsafetyissues.IthinkwiththefirstmeetingthatIwasatfor thisNorthI25EISthreeyearsago,orwhateveritwas,wewereinthisroom, andpeoplewereshowinguplatebecausetherehadbeenanautomobile accidentonI25thatcloseddownnorthI25foranhourandahalf.Soit’s thesameidea.Ibelieveevenatthattimeyouguystalkedabouthowthis sectionofI25,forthestyleofinterstateitis,isactuallyoneofthemore dangeroussectionsofroads,givenhowstraight,andittrulyis,becauseof thesnow,becauseitencouragespeopletodriveathigherspeedsand thereforeencouragesmoreaccidents. SoIjustwouldstronglyencouragetohopefullylookatsomealternative planstoputonarailthroughthemiddleofI25,asthewomanearliersaid, beforeit’stoolate,beforeyouputtoomaylanesoftrafficinandwedon’t haveanymorespace,andthenwehavetostartlookingatgreenfieldsand tryingtotakeoverpeople’spropertiesandeminentdomain,andthatjust notaprettyfuture.Thanks. 814 Becky Jay InreviewingplanAIampuzzledthattheeasternbusesdonotheadweston CommuterbusonUS85isintendedtoserveactivityand Highway7tothetransitcentersopassengerscanridetherailoninto employmentcentersalongUS85includingCommerceCityand Denver?ThiswouldcutdownonbustraffictoDowntownDenverandmaybe willprovidea"oneseatride"meaningthatpassengerswill Page 248 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

riderstocatchthetrainearlier.Alsowhydoesn’ttheconnectionforDIAhead notneedtotransfertoanotherbusortraintodowntown totheUnionStationTransitcenter?Andthenriderscanchoosewhich Denver.Thisisabenefittopassengers.Thedirectbus directiontheywanttogofromthere?ThanksObviouslyIfavorAasithas connectiontoDIAwasrequestedbylocalnorthernColorado betterlongtermsolutionsformorepeoplefromFortCollinstoDenverand communitiesandwillprovideafaster,moreefficient pointsbetween. connectiontoDIAthanforcingpatronstotraveltoDUSfirst. 815 Becky Jay IalsowouldurgeyoutolookatoptionAasthebestsolution,longterm Commentnoted. solution.Idon’tseeoptionBasbeingalongtermsolutionintermsof pollution,populationcenters,populationgrowthorcost.Atrainsystemand Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand notwideningthefreewaycausesless–bringslesspollutionandrunsthrough transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 theexistingpopulationcenters.AsCecilwasjustsaying,weneedto –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. concentrateinoururbanareasratherthansprawlmorethanwealready have.Densityindowntownurbanareasshouldbeincreased,ratherthan Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation increasingsprawloutwardfromthosecenters.Thelongtermcost–the steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost gentlemanwhoworksfortherailroadwassayingit’scheapertofundtherail Issues. longerthanitistobuynewbusesandbuildnewhighwayseverytenyears. YouhavefewercarsgoingdownintheDenverbasin,whichhelpswiththe Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal pollution,andalsofewercarsrunningupanddownthenorthcorridorhere, combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA andthatwillhelpourbrowncloud.Ireallyappreciatethatearliercomments andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon wereheardandwenolongerwouldhavetogotoBouldertogettoDenver.I theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI appreciatethatthelinehasbeenziggedtotheeastandondownsouth.I 25.DirectbusserviceisprovidedonUS85becausetransfers thinkthatmakesalotmoresense.TheonlycommentIwouldaddwas, discourageridership.Adirectridetothemostpopular insteadoftakingthebusfromBrightonthatgofromGreeleytoBrightonon destinations(mainlydowntownDenverandDIA)isthemost downintoDenver,takethemovertothetransitcenteronHighway7so convenientoptionandcomparesfavorablyfortraveltimewith thosepeoplecangetonthelightrailsooner,therearelessbusesandless asystemthatwouldrequireatransferatSH7. trafficdownintothecenterofDenver.Thosepeoplehavetheoptionsooner totake–getoffattheothertransitcentersandtakebuseseastandwestof thecorridor.AndIalsowouldurgethatyoudotherailfirst.Ithink,again, buildit,they’llcome.Andifwedotherailfirst,wemayseethatwedon’t needtodoquiteasmuchexpansiononI25intermsofhighway.Thankyou. 816 Lawrence& Jelsma HavingreviewedthesummaryofalternativeevaluationitseemspackageA ThePreferredAlternativeincludesmostoftheimprovements Muriel hasbeensetuptofail.Havingseenthecostbreakdownwedon’tbelievethe includedinPackageAincludingCommuterrail,commuterbus, number,weneedjustificationofhowcostswerederived.Wealsoneedan I25expressbusandI25widening.Inordertoprovidethe independentfirmmakingananalysisofthefigures.Itseemsfairtothinkwe mostaccurateopinionofprobablecostFHWAandCDOT cancontinuewiththeprocessofautomotivecommutinginthesetimes.In conductedaCostEstimateReview.Thecostestimatereviewis CACaltransdiscoveredthatthemorehighwaystheybuildthemore anunbiasedriskbasedreviewtoverifytheaccuracyand Page 249 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

congestionoccurred. reasonablenessofthecurrenttotalcostestimatetocomplete theprojectandtodevelopaprobabilityrangeforthecost estimatethatrepresentsthecurrentstageofprojectdesign. Partofthisstudyistoalsoreviewtheproposedconstruction scheduletodetermineitsimpactontheprojectcost.During thecourseofthereviewtheteamidentifiedanddiscussed numerousthreatsandopportunities.Athreatisanythingthat canaddtothecostoftheproject.Anopportunityisanything thatcanreducethecostoftheproject.

Thisprobabilisticanalysisresultedinacostestimateatthe70% confidencelevelof$9,474.9millionintheYearofExpenditure (YOE)forthePreferredAlternativeoftheNorthI25Project. ThecostforPhaseIatthe70%confidencelevelwas$1,271.2 million(YOE).YOEaccountsforescalationsincoststhatare expectedtooccurovertimeforprojectsconstructedinfuture years.Thisexercisereviewseachlineitemforconstructionand identifiesthethreatsandopportunitiesthatcouldimpactthe quantityandthepriceofthatitem.Thisexerciseyieldsadollar amountforwhichtheprojecthasa70%likelihoodofbeing constructed.Thisreviewisaweeklongprocessandprovides boththestateandfederalagenciesreassurancethatthe projectcanreasonablybeexpectedtobefundedunderthe currentlyanticipatedfundingstream.

ThecurrentstateofI25isindeclineandimprovementstothe interstatearenecessaryandimprovementsofadditional generalpurposelanesarewarrantedusingthe2035traffic model,whichdidconsidertheadditionofthecommuterrail. 817 Tim Johnson Iwouldlikepeopletoconsiderthekindofinvestmentsthatmanyofour Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand communitieshavemadeinourOldTownsandourdowntowns,andthatwith transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 thatinmind,thatthiskindoftransportationsystemthatwewouldbe –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. selectingtonightcoulddiscriminatestronglyagainsttheonethatwehave, themodelwehaveinFortCollins,ifwechosetheI25centricmodel,adding InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, morelanes,addingbusrapidtransit. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway IfwelookbackatthefunctionofI25whenitwasbuiltinthe1960’s Improvements. Page 250 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

industrialtransportationcorridor,sothatwemaythinkofthisinanotherway aswell,thatmaybewewantthefreightmovingalongI25,wewantthe ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail peoplemovingfromcommunitycentertocommunitycentertokeepour fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe investmentinourOldTownanddowntownalive.We’vebeenbuildingthis NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing OldTownanddowntowninFortCollinssincethe1970s.We’vebeenatitfor toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology 30years.Wehavejustafabulousdestinationarea.Wedonotwanttosee thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail willynillydevelopmentalongI25that’sdriventherebecauseofachoice corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors thatwasmadetoaddmorelanesandtoaddarapid,fastrailsystemalongI incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis 25. corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit TheotherthingIwantpeopletoconsiderverystronglyisthatalotofour choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand destinationsarenotjustDenver.Wehaveauniversityhere,CSU,andin isconsistentwithRTDplans. Bouldertherearelotsofuniversityconnections.Therearelotsofpeoplewho aremoving,ifthey’renotassociatedwiththeuniversity,buttheymaygo TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout therebecauseoffamily,becausetheyhaveclassesthere,becausetheyhave throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed researchprogramsthatareongoingtherewithdifferentcorporationsandso inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. on.Sotheymaybegoingtooneorgoingtotheother.Thesearelinked Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout throughtheheartofthetown,sowehavelotsofBoulderdestinations. theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. Thekeythingforthisareaintheshorttermistobelookingatsomethinglike oursystemA,tobelookingtolinkingourcommunities,downtownto ThePreferredAlternativeisacombinationofPackagesAandB. downtown,FortCollinstoLovelandtoBerthoudtoLongmont.Andforthe ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSFrailroadtracks firstphase,itwouldbeafantasticstepforwardifwewereabletowalktothe betweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthmetroendof train,biketothetrainhereindowntown,OldTown,anywhereinFortCollins, linestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendoflinestationin ratherthantohavetomakeatriptothefreeway,whichwouldprecludealot Longmont,commuterbusalongUS85betweenGreeleyand ofusfromusingasystemlikethateasily.AndtheninLongmontweaddress downtownDenver,interchangereconstructions,andthe thesituationofbeingabletoconnectuptoRTDandtogowhereverRTD additionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes goes.Ithinkthat’showweshouldbreakitup.Wedon’thavethatphasehere alongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobringlocal inplacenow.Weneedtoconsiderit.AndIaskyoutogobackandtodraw traffictothecorridortrainservice.Thecommuterrail up,whatitis,packageAtoincludeacoupleofdifferentphasessothatour componentofthePreferredAlternativeisnowplannedtobe firstreallinkinNorthernColoradoisthateasyconnectiontoLongmontand singletrackwithpassingtrack.Ridershipandcostsforthis toRTD.Thankyouverymuch. modeareincludedintheFinalEIS.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Page 251 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

818 Nancy Kain Veryimportantatthistimetocomeforwardwithaplanforcommuterrail. Commentnoted. Myfeelingisthatitisthe“littleperson”whosupportspublictransportation. TheBigMoneyisn’talongrailroadtracksbutoutontheinterstate.Leaders mustlookintothefuture.Eventhewestcannotcontinuetorelyongas poweredvehiclesandmorelanesofroad. 819 Milan Karspeck AndIsupportpackageAalso.Ihavesomequestionsaboutwhetherthings Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation couldbephasedmaybedifferentlythanwhatyousuggestedhere.Ithink steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost there’sanexcellentpointaboutwhatseemstobeverylargecapitalcostsfor Issues. thecommuterrailandwhetherornotthosecouldbereducedbythesingle tracking,atleastinitially,andthenlateronbringinginthedoubletracking. ThePreferredAlternativeincludessingletrackingthe Secondofall,initiallywhenthiswasconsidered,thethoughtwastohookup commuterrailwithdoubletrackslocatedinareastoenable toFasTracksandthengotoDenverUnionStationviaFasTracksthrough efficientpassingofnorthandsouthboundtrainswhile Boulder.Isthatinthepicture,isthatsillapossibility,oristhatsomething minimizingpotentialdelays. that’snotbeingconsidered?Seemslikethatwouldgiveusawaytoreducea fairamountofexpenseinitially,whichisthenewtracksalong119,then ThecommuterrailalignmentincludedinthePreferred downtonorthDenver.Thenlongterm,Ithinkitwouldbegoodtohavethe AlternativetiesintoFasTracksNorthMetroraillineand connection.ButIhatetoseethisoptiontakenoutofthepicturebecauseof thereforedoesnotincludeadditionalcapitalcostinthatarea. thecostsifwedoafullthingon119initially.ThenIalsohadaquestion DuringthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternativemuch aboutsomeofthepresentation.Youmentionedthetimeittooktogofrom considerationwasgivingtothepossibilityofeliminatingthe FortCollinstoDenverUnionStationandfromGreeleytoDenverUnion sectionofcommuterrailbetweenthetwoFasTracks'raillines Station.AndIthinkitwouldbealsoveryinterestingtohavesummarized (NorthMetroandNorthwest)thatgenerallyparallelsSH119. moreoftheintraregiontriptimeswhich,asMs.Kingpointedout,arereally Theproject'stwoadvisorycommitteesreviewedinformation themajorityofthetraveltimes.Youhaveafairlysmallamountoftripsgoing aboutthecostofthatsectionofthelinecomparedtothe directlydown,fromtheregiondowntoDenverUnionStation.What’s traveltimesavingsandridershipincreases.Throughthis probablymoreimportantisthetimefortripsfrom,letssay,FortCollinsto evaluationofcostsandbenefitsthecommitteesoptedto Loveland,FortCollinstoLongmont,withintheregion.AndIthinkitwouldbe retaintheentirecommuterrailalignmentinthePreferred goodtogetsomekindofasenseofthedifferenceinthosetimesasopposed AlternativeincludingtheportionalongSH119.Atalaterdate, tojustheonesfromfortCollinsandGreeleytoDenver.Thankyou. communitiescouldoptforafulldoubletracksystem(similarto PackageA)butthePreferredAlternativeevaluatestheimpacts singletrackwithpassingtracksystem.Adecisiontoprovide doubletrackinthefuturewouldrequireareevaluationofthe impactsassociatedwiththerailsystem.

TheFinalEISincludestraveltimecomparisonsbetweensome ofthekeynorthernColoradooriginsanddestinationsincluding thealignmentalongSH119toNorthMetro.Chapter4, Page 252 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

TransportationImpactsoftheEISprovidestraveltimesby projectsegmentbytravelmode.Forexample,thePreferred AlternativetraveltimeviacommuterrailbetweenFortCollins SouthTransitCenterandLovelandwouldbe9minutes.Travel timefromLovelandtoBerthoudwouldbe10minutes.Travel timebetweenBerthoudandLongmont'sSugarMillStation wouldbe18minutes.Similarsegmentsoftraveltimeare providedforprivateautotravelonI25,expressbusand commuterbusonUS85. 820 Elizabeth Kearney Thanksforhavingthismeetingsowecanallcome,contributesome Commentnoted. thoughts.Ithinkifyoulookattheglobalpictureforeconomic, environmental,Energyresources,ifyoudoamoreglobalanalysisthankind InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, ofthepinpointsthatwe’relookingattonight,andIunderstandthoseare pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway importanttoo,butIthinkifwelookatthisbigpictureandwelookatalong Improvements. periodoftimeaswell,itbecomesveryclearthatrailtransportsofpeopleis muchmoreefficient,morecosteffectiveandfuelefficientthanpersonalcars Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand orbuses.Therailroad,arailsystemismuchlessexpensivetomaintain,once transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 it’sbuilt,thanroadsare. –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. AnotherissuethatMr.HoffmanntouchedonIthinkiscriticalforthe developmentoftheNorthernFrontRangeisthatifweencouragetransit optionsonlyatI25,thatisgoingtopullsprawloutthere,andthat’sgoingto increasesprawlanditisnotgoingtosupporttherevitalizationofthe downtownareasthatarecurrently–thetownsalongtheBurlington Northernroutearereallytryingtoworkonnow.Andthere’sgreatresources there,butifwedon’tgetthesupportintermsoffunnelingpeoplethere, thoseolddowntownsaregoingtodieandwe’regoingtohaveThorntonand WestminsterallthewayfromWellingtondowntoWestminster.SOsprawl wouldbeencouragedbyoptionB.Itwouldcreatethesamepatternofusage thatweseenow,whichis,it’snotsustainable.Personalautomobileuse,and Ithinkthatthereissome–theeconomicsareabitskewedinthecosts, becauseIthinkwhenyoutalkaboutpeople,costofthepeopleusingacar lane,alanetodrivetheirpersonalautomobileon,you’renotcountingthe costofpurchasingthecarandpurchasingthegasandstoringthecarand drivingitonsidestreetstogettothatmainroadthesamewaythatyou’re includingthecostoftherailcarsandallofthestuffthatgoesintogetting somebodyfrompointAtopointBonarailline.SoIthinkthatthat,it’svery Page 253 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

deceptive,becauseyou’resaying,oh,we’regoingtosloughthosecostsoff onallthepeoplewhoaregoingtobedrivingtheircars,sowedon’thaveto includethose.Butifyou’regoingtolookatthebigeconomicpictureand lookattheeconomicwellbeingofthisarea,Ithinkyouneedtothinkabout thosecostsaswell.Thankyou. 821 Andy Keller AndItalkedtoLongNguyenandanothergentlemanwhosenameIcannot I25andthestatehighwaycrossroadswillbeconstructedper remember,andtheywerebothveryhelpfulandinformative.Thesubjectis CDOTstandardsthatincludeapavementsmoothness pavementsmoothness.AndIencouragedallthoseresponsibleinthelaying specification.Thatwillassurethattheyareconstructed ofroadsandinspectionoftheroadstoassurethattheyareproduced smoothly. smoothly.Thereasonsarenotjustaesthetic;theyaretohelpretainthe integrityoftheroadsurface,especiallyroadstraveledbyheavydutytrucks. 822 Lynn Kincanon IlivetwoblocksfromtheexistingfreightRRlineinLoveland.Istillbelievewe Commentnoted. needlightrailfromDenvertoWyoming.Busesshouldbeusedtotaketorail line.Idon’tbelieveatallinbusorfeedertraffictoI25Idon’tbelieve ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail wideningtheI25isthesolution.WeneedtodecreaseoveruseofCARSand fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe fuelswehavetothinklongtermandglobally.LooktoChicago,Lookto NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing WashingtonDC.ButweneedsafequietzoneslikeChicago.Wouldstillbe toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology abletoridebusthroughfromI25tolllaneroad. thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

PleasenotethatthestudyareaforthisEIS,asdescribedin Chapter1–PurposeandNeedextendsfromWellingtonto Denver,anddoesnotextendnorthofWellington.Thetransit improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative,PackageA andPackageBprovideservicebeginninginFortCollinsand Greeley,andextendingtometroDenver.Theextensionof transitservicesfurthernorthorsouthwouldnotbeprecluded bythealternativesbeingconsidered,butisnotincludedinthis FinalEIS.Arecenthouseholdsurveyindicatedthatonly0.1%of alldailytripsfromNorthernColoradocommunitiesare destinedforCheyenne. Page 254 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Quietzonesarethepreferredrailnoisemitigationpresentedin theEIS.Implementationofquietzonesrequirestheconsent andleadershipofthelocalgovernmentagency.

Asyousuggest,thePreferredAlternativeandPackageB includeTELlanesonI25,whichprovidetraveltimebenefitsto theI25busservicefromthenorthernregiontometropolitan Denver. 823 Evelyn King TonightisthefirsttimethatIrecognized,andIhadaconcernwhenIlooked ThePreferredAlternativeincludes8lanesonI25(6general atthissummarysheetanditshowedthatthereare22milesthatarestill purposelanesand2tolledexpresslanes)from84thAvenueto congestedevenafterwespendseveralbilliondollars.Sonowit’smy SH14.BetweenE470and84thAvenuethePreferred understandingthatthehighwayportionreallyonlygoesfromStateHighway Alternativeadds2tolledexpresslanestoI25.Becausethe 1downtoE470andthattherearenotadditionalimprovementsdowninto intentofthisstudywastoevaluatenorthernColoradotravel Denver.Andthat’swhyyouseealotoftheslidesthatwesawthatincludeall needs,CDOTisanticipatingconductingaseparatestudyto thatcongestiondowntheremixedwithwhathappensonthenorthernend specificallylookatthetravelneedsinthenorthDenvermetro wheretheimprovementare.SOthatinformationissomewhatinaccurate, area. becausetherearenoimprovementsdownonthatsouthernend. Ialsohaveaconcernabouttheinformationinherethatshowstransitmarket Yes,asstatedintheFEISinsection4.2,thetotalnumberof shareat55percentforpackageAand50percentforpackageB.AndI northernareacommutersisrelativelysmall(about2,400per noticedintheslidesitdidsaycommuter,butitreallydoesn’texplainthefact weekday),butthetransitmarketshareofthosecommuters thattheNorthFrontRangecommuterpercentageisabout6percentcoming rangesbetween45%and55%,dependingonthebuildpackage. toDenver.Sothe55and50percentisreallyonlyofthat6percent. Also,itsaysthattheaveragespeed,andIkindofassumedthatthatwasonI TheFEISpresentsaveragespeedforfreeways,otherfacilities, 25,isaround32milesperhourforpotherpackages,andthatlookedreally andallfacilitiesinthestudyareaforeachofthethreebuild wrongtome.However,inexplanationtonight,I’vebeentoldthatthat’sfor packages(seeSection4.2).Forexample,the2035average alltheroadsinthestudyarea,andtherewasarealtinyincreasefromtheno freewayspeedis46mph,49mph,48mph,and49mphforthe actionplaytothose.Butthat’scertainlysomethingdifferentthanwhat’s NoAction,PackageA,PackageB,andthePreferredAlternative portrayedinthissummaryofinformation.Also,thecostperuser,whichis respectively. cleardownhereatthebottom,Iwouldliketoknowwhatcalculation,the actualnumbercalculationwasusedforthat.BecauseI’vedonemyown TheFinalEISevaluationincludesacostperuserbymodeas spreadsheet,andjusttoletyouknow,thissaysthatpackageA,thecostper wellasthecostperuserforeachpackageofimprovements. Page 255 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

userpertripis76cents,andthat’sadailynumber.PackageBis58cents.My However,theperpersoncostsbymodebetweenhighwayand numberfor–andthisisnotusingtheannualizedcapitalnumber,whichI transitcannotbecompareddirectlybecausetheydonot thinkisalsoveryimportant.Theonlynumbersyousawupherewastheraw includethesameexpenses.Forexamplethecosttoown, capitalnumbers.Andinfact,caseoftheoperatingcosts,thenumbersonthe insureandfuelaprivateautomobileisnotincludeintheper slidedonotjivewiththenumbersonthisformaswell.They’reslightlyless,I usercostonthehighwaybutthecosttopurchaseabus,insure think.ButmynumbersshowthatforpackageA,thegeneralpurposelanes,is itandfuelitareincludedinthecostperuserfortransit. 37centsperuser.Andthetransitpieceofthatis59.53adayperuser.That’s ahugedifference.Sowhenyougloballthatstufftogether,theending RTD’sfundinggapfortheFasTracksprogramisaresultof numberisverydeceiving. rapidlyescalatingcostsforcommoditiesandmaterialsonthe IalsohaveaquestionregardingFasTracks.Iknowit’sextremely worldmarket,combinedwiththeeconomicslowdownandthe underfunded.AndIwouldliketoknow,ifthatlineisshortened,itprobably correspondingdownwardimpactoncurrentandforecastsales willnotcometoLongmont,whatwillhappenthen?Orifit’spushedclearout andusetaxrevenues.Phasingandimplementationofafuture to2034,orwhateverthedateisthey’relookingattheymightbeabletodo commuterraillinewilltakeintotheabilitytotieintothe thatextension,whatwillhappen?It’seasyformmetosaythatIwantto FasTracksraillines. haverailwithBRT,butwhenIlookatthecosts,they’rejusthuge, astronomicalinfact.ButIdon’tseewhereIcanpickjustonepackage.In AttheprojectoutsetthePurposeandNeedstatementwas lookingatthenumbers,I’dliketochoosejustthegeneralpurposelanesonly, developed.Itconsideredcommunityobjectives,inputsolicited becausethatwayIcouldsaveabout$4Billion.Ifyou’retalkingabillion fromcitizensandstakeholdersandfuturelanduseplansinthe dollars,4billion,that4,000Milliondollars.That’salotofmoney.Andatthe regionamongotherthings.Thisstatementcallsoutthe sametimeyoucouldtakecareof98percentoftheusers,becauseifyoulook deficiencyoftransportationchoicesinnorthernColoradoand atthetotalusersoftransit,itequatestoabout2percent. identifiestheneedtoprovideamultimodalsolution.Through IthinkImentionedthethingabouttheannualizedcapital,butIreallythink anextensiveevaluationprocessandpublicinputprocess, weshouldseethosenumber,becausethatincludesthecostofbonding,and transportationalternativeswereeliminatedand/orpairedwith anyoftheselargeprojectswouldhavetobebonded.Thankyou. eachothertodevelopasetofimprovementsthataddresses theprojectgoals.Thetwopackagesthatbestaddressedthe project’sPurposeandNeedandhadsupportfromthe communitieswerePackagesAandB.Furtherevaluationof thosepackagesandadditionalinputfromtheproject’stwo advisorycommitteesledtothedevelopmentofthesingle PreferredAlternativethatisevaluatedintheFinalEISalong withPackagesAandB.RefertotheProjectPurposeandNeed inChapter1foradditionalinformation. 824 Evelyn King Iwantedtospeaktothemobilityissueandthefactthatalthoughit’snot AssumingyourcommentdiscussingimprovementsonI25 reallyclear,thereareactuallynotgeneralpurposelaneimprovementsonI “past”E470isreferringtosouthofE470,youarecorrectthat 25pastE470,whichmeansthatnewprojectswillmovetrafficalong,and additionalgeneralpurposelanesarenotincludedsouthofE thenby2030,orprobablyevenbefore,thenorthendofDenverisbasically 470inthebuildalternatives(PackageA,PackageBandthe Page 256 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

gridlockedfor22miles.Andthatprovidesarealdistortioninthedatathat PreferredAlternative).Whilethebuildalternativesdonot youseeontheboard,informationregardingthetraveltime,theaverage includeadditionalgeneralpurposelanessouthofE470,they speed,andtheoperationandmaintenancecosts,becausethoseareall doincludegeneralpurposelanesand/ortolledexpresslanes includedforthat22milehighlycongestedarea. northofE470.WiththePreferredAlternative,theresulting Now,alsointhisstudyIliketolookforknowing,whatdoIgetforwhatIpay. crosssectioniseightlanesalongtheentirecorridor.In Unfortunately,youdidnotseeanyboardsaroundthatcontainedanycost addition,aseparatestudywillbeconductedtoevaluate data.Andtherewereonlytwoquickslides,andthoseslidesshowedonlythe additionalneedsonI25intheDenverMetroarea. capitalcostandnottheannualizedcost,whichyouwouldthinkthatfora projectthislargeyou’dprobablydobondingandshouldincludethecostfor SincetheStateofColoradoisrequiredtocompletetheNEPA thatfinancing. processtobeeligibleforfederalaidinthefuture,thisstudyis SoIcreatedmyownspreadsheet,andusingthesame2005numbers,andI’ll partoftheNEPAprocess. goaheadandjustusethecapitalcolumnonly.AndforpackageA,thecost peruserforthegeneralpurposelanesperdayis37cents,comparingthat Theprojectpurposeandneedidentifiestheneedforproviding with59.53dailyfortherailandbuselements.Overall,wewouldspend$4 modechoice;forthisreasonthePreferredAlternativeincludes billionmoreforthetransitpiecethanwewouldforthegeneralpurpose transitelements.Thisisparticularlyimportantforthosepeople lanes.And$4billionisbasically4,000milliondollars.That’sanawfullotof inthesocietywhodonothaveaccesstoaprivatevehicleordo money.EveninpackageB,theBRT,requiringthetolllanes,is$2billionmore notchoosetodriveone.Asoilbecomeslessavailableormore thanthegeneralpurposelanecost.Andthegeneralpurposelanestakecare costly,havingtransitchoicebecomesmoreimportant. of98percentoftheusers,versusonly2percentfortransit.Eventhetolled expresslanescost$500billionmoretobuildandoperatethanthegeneral TheFinalEISincludesacomparativeevaluationofusercosts purposelanes.Thetollrevenuefromthatdoesnotevenpayforthe forhighwayandtransitimprovementsinChapter6.For operationandmaintenancecosts. example,theaveragecostperuserincludingthecostofprivate Imightthinkthatitwouldbefuntotaketherail,ortrain,downtoDenver, automobilesis$4.47fortheNoAction,$5.26forPackageA, butIreallydon’tseehowIcouldpossiblyjustifythosehugenumbers.Thank $5.08forPackageB,and$5.14forthePreferredAlternative. you. InvestmentinthePreferredAlternativeprovidesnorthern Coloradotravelerswithmodaloptions,improvedtravel reliability,updatedhighwayinfrastructure,reducedcongestion andlesstraveldelay.

Chapter6.0oftheFEISdiscussesfinancing.Atthispointinthe planningprocess,theonlyfundsidentifiedintheFEISarethose likelytocomeinthroughtraditionalfundingsourcesoverthe next25years.Thesefunds,andtheprojectsassociatedwith thesefundsareidentifiedinthefiscallyconstrainedregional transportationplans(NFRMPOandDRCOG).Whilethetoll laneshavetheabilitytogeneraterevenueandprovide Page 257 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

opportunitiesforbonding,theFEISdoesnotmakeany recommendationsfororagainstimplementationthroughthis meansoffunding. 825 Evelyn King Sotonight,packageAorpackageB,that’sthequestion.Andwereallyhave ThePreferredAlternativeisacombinationofPackagesAandB. nootheralternatives.Ihavealittleanalogyabouthowthatmightbe.It’slike ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSFrailroadtracks wehavethisbigbucketoficecream.Youaddin2percenthorsemanure. betweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthmetroendof Now,icecreamhasit’sprosandcons,horsemanurehasit’sprosandcons, linestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendoflinestationin butwhenyoumixthemtogetherandyousay,pickwhichhalf,it’sreally Longmont,commuterbusalongUS85betweenGreeleyand unacceptable. downtownDenver,interchangereconstructions,andthe Idon’tlikepackageAbecausepackageAcosts2billionmorethanpackageB. additionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes Butyouhavetodigthroughallthebigbooksbackthereonthetablestofind alongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobringlocal thisinformation,becausethere’snocostinformationonanyoftheboards. traffictothecorridortrainservice.Moredetailedinformation Andtheslidesthatwereusedonlyshowtherawcapitalcosts.AndIthink concerningthePreferredAlternativeisincludedinChapter2 thatyouallwouldagreethatifwe’regoingtopaytaxes,we’reprobably AlternativesoftheFinalEIS. goingtohavetoalsopaythefinancing.Sotheannualizedcapitalcostplus operationmaintenanceforpackageAreallycomesouttoatotalofover$7 AttheprojectoutsetthePurposeandNeedstatementwas billion.PackageBisover$5billion.PackageAcouldmeettheneedsof98 developed.Itconsideredcommunityobjectives,inputsolicited percentoftheusersatacost$4billionlessbyjustbuildingthegeneral fromcitizensandstakeholdersandfuturelanduseplansinthe purposelanes.Butthat’snotanoption.Thegeneralpurposelanes, regionamongotherthings.Thisstatementcallsoutthe annualizedcapitalcostplusmaintenance,is3,240,000,000. deficiencyoftransportationchoicesinnorthernColoradoand Idon’tlikepackageAbecauseitwillcausemoretrafficcongestionand identifiestheneedtoprovideamultimodalsolution.Through approximately60highwayrailcrossingsfromFortCollinstoLongmont.SOif anextensiveevaluationprocessandpublicinput youdon’tlikestoppingattherailroadcrossingsnow,you’llhavemuchmore transportationalternativeswereeliminatedand/orpairedwith opportunitytodoso.Idon’tlikepackageAbecauseitcauses59,residences, eachothertodevelopasetofimprovementsthataddresses 33businessestoberelocated,possiblyrequiringeminentdomain.Andthat’s theprojectgoals.Thetwopackagesthatbestaddressedthe considerablymorethanpackageB.Idon’tlikepackageAbecauseitrequires project’sPurposeandNeedandhadsupportfromthe fencingoftherailwayfromFortCollinstoLongmont,andthatwillcreatea communitieswerePackagesAandB.Furtherevaluationof physicalbarrierthroughyourcities.Soifyouthinkaboutdownbythedepot thosepackagesandadditionalinputfromtheproject’stwo now,especiallywhenyouhavecommunityevents,there’salotofpeople advisorycommitteesledtothedevelopmentofthesingle crossingacrosstherailroadtracks,thatwillbefencedrightuptowhereyou PreferredAlternativethatisevaluatedintheFinalEIS. crossthestreet. Additionally,throughouttheprojectandspecificallyduringthe Idon’tlikepackageB,becauseoverall,includingtheBRT,itcosts2billion DraftEIScommentperiod,thepublichasconsistently morethansimplyusingthegeneralpurposelanes,meeting,againover98 supportedcommuterrailaboveallothertransportation percentoftheusersneeds.Butthat’snotanoptioneither.Idon’tlike alternativesconsidered. packageBbecauseitcosts$500milliontobuild,plusthecostofBRT,to satisfyonly2percentoftheusers.Idon’tlikepackageBbecauseIdon’tlike Seetheresponsetocomment824relatedtocostperuser Page 258 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

payingtollswherethetollingrevenuewillnotevenpayfortheoverhead calculations. maintenanceofthosehighwaylanes. Now,Ialsoliketothinkaboutbusinessneeds.Andasyouknow,muchofthe Commericaltruckswillnotbeabletousethetolledexpress transitdoesnottakecareofanybusinesstrips.Iwasunabletofindout lanes,butadditionalgeneralpurposelaneshavebeenaddedas tonight,butthereisaquestion,willthetolledlanesacceptanykindof apartofthePreferredAlternative,northofSH66. businesstrucks,anykindofsemitractortrucksinthoselanes,orwilltheybe stuckalongwithalloftherestofusinthegeneralpurposelanesifwechoose TheamountofcongestiononI25inthefuturewillbetheleast nottopaythetoll? withthePreferredAlternative.Allbuildpackagesimprove Thebottomlinecost,ifyouwanttolookatcostperuser,Ididsome congestionrelativetotheNoActionAlternative. calculations,andforpackageA,thedailycostperuserforageneralpurpose laneis37cents.ThedailycostperuserfortherailpartofthatpackageA,or Thecommutertrainsaremuchshorterthanfreightrailtrains; it’sactuallyalloftransitinpackageA,is$59.53.Now,ifyoutakethe thereforethetrafficcongestioneffectoftheseisminimal,as annualizedcosts.Becausethat’sjusttherawcapitalcosts,andIwas describedinChapter4.0. comparingthatwithwhatCDOThasputtogether,andifyoutakethe annualizedcapitalcost,thatnumberthenbecomes,throughthegeneral purposelanes,82centsperuserperdayversus96.64forthetransit elementsinpackageA. Sowecaneitherchoosetospend7billionforpackageAor5billionfor packageB,withthemajorityoftheusersgoingtobegoingslowerdownto Denverbytheyear230.Todaywetravelanaverageofabout58milesand hour.PackageAdropsthatto50milesanhour.PackageBdropsthatto49 milesperhour. Somaybethebestchoiceisjusttodonothing,takethenoactionplan,save alotofbillionsofdollars,andguesswhat,itsayswe’llstillbegoing48miles perhour,onlyonedifferencethanpackageB.NeitherpackageAorpackage Bareacceptable. 826 Tom Knostman IpreferoptionA.IbelieveoptionAwouldprovidebettertransitoptionsand Commentnoted. lessenvironmentalimpactsIwouldpreferhighspeedrail.Idon’tthinkCDOT isthinkingbigenough.Idon’tthinkthetraveltimeestimatesforoptionBare Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 correct.Onroadsitonlytakesonecrashorevenastalledvehicletostop mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, traffic.HavingcommutedtoColoradoSpringsonceaweekforfouryearsI and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring knowthisalltoowell.ThetrainsthenneedtoheadupI70intothe thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere mountains. determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat Page 259 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TraveltimeestimatesintheEISdonotaccountfordelaysdue toincidents.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 827 Prudence Larson Thankyourforpresentingtwoalternativesbothincludingpublictransit Commentnoted. elementsalongwithhighwayimprovements.Wecannotbuildourwayoutof congestionthroughincreasedhighwaycapacityalone.IfavoralternativeA Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand forthefollowingreasonsofgreatsignificancetoLongmont.Thisalternative transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 capitalizesonFasTrackswithalinktothatrailsystem.Thisalternativelinks –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. existingtowncenters,strengtheningeconomicdevelopmentandproviding accesswherepeoplelive.AlternativeBincontrastwouldpromotesprawlin communitiesorcurrentlyopenlandstotheEast.Transportationlinkshavea profoundimpactonlanddevelopment.Weshouldbestrengtheningexisting communities. 828 Sandy Lemberg I’vebeeninvolvedwiththisprocess,Ibelieve,sincetheverybeginningwhen Commentnoted. theyhadsomethingattheHarmonylibrary,whereitbrokeintogroupsand weweresupposedtocomeupwithalternatives.Neveroncewashighspeed Afullrangeofrailtechnologiesandalignments,includinghigh railofferedandneveroncewasrailontheI25corridoroffered.Theyalways speedrailalongtheI25corridor,wasevaluatedatanearlier putrailon287,whereitdoesnotbelong.Busrapidtransitbelongsonthe stageofthisproject.ThisevaluationisdocumentedinChapter 287corridor.SOthisprogramhasbeenstackedatthebeginning,asthe 2oftheEIS.Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeed previousspeakershavesaid,againsteffectivepublictransit,andin rail(79–125mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anew particularly,againsteffectiverail. railalignment,and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswas Andnowafter,thishasbeengoingforhowmayyears,threeyearsnow,or consideredduringthealternativesdevelopmentprocess.These Page 260 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

somethinglikethis,fouryears,nowinthepastyeartheRockyMountainRail alternativesweredeterminedtonotbereasonableoptions Authorityhasemergedwithviablealternativesforhighspeedrail.Andthe becausetheydonotmeettheprojectpurposeandneed,as CDOTandtheI25EIS,orwhateverthisgroupiscalled,hasabsolutely definedinChapter1,oftheFinalEISduetolimitedstations ignoredthat.Wedidn’thearawordabouttheRockyMountainRailAuthority andgreaterstationspacingnecessarytosustainspeed.Overall, here,andJohnPeacock,whowashereearlierandhadtoleave–butwhatis itwasdeterminedthattheseoptionswouldnotestablishthe goingon?Areyougoingtotrytoplowaheadwiththisoutdatedtechnology desiredconnectivitytomanynortherncommunities. andputinapinkelephant?Whiteelephant?Idon’tknowwhattheyare.But Commuterrailwasfoundtobethemosteffectivesolutionfor anyway,Ithinkthatattentionhastobepaid,youhavetogetserious.This thiscorridor. projectbasicallyisabadjoke.Allit’sgoingtodoistaketaxmoneyandgive usnothingbackforit.Sowhatweneedishighspeedrail,weneedrailonthe TheRockyMountainRailAuthority I25corridor,andthenifyouwanttosupplementthatwithbusrapidtransit, (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility thatcouldgoonthe287corridor. studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 Additionally,thecommentsthat–Iforgotyournamealready–Robertmade mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy abouttoomaystops,atworst,youcouldhaveanexpressserviceandalocal servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. service.Buttohaveeveryservicestopeveryfivemiles,it’slikeridinga ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred GreyhoundbusupfromDenvertoFortCollins.Ittakeshalftheday.It’s Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ridiculous.Imean,thisisabsolutelyoutrageousforthisFrontRangecorridor ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the tohavenoeffectivepublictransportation.Ifyouwanttogetjustfrom EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. BouldertoFortCollins,ittakefourhours.Youguyshavenotaddressedthe situation,absolutelynot.Idon’tknowwhatplanetyou’reoperatingfrom, BRTserviceonUS287wasevaluated,andscreenedoutasit butit’sabsolutely,it’sabsolutelynotintouchwiththeneedsthatthisarea attractedlowerridershipcomparedtocommuterrail. has.Sothankyou.ButIreallydohopeyou’llpayattentiontothese comments. Stationspacingwasdeterminedasabalancebetweenaccess topopulationandminimizingtraveltimeandtheresulting spacingisappropriateforcommuterrail,theidentifiedrail technologyforthiscorridor.Atthispoint,operatingplansfor commuterrailareplannedtoserveeachstation;additional expressservicewouldrequireadditionalpassingtrack.Allstop andexpressserviceisplannedfortheexpressbusserviceonI 25.ThetraveltimebetweenDenverandFortCollinsis93 minutesforPackageAcommuterrail;70minutesforPackageB BRT;94minutesforPreferredAlternativecommuterrail;and 63minutesforPreferredAlternativeexpressbusin2035. 829 Hugh Mackay I’velivedinFortCollinssinceabout1974.AndIwouldjustliketomaketwo Commentnoted. observationsaboutallofthis.Oneis,I’mveryproudofthewaythecityof FortCollinsandNorthernColoradohasdevelopedoverthelasttenormore Inresponsetoyourcommentregardingairquality,theFinalEIS Page 261 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

years.ButI’mveryconcernedabouttheeffectofincreasedpopulationand presentscomparativeinformationonpollutantemissionsfor transportationonourhealththroughairpollutionissues.FortCollinsright thethreebuildalternatives(thePreferredAlternative,Package nowisonthevergeofexceedingthefederalozonelevels,andozoneis AandPackageB)andtheNoActionAlternative.Asdescribed probablyoneofthemoredangerouschemicalsthatwehavetocopewith inSection3.5–AirQualitytheemissionsformostair here.PrimarilyontheFrontRange,ourbiggestsourceofpollutionisthe pollutantswouldbesimilarinyear2035forallofthe burningoffossilfuel,andmostlythroughautomobileengines.SOIwouldlike alternatives,andallofthesewouldbelowerthanexisting tosaythatIstronglysupporttheextraexpenseofarailsystembecauseof emissionlevelsasaresultofimprovementsinvehicle that.Andmysecondobservationis,havinglivedinotherpartsofthe emissionsovertime. country,astheladyjustbeforemementionedwithrespecttoLosAngeles, I’vehadthemisfortuneofhavingtocommutetoworkoverlongdistancesin anumberofcities.InChicagoIcommutedabout75to80miles,verysimilar towhatwehavehere.I’vecommutedinBostonandI’vecommutedin Philadelphia.Andtheremustbesomesensiblereasonwhyallofthesecities survivewitharailsystem,otherthan,asinLosAngeles,bysimplyadding moreautomobilepollution.SoIwouldliketoaskus,orforyoufolkstolook verycarefullyattheexperimentsthatothercitieshavebeendoingwith respecttorailsolutions.AndtheNewMexicoonethatyoumentionedisone weshouldstartlookingatverycarefully.Thankyouverymuch. 830 Wynne Maggi Myfriends,familyandneighborsinBerthoudandIareallexcitedbythe Commentnoted. prospectoflightrailconnectingourtowntolargerregionalcenters. Berthoudcontinuesitscommitmenttothewalkabilityandlivabilityofour ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail smalltownandtherehasbeengreatpublicsupportforwideningtown fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe sidewalks.Arailstationinthecenteroftownwouldconnectourhistorical NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing positionasarailroadcenterwiththefutureweallhopeforoneinwhich toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology highwaymilesarereducedsavingenergyandreducingcarbon.PackageA thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail looksgreattome. corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludea Page 262 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

commuterrailstationinBerthoud. 831 Scott Mason IsupportpackageAthecommuterrailshouldrunthroughtheexisting Commentnoted. downtownsofFortCollinsLovelandandLongmont.Asenergyfuelcosts increaseitisimportantthatcommuterrailservicesislocatedclosetothe NotethatPackageAandthePreferredAlternativeservethe towncentersandexistingpopulationcenters. populationcentersofFortCollins,Loveland,Berthoud,and Longmontwithcommuterrail.PackageBservesthese populationcenterswithBRTservicetotheFortCollinsSouth TransitCenter;andfeederbusservicetotheI25BRTfromthe othercommunities. 832 Wanda Mayberry Mainly,Iwanttojustmaketwopoints.I’vebeentothesemeetingoverthe Commentnoted. years,anditseemsthateventhoughwetalkaboutthealternativesto driving,thepsychologyistowardsthedrivingandthecarsandthekindof InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, developmentthatthatleadsto,thekindofwideningofI25thatthatleads pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway to.Iwouldliketohaveusthinkalittlebitmoreinthefuture.I’velivedinLos Improvements. Angeles.Iknowwhatwideningtheroadsdoes.Anditclogsbythetimeyou getthembuilt,andthenyouhavetowidenmore,anditclogsbythetime Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 yougetthembuilt.SoIwouldreallyliketohaveuslookatserious mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, alternativetothedriving.AndhavingadedicatedbuslineIthinkisprobably and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring agoodidea.IdothinkraildownthemiddleofI25weweretalkingaboutin thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere the1970’s.Didn’tdoanythingthen,theyaren’tgoingtodoanythingnow. determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot ButIstillthinkit’sthebestalternativeinthefuturewhenwe’relookingat meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of somethingbeyondthe20thcentury. theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the Page 263 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 833 David McCulloch IfBNSFchoosenottoallowcommuterrailwhatareyouroptions?IE..I25 TheEISincludesexpressbustransitserviceonI25;thiscould rail,US287rail? servetransitneedsuntilafullreevaluationcouldbeconducted ifnegotiationswiththeBNSFwereunsuccessful. 834 David McCulloch MyconcerniswithpackageA.Wehaven’tdiscussedthiswithBurlington TheplansforintroducingpassengerrailintheBNSFcorridor NorthernSantaFe,whateveryouwanttocalltherailroad.Theproblemis includeprovisionofpassingtrackasnecessary.Coordination withFasTracksthey’retryingtonegotiatenow,andinthefutureyou’regoing withtheBNSFisongoing. tohavetonegotiate.That’saprofitableraillinefromDenvertoCheyenne, withstops–mycompanythatIworkforismovingtoBerthoud.We’regoing TheprojectteamhascoordinatedwithBNSFduringtheproject tohavearailstopinBerthoudfornewspaperpaper,andthatyouhaveto withregardstodesigncriteria,theevolutionofalternatives there’sonlyonelinegoingthroughBerthoudatthispoint.SOIdon’tknow,I leadingtothepreferredalternativeaswellasprojectcost don’tknowwhattheexplanationforacommuterlinewhenit’safreightline estimating.TheFinalEISdesignforthepreferredalternative onlyatthispoint.Butyou’regoingtohavetolookattheaccessibilityof reflectstheinformationreceivedfromthisongoing goingtwolinesatcertainplaces,becauseit’sjustnotfeasiblewithonelineat coordinationeffort.Theplansforthepreferredalternative thispoint. includeprovisionofpassingtracksegmentsasnecessaryfor theoperatingplangeneratedbytheprojectteamfor commuterrail.Atthispoint,ascheduleforestablishingan operatingagreementwiththeBNSFhasnotbeenidentified. Thiswillbeestablishedasfundingbecomesavailablefor commuterrailfinaldesignandimplementation. 835 Art Mitchell WhatIwastellingotherpeople,thatwhatwecando,whatIwantedtosee Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal is,IwantedtoseealocallyoperatedlinealongthepresentBNlinefromFort combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA CollinstoDenvertotakecareoflocaltraffic,andthentohavealinewhich andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon runsfromDowntownFortCollinsouttotherapidtransitlineforDenver theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI commuters.Thatwaytherewegetthebestofbothworlds,wegetlocal 25. transit–becauseIwouldsaythatofthetransitthatgoesupanddown,like say287,it’scrowded,andthat’slocaltraffic,andthatsamelocaltrafficcan Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 beputonatrain.AndthosepeoplewhowanttocommutetoDenvercan mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, takethesametrain.Infact,therapidtransittrainthatcomesupfromDenver and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring couldjusttakeaturnandcomerightintoFortCollins,thesamewaytheLong thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere Islandrailroaddoes.TheLongIslandrailroad,theirtrainscomerightoffthe determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot LongIslandrailroadtracksandgorightintotheNewYorkCitysubway meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of system.That’swhatweneedhere. theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto Page 264 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 836 Art Mitchell IamthesectionforemanfortheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailroadhere Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal inFortCollins,soIknowwhatwehave,reasonwhywerunparticularspeeds, combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA whatever,okay.Now,tostartoff,Ithinkweneedsomenicefactsandfigures andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon aboutthis.AccordingtoRailwayAgeMagazine,76percentoftheoperating theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI costsofoperatingthesystemcomesoutofpassengerfares.Thatisthemost 25. effectivesystemintheUnitedStates.ThenextclosestsystemistheNew YorkCitysubwaysystem,whichoperatesat64percent.Now,wehadoneof Whenafederalagencytakesanaction,inthiscase,the thefellowsfromRTDcomeuptospeak.AndIaskedhimspecifically,whydid potentialuseoffederalaidtoconstructimprovements,itmust youbuildthelightrailsystemdowntoLittleton,ratherthanbusrapidtransit, completetheNEPAprocessamongotherfederallawsand whichhadanincrediblycheaperinitialsetupcost.Hetoldmethat,ifwedid regulations.Completingthisstudydoesnotguaranteefederal busrapidtransit,weknownobodywouldrideit.Theonlythingthatwefelt aidbuttheimprovementsapprovedintherecordofdecision peoplewouldrideisatrain.Thereasonwhyisbecauseit’seffective.It’snot (ROD)areeligibleforfederalaid.Additionally,thisstudydoes involvedwithothertraffic.Itrunsonitsownrightofway.Soifthere’san notprecludethestateorlocalagenciesfromidentifyingother accidentsomewhereonI25well,theregoesyourbusrapidtransitsystem, fundingsourcestoconstructtheseimprovements. becauseyou’relettingpeopleonthistollroad,whichthebusesgoon,which don’tknowhowtodrive.Sotheregoesyourtransitsystemupinflames. HighwayimprovementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative Railroadsrun24/7.Doesn’tmatterhowdeepthesnowis;itruns.Inthe50 (generalpurposelanes,tolledexpresslanes,frontageroads, yearhistorywehadtrolleycarsrunninginFortCollins,Therewasonlythree crossstreets,etc.)areexpectedtocostapproximately$1.4 dayswherethetrolleycardidnotrunbecauseoftheblizzardof,Ibelieve, billionfor555newlanemiles.Thisequatestoabout$2.5 1918. millionperlanemileorabout$23millionpermile.Commuter Soanyway,whatwedoneedisweneedsomethingthatNewMexicohas railimprovementsareexpectedtocostapproximately$649 done.Idon’tknowifanyofyouhaveheardoftheRailRunnerprojectthat millionorabout$14millionpermile,acostthatincludes runsfromBelen,whichissouthofAlbuquerque,throughAlbuquerque.The stations,parkingandotherrelatedrequirements. governortheresaid,well,let’sdispensewithallofthesestudies,I’vegot Page 265 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

enoughmoneytobuilditandrunitforthreeyears,andwe’llseewhatwe Afullrangeofcommuterrailalignments,includingrailalongI do.Itturnedouttobeextremelysuccessful.Andnowthey’rerunning– 25,wereevaluated.Throughthisevaluationitwasdetermined they’rebuildingalinedowntheI25corridor,downthemedianstrip,from thatacommuterrailalignmentcouldbestservethe AlbuquerquetoSantaFe.AndtheydivertoffsouthofSantaFeandrunon communitiesonawesternalignmentusingtheBNSFcorridor. theshortlinerailroadcalledtheSantaFeSouthern.Now,thissystemhereis Formoreinformationontheevaluationofalignments goingtobedonenextmonth.YoucanrideacommutertrainfromSouthof consideredpleaseseeChapter2.AlternativesoftheFEIS. AlbuquerquetoSantaFe. Now,ourgreatfearhereontherailroadisthattheRTDlightrailsystem,and possiblythissystemhere,willbestudiedtoeither.Now,lastyearwehad– RTDhiredsomewomantocome,notbadit’sawoman,buttheyhiredthis groupofwomentodoahistoricalstudy.TheycomefromSanDiegotodoa historicalstudyonthelinewhichisaffectedbyRTDFasTracksbetween DenverandLongmont.Theyspentlikefivemonthsdoingthis,andtheyhada personworkingwiththembeingaflagmansotheydidn’tgetrunoverby trains.Now,alltheyneededtodowasaskmeorKenJessen,andIcouldhave toldthemexactlywhereitwasandtheycouldhavesavedmillionsofdollars. Butthisthinkinghereisturningintoacashcowforpeoplewholovetodo studies.JustdolikeNewMexicodid;buildit.Endthestudies.Theseguys herecomeupwithallthesethingsabouttheinitialcost.Yeah,railwas initiallyacost.Idon’tknowifyouremembertheslidethatwasuphere. Downinthislowerpartthere(indicating)yousawsomerailcars.Thoseare RDCcars;standsforraildieselcar.It’sbasicallythepredecessoroftheDMY. Thoseweremadeintheearly1950sandthey’rerunningtoday.Doyousee any50yearoldbusesfunninginregularservicetoday?Thewheelsaregood forseveralmillionmiles. Nowalso,let’stalkaboutthecostefficiency.Now,ittakesus1.4horsepower pertontomoveatrainbetweenhereandDenver.Now,Idon’tknowifabus canmoveat1.4horsepowerpertondowntoProspectstreet.Andthatmight evenbedownhill.Butthewholeideaisthis1.4horsepowerpertonturns intofuelsavings.Italsoturnsintolessmaintenance.Youcanalsoelectrically poweracommutertrain,whereasyoucannotelectricallypowerabus.Plus, ifyoudoubledeckthecommutertrains,likeFloridahasdonearoundMiami, yourcostperseatischeaperthanthatofabus.Yourinitialcostofcourse,is likedoubletracking,signaling,thinkslikethat,thatyouwouldhavetodo.But whatisthecostpermileofaddinganextralaneontoI25?Itdoesn’twork. Weneedtrains,likeyousay,downthemiddleofI25,expresstrainsrunning. Page 266 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Butwealsoneedsomethingthat’slocaltoo.AndI’vealwaysbeenapurveyor ofrunningjustalocaltypecommutertrainoralightrailtypeservice betweenLongmontandFortCollinstotakecareofthesmallerspots.Soit youliveinBerthoud,youcantakethetraindownto,acommutertrainor whatever,downtoLongmontandgetontheRTDFasTracksandcontinue yourtriptoDenver. 837 Art Mitchell Goodevening.IamthesectionforemanfortheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFe TheEISprovidescommonoriginanddestinationpointsfor railroadinFortCollins.I’vegotsomecommentstoofferandsomerealitiesto traveltimecomparisons.ForcomparisonpurposestheBRTand offer.I’maproponentofrailtransit.Numberone,theestimated72minutes CommuterrailtraveltimesbothstartattheSouthTransit onthebusroutefromHarmonyRdtoDenveriskindofunfairthing,as CenterinFortCollins.ThetraveltimebetweenDenverandFort comparedtothetrain,whichIbelievetoo112minutes.Thereasonwhyis Collinsis93minutesforPackageAcommuterrail;70minutes thetrainleavesfromdowntownFortCollinsandgoestodowntownDenver. forPackageBBRT;94minutesforPreferredAlternative ThisbusrapidtransitroutewillgofromHarmonyRoad.Soittakesabout30 commuterrail;and63minutesforPreferredAlternative to40minutesthroughrushhourtraffictogetouttoHarmonybusstation expressbusin2035. fromFortCollins.Sothatkindofroundsitoutrightthere. Numbertwo,theroutecanbemadealittlebitfaster,rightnowthelineis SomeportionsoftheexistingBNSFraillineinPackageAand capableofhandlingtrainsat60milesanhour,rightnow,withoutany thePreferredAlternativeincludeupgradedtrackdesignto adjustmentswhatsoever.Now,thereareplaceswherewehavecurves,and improvetraveltime. thethingis,thecurveskillspeed. Grades,orcourse,killtonnage.Somebodycameupwiththeideaofrunning Asyousuggest,commuterrailontheBNSFwaschosento acommuterlinedownI25andpossibleusingthatforfreighttoo.Well, connectcitycenters.RailtransitonI25wasconsideredduring becauseofberthandgivenalltheotherstuff,itcreatesaproblemwith thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thisalternativewas haulingdirectfreights.ButIaminfavorofusingtheFrontRangerailline determinedtobeinfeasiblebecausecentralrailalignments throughFortCollins,Berthoud,anddowninLongmonttoconnectupwith wouldcostuptofourtimesmorethanalignmentsalongan theFasTrackssystemasalocalrailtransitsystem. existingtrack.Therefore,thePreferredAlternativeincludes Butasfarasrapidtransitisconcerned,somethingelsehastobedone, commuterrailservicebetweenFortCollinsanddowntown becauseofallthetowns,allthestops,andthingslikethat.WhatIwould DenveralongtheBNSFandSH119withaconnectionto proposeistobuildalinedownI25,rapidtransithighspeedlinedownI25, FasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines. withdirectlinesthatgointothevariousurbanareas.Now,ofcourseany kindofrailconstructionhasanextremelyhighcosttoit,asopposedto ThetrafficvolumesontheTELwillbemanagedbypoliciesto buildingroads.Well,theirpropositionforbusrapidtransitistogoheadand restrictthenumberofqualifyingvehiclesasappropriatesothat allowcarstoalsouseitasatolllane.That’sallowingabunchofidiotswho highspeedscanbemaintained.Currentexperiencewiththe don’tknowhowtodriveinyourdedicatedrapidtransitrightofway.Now, expresslanesinmetropolitanDenverindicatesthatallowing thatisnotgoingtowork.Thesecondyouhaveacaraccidentdownthere, carsalongwithbusesdoesnotpresentareductionintransit yourrapidtransitsystemgoestoheck.Yourmultibilliondollarsgoesoutthe speed.Incidentssuchasaccidentswillbeaddressedquickly window.There’salwaysadailywreckonI25. withanincidentmanagementprogram.Notethatthetwo Page 267 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Nextproblemisthatrailtransitisallweather,soit’sgoingtocostalittlebit directionallanesofthePackageBTELwillallowreroutingof more.Butthepriceyoupayforarailtransitsystemiswellworthanall vehiclesbetweenthetwolanes.InthePreferredAlternative, weathersystem,ratherthanpayingalittlebitcheaperpriceandhavingafair theTELsarebufferseparatedfromtheadjacentgeneral weatherbussystem. purposelanes,whichwouldallowreroutingofvehicles Now,IwasattheFortCollinsmeetinglastnight,andIwasaskedtocome betweentheTELandgeneralpurposelanesatanypointalong downhereandspeak.Now,I’velistedtheproblemsonthat.Also,ofcourse, thecorridor. isyourfueleconomy.TotakethetrainfromFortCollinsdowntoDenver requires1.4horsepowerperton.Now,that’squiteafuelsavings.Idon’t Yes,commuterrailoffersmorereliabilityininclementweather. knowifabuswillhandlethatatall.Also,yourinfrastructurecostsarehighin thebeginning,butthey’recheaperinthelongrun.I’veworkedonthis Thecostsestimatesincludedifferentlifecyclesforbusand sectionoflinefor30years,andtherearesomeplacesthatIhavenothadto commuterrailvehicles.Thecommuterrailvehiclehasalife workonitinamaintenancemode.Itlaststhatlong.There’sapictureover cycleapproximatelytwiceaslongasastandardcoach. there(indicating),saysthewelcomethingthere,ifyounotice,there’sa TheRockyMountainRailAuthorityhasconsideredhighspeed coupleofrailcarsdownthere.ThosearebuddRDCcars.Theyweremadein railbetweenWyomingandColorado.Thisservesadifferent theearly1950’sandthey’restillrunningtoday.Canyoufindabusthat’s travelmarketthanthataddressedbythisEIS.Thetwoseparate nearly60yersoldrunning?Idon’tthinkso. effortshavebeencoordinatedthroughoutthedevelopmentof Soanyway,anotherproblemisthatI’mkindofworriedabouttheRTD theEISpackages.Thebuildalternativepackagesdonot FasTrackssystem.AndwhattheproblemwiththeFasTrackssystemis,I precludefuturehighspeedrailalongI25. believethey’rewastingthemoneyonunnecessaryresearch.AndIhopethis isnotthesamethinghere.Iwonderhowmuchmoneywentintothiseasel DevelopmentofthePreferredAlternativeincoordinationwith developmentoverhere.(Indicating)Anditmightbeinthemillionsofdollars. theRMRAstudyrecognizingthattheRMRAprojectisinthe Well,ifit’sthemillionsofmytaxpayerdollars,I’dliketoask,where’smy veryearlystages. train?Thegentlemanoverheresaidhe’dbeenworkingonthisprojectfor15 years. FarerecoveryratioswillbedeterminedaftertheEISduringthe Now,frommyunderstanding,thattheRailRunnerprojectinNewMexico developmentoffinaloperatingplans,priortoimplementation. wasconceivedaboutsevenyearsago.I’vegotapictureoftheprojecthere. Duetocurrentprojectionsoffundingavailability,the (Indicating)They’rebuildingtrackdownthemiddleofI25between preservationofrightofwayforcommuterrailwilloccurin AlbuquerqueandSantaFe,ahighspeedrailline.They’redoingthatnow.Bill Phase1;commuterrailservicewillbeinitiatedafter2035. Richardsonbasicallysaidseveralyearsagothat,I’vegotthemoneytobuild thislineandtorunitforthreeyears,andwe’llseehowmuchofasuccessit is.Itturnedouttobeascreamingsuccess.Now,yougodowntoDenver, TakeRTDlightrail.RTDlightrailhasthehighestoperatingratioofallofthe lightrailsysteminthecounty.76percentofeachoperatingdollarthatiscost tooperatethatlinecomesfrompayingpassengers.Thenextclosetisthe NewYorkCitysubway,whichgoesat64percent. Now,IaskedtheheadofthebushereinFortCollins,howmuchpassenger Page 268 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

faresactuallypayseachoperatingdollar?24cents.Thatmeans76centsis paidforbyus.Now,IalsoaskedtheheadoftheRTD,whocameuptoFort Collins,Isays,whydidn’tyoubuildtheSouthSantaFelineinbusrapid transit,whichwascheaperthanlightrail?Andhetoldme,ifwebuildabus rapidtransit,nobodywouldrideit. That’sallIhavetosay.Mytimeisup.Thankyou. 838 Matthew ONeill UseboththecommuterrailofPackageAfortheexistingurbancentersfor ThePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailontheBNSF FortCollins,LovelandandLongmont,andtheBRTofPackageBforthoseof andExpressBusalongI25aswellastolledexpresslanesalong usEastofI25.Iwouldlovetoridecommuterrailtothecitybutasitisit I25.NotethatPackageAhasonlycommuterrailontheBNSF wouldbeveryinconvenienttodrivefromWindsortoarailstationthentake andcommuterbusonUS85;PackageBhastolledexpress thetrainsouth,keeptheHOT/HOVlanesalongtheentirestretchofhighway. lanesalongI25. Seeiftheseplanscanbecoordinatedwithwhatrockymountainrailisdoing. WithhelpreducetrafficbutneitherreallysavestimewhichiswhatIknow TheEISalternativepackagesweredevelopedincoordination highspeedrailwoulddo.Whowouldrunthecommuterrailtrains?CDOT? withtheRMRAstudy.TheRockyMountainRailAuthority AnRTA?Privatecompany?ItisridiculousthatSaltLakeandSantaFe (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility Albuquerquehavebetterrailthanus,ShanghaiChinaFranceandGermany studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 allhaverailrunningat200250MPHevenournortheastcorridorisonly mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy 100MPHWehavewideopenspacesletstakeadvantageofthem. servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA.

CDOTwillcontinuecoordinationwiththeRMRA.Operationof thetransitsystemcouldbebyCDOT,butisnotdeterminedat thistime. 839 Bruce Philbrick IwouldsupportthealternativeAwiththerail.Ilearnedrecentlythatinthe Commentnoted. RioGrandeValleyofNewMexico,thattheRailRunnersystemwillbeupand runningasofDecember15th,runningfromSantaFeallthewaysouth Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation throughAlbuquerquetosuburbssouth.Ithinkit'saboutan80milestretch. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost AndIguessmyfeelingis,ifNewMexicocanpullitoff,certainlytheFront Issues. RangeofColoradocandoitaswell.AndIthink,IthinktheNewMexico projectwaspulledoffinarelativelypressedtimeperiod,whichmakesit evenmoreimpressive.AndIthinktheyhadtoactuallylaysomenewtrack.I don'tthinktheyranitstrictlyonexistingfreightline,freighttrack.So Page 269 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

anyway,weabsolutelyhavetolookatalternatives.Ithinkthatwecould certainlyaddlanestoI25.Itwillonlybeamatteroftimebeforethey're congestedagain.EveninthisperiodofdecliningfuelpricesIthinkthatwe havetobewarythatthecostofoilisgoingtogoupagain.Haveto continuallykeepoureyeonalternatives.Ithinkthat'sit. 840 Gene Putman BiggestconcernIhaveisinoptionA,wheretheyshoweightlanesnorthofE ThePreferredAlternativeincludes8lanesonI25(6general 470andsixlanesonI25southofE470.Ifindthattobelogicallypoor purposelanesand2tolledexpresslanes)from84thAvenueto becauseifyouthinkaboutI25comingsouth,youwouldthinkthattheroads SH14.Southof84th,therearecurrently8lanes.Inaddition wouldwidenasyouwentsouthbecausethere'smoreandmorevolumeas CDOTisconductingaseparatestudytospecificallylookatthe yougosouth.Tositthereandgofromfourtosixtoeight,andinthemost travelneedsalongI25inthenorthDenvermetroarea. congestedsectionofI25thatwehavenow,togobacktosix,Ihavea phrase,itdoesn'tpassthelaughtest.It'soneofthosethingsthatthepublic sitsthereandgoes,thisdoesn'tmakesense.Anditdoesn't.Ihavebeen involvedinthisprocessthroughtheentiretime.Ihavetoldthem,thestate andtheconsultant,thatthatdidn'tpassthelaughtest.Andsincethey'restill showingit,I'mgoingtowriteawrittencommenttothefactthatitdoesn't makesense.I'matransportationengineer.ThisiswhatIdo,andhavedone for30years.AndthatistheonlypartofthestudythatIthinkisflawed.The restofitIthinkisgood,butthatpieceandit'snotanengineeringdecision; itisapoliticaldecision.Andthat'swrong,tobeinthisstudythatway, becauseit'snotdefensible. 841 James Ross I’vebeenfollowingthisalittlebit,butIhaven’t–Imissedyourpresentation Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand today.Iwascomingfromwork,drivingintraffic.(Laughter)Butnevertheless, transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 Idowanttocommentonthis,becauseIhavelivedinLosAngelesandinNew –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. YorkandinMadrid,Spain,wheretherailsystemsarejustreallyphenomenal. Andtheydoarriveontime,eventhoughit’sasouthernEuropeancountry. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, That’stheonlythingthatarrivesontime,isthetrains. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Butitisreally–whatyouseeisthatwhenthere’sanykindofvisionmadefor Improvements. howtheircommunitiesaregoingtogrow,everythingincludesconsideration ofrail.Andit’sanoptionthatisalways,it’salwaysthere.It’sassumed.It’s Thetraveltimecomparisonforallalternativesandallmodesis notsomething,dowedothisordowedothat.Andit’sbecause—andthey availableinChapter4oftheFinalEIS.Thetransittraveltime buildtheircommunitiesaroundthat,theyintegratedtheirtransportation betweenDenverandFortCollinsis93minutesforPackageA systemsaroundbeingabletotieintotherailsystems.Andyoucanmoveso commuterrail;70minutesforPackageBBRT;94minutesfor efficientlytoreallyanywhereyouneedtogo.Ilivedthereforthreeyearsthe PreferredAlternativecommuterrail;and63minutesfor firsttime,twoyearsthesecondtime.Weneverownedacar.Therewasno PreferredAlternativeexpressbusin2035.CommuterRail Page 270 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

needtoownacartogoanywhereinthecity,muchlessanywhereinthe wouldbefasterthanthe132minutesforautotravelintheNo region. Action,butslowerthangeneralpurposeautotraveltimeof Obviously,we’renotgoingtogetthereinNorthernColoradoovernight.ButI 107to117minutesinthebuildalternatives. thinkweneedto,aswe’rethinkingabouthowwewanttogrowandwhat kindofcommunities,whatkindofcommunitywewanttobeandhowwe wanttoconnectourselvestoeachother,thishastobeonthetableatevery discussion. Thepreviousspeakerspoketothequestionofspeed,andthisis,Ithink,a veryimportantissue.Peoplearen’tgoingtouseitiftheycan’tmovequickly. Soyouneedthat,youneedtobeabletomovethrough,movetoDenverina quickway.ButIdon’twantto–Ihaveconcernsalsoaboutmoving everythingouttoI25,becausethenourgrowthmovesoutinthatdirection inawaythatmaynotbegoodforourcity. SoIjustwanttothrowthatout.Iknowit’smuchmorecomplicatedthan that,butIdothinkthatrailneedstobeapartofourfuture.Thankyou. 842 Dick&Carol Rush Themostimportantfactortomeisprovidingformasstransit.Thismeets Allpackages(PackageA,PackageBandthePreferred manyneeds,whichhavebeendiscussedatlengthalready.PackageA Alternative)provideformasstransit.PackageAandthe providesmasstransitinamuchpreferablewaythanpackageB.AsIseethe PreferredAlternativebothincluderailtransit.Railtransit,as routeispreferable,itissafer,feweremissions,notimpactedbyweather, youpointout,issafer,morecomfortabletorideandisnot morecomfortabletoride.Thecapitalinvestmentishigherbutmorelasting, affectedbyweather.ThisinformationisincludedintheDEISin sothelongtermcostwouldprobablybeless.IncontrastIseenegative Sections7.2.3and7.2.5.Emissionsdataarenotavailablefor effectsfrompackageBincluding,moretrafficemissions,impactedbybad railtransitonly.Railisthemostexpensivetransitoptionto weatheroraccidents,asareagrowswouldprobablyhavetoaddevenmore build,asyoupointout.Itisalsotheeasiesttoexpandover lanestoI25PackageBchainsustoconcreteroad. time.Nodataareavailableaboutlongtermcosteffectiveness forrailcomparedtobustransit. 843 Robert Schmidt Afterreviewingwhatyouhaveupthere,itseemslikethatyou’retryingto Thetraveltimecomparisonforallalternativesandallmodesis getthetrainalternativetofail.(Applause)Thetraveltimeisabsolutely–it’s availableinChapter4oftheFEIS.Thetransittraveltime justimpracticaltogofromFortCollinstoDenverin93minutes,expect betweenDenverandFortCollinsis93minutesforPackageA peopletodothateveryday,andthenturnaroundandhavetoconnectwith commuterrail;70minutesforPackageBBRT;94minutesfor somesortoftransportationmodeintheDenverarea,becausewerealize PreferredAlternativecommuterrail;and63minutesfor thateverybodydoesn’tworkindowntownDenveroraroundtheUnion PreferredAlternativeexpressbusin2035.CommuterRail Stationarea.JustgotoDIAyou’dbelookingatover,itlookslikeoveratwo wouldbefasterthanthe132minutesforautotravelintheNo hourride.Andagain,there’snowayacar,nomatterhowbadthetrafficis Action,andfasterthanthegeneralpurposeautotraveltimeof goingtobewithinthenext20yearsisevergoingtotakeyoutwoandahalf 107to117minutesinthebuildalternatives.Theaveragespeed hourstogettoDIA.Sotocatchaflight,yourlookingataboutfourorfive istypicalforthemodeofcommuterrail. Page 271 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

hourstoleaveDenver,whichmeansa6:00amyou’dhavetoleaveDenverat 1:00amtrain,whichisn’tevenrunning.Thewholetransitthinglooksliketoo EachpackageofferstransitservicetoDIAfornorthernfront manystationsinvolvedonceyougetsouthoftheLongmontarea.We’refar rangearearesidents.ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovide enoughfromDenver,it’sgottoberedesignedsowe’reanexpresstrainupto anexpressbusroutetoDIAfornorthernColoradotravelers Longmont,ormaybeonestopbelowthat.Andthenifyou’regoingtodesign withafastertraveltimethanrail.AdirectraillinetoDIAfrom thetrainsystemnotasalocaltrain,likealightrail,whereinDenveritstops northernColoradoisnotafeasibleoptionforthisproject,due atnumerousstopsandpicksuppeople,butthedistanceisshort,hereyou’re tolowdemandonadailybasis. talking50milestogofromFortCollinstoDenverin93minutes,that’sless than60milesanhour.Iknowsomebodyinheresaidtheyworked–andI Stationspacingwasdeterminedasabalancebetweenaccess wasraisedonLongIsland.Thecommutertraintheredoes80100milesan topopulationandminimizingtraveltimeandisappropriatefor hour.Andyou’retalkingaboutatrainthat’sgoingtogo45milesanhour, commuterrail,theidentifiedrailtechnologyforthiscorridor. maybe,plusstops.That’stotallyoutrageous.AlsoitlookslikebychangingI 25beforearaillinegetsin,you’reactuallyencouragingpeopletomoveout ThePreferredAlternativeincludesexpressbusonI25, oftheDenverarea,tomoveuphere,sotheysotheycanturnaroundand commuterbusalongUS85andcommuterrailalongtheBNSF commutedowntoDenver.Andthat’snotwhatwe’resupposedtodointhe andwideningofI25.Thedifferenttransitservicesinthe 21stcentury.You’resupposedtoliveclosertowhereyouwork.And corridorsofferedbythePreferredAlternativeenableusersto thereforeIthinktherapidrailsystemshouldcomein,ofsomesort,before selectthefastestmodefortheirtripdependingonits weconsiderincreasingthecapacityofI25,(applause)Weshouldbe particularoriginanddestination. discouragingtheuseofI25,discouragingpeopletomoveupheretotravel downthatfardistance.It’sokifyouwanttosomehowdevelopasystem,a ThenumberoflanesrecommendedonI25isaresultofthe roadsystemtogomaybeFortCollinstoLoveland,maybe,max,Longmont. developmentprojectedintheregionandtheanticipatedtravel Butthisideathatpeople–whenIfirstmovedtoFortCollins,IknowI’m patternsin2035;notethatlandusepolicyistheresponsibility oddball,butIwasapilotflyingoutofDenver,stillam,andIwasintheGuard ofthelocalmunicipalities.BasedonthisdataI25willneedto inCheyenne.Well,therewasrestrictiononhowfarIcouldlivefrom bewidenedsouthofSH14toaccommodateanticipatedtravel CheyenneandservemyGuardduty,andFortCollinsbegantoreachthat demand,whichcouldnotbeaccommodatedbytransit limit.SOIpickedFortCollins.AndwhenImovedhere,I’mnotanold improvementsalone.TELlanesprovidetraveltimereliability resident,but1984,IneverhadaneighborthatevercommutedtoDenver. alongthecorridorforHOVandtollusers. NowFortCollinsisbecominga,shallwesayabedroomcommunityof Denver,whichitshouldneverbe,numberone;numbertwo;thedistanceis toofar,thepollutionlevels.Everythingisjustturningagainstit,andwe’ve gottomaybereconsiderthat.That’smycomments. 844 Karen Schneiders Please,pleaseplease!Solvingtransportationissuescannotrelysolelyon Commentnoted. morelanesoftraffic.TransitbeitBRTorRailalternativemustbe implementedconcurrentlywithmoregeneralpurposelanesandHOT/HOV InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, lanes.Wecannotbuildenoughlanestohandletrafficforever.Theremustbe pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway reliableefficienteffectiveandtimelytravelchoicestoincreasemobility Improvements. Page 272 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

betweennorthernColoradoandtherestofthestate. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 845 Ralf Socher Myconcernistheportionofthecommuterrail,whyit’sbeinglocatedalong AppendixFoftheAlternativeDevelopmentandScreening CountyRoad7versuswhatseemstobethemoreobviousoptionoflocating Report(FHUandJacobs,2011)incorporatedbyreferencein alongtheI25median.Andpreviouslyalotofquestionswhereraisedabout thisEISdocumentsathoroughreviewofdifferentalignments thisinameetingtwoyearsago,apublichearingatthattime,andnoanswer, toconnectthetwoFasTrackscorridors(NorthMetroand nosoundanswerswheregiven.Everyanswerthatwasgiven–forexample, NorthwestRail).Somealignmentspresentedtoomuchoutof theysaid,well,itwouldcostmoretodoitthatway.Whenitwaspressedon directiontravel,otherspresentedaccessconflictswiththeI25 whatthecostwas,optionAoroptionB,theycouldn’tsaywhateitherofthe frontageroadandothersimpactedenvironmentalresources costswere.Sowewerechallengedtofindouthowtheycouldcomeupwith includingwetlandsand4(f).Thisevaluationidentifiedthatthe adecisiononcostwhentheydidn’thavethecostfiguredoutyet.Andmy alignmentonSH119andCR7asthepreferredalignment concern,itseemstheyhaveapreconceivednotionofwhattheywanttodo becauseitwouldresultinlessoutofdirectiontravel,no andaremakingthingsfittowhattheywantratherthanlookingatallthereal conflictwithI25frontageroadaccessandminimalimpactto environmentalimpacts. sensitiveresources. 846 Lanette Spotanski Ilivedabout40mileswestofChicagofor25years.Istillvisitthereoften.The Commentnoted. railsystemisessentialfortransportationinthatarea.IhavelivedinN Coloradofor26yearsnow.Weneedtomakeuseofourrailsystem.Itisa Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation wonderfulwaytomovepeopleeasilyandquicklypleaseapprovepackageA steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost ASAP. Issues. 847 Karen Stockley AndIcamestraightfromworkanddidn’tprepareanything,soI’llspeakoff Commentnoted. thetopofmyheadhere.Ithinkonethingwereallyneedtolookatisthe futureandourcarbonfootprint.Andmorevehiclesandmorefossilfuels,the ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail morewe’rereallydamagingeverythingwehavethat’sgreathere.Ithinkif fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe welookatOptionAandwelookatlightrail,thisisthewayofthefuture. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing Andanyonewho’slivedinColoradoforalotofyearsknowswhatI25used toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology tobelike.WaybackwhenIwasachildIremembergoingtoCheyenne,and thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail therewashardlyanyoneontheroad.Andyoulookatitnowandit’sbumper corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors tobumper.Ifwecontinuetowidenandwiden,whatarewedoinghere?It incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis makesnosenseatall.Youlookat–everyonewanttobeavisionaryandif corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit welookatsuccessfulcommunities,theyhavemasstransit.Weneedtohave choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand somesortoftransit.Ifwedecidetenyearsfromnowthat’stherightthingto isconsistentwithRTDplans. do,it’sgoingtobetoolateandit’sgoingtobetooexpensive.Weneedto findawaytodoitnow.It’sthesmartthingtodoforthefuture,forthe InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Page 273 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

peoplewhowanttocommuteandleavetheircarsathome.AndIthinkwe pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway needtofindawaytocomeupwiththemoney,becauseit’sgoingtobetoo Improvements. difficultandtooexpensivelater.Thankyou. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 848 Tom Vaughan RailserviceislongoverdueinNorthernColorado,weneedtodecreasethe Commentnoted. amountsofautomobileandparkinglots.Thetrainshouldhavebothlocal andexpressservice.Trainsaremorefun.InthisstudyI’minfavorofPlanA Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 orPackageA.Howeverthereneedstobeanexpresstrain,afasttrainto mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, Denver.SoperhapsanexpresslanetoDenverandalocaltoLoveland, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring BerthoudandLongmont.Thankyou. thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 849 Jim White JimWhite,TownAdministratorfortheTownofBerthoud.Fortherecord,I Commentnoted. justwantedittobeknownthattheTownofBerthoudBoardofTrustees,on Tuesdaynightlast,Idon’tknowwhatthedateis,the18th,onNovember18 SeeAgencyComments–ResponsetoTownofBerthoud passedaproclamationinsupportofplanAoftheseproposedtransitoptions comment#1–forresponsetotheTownofBerthoud thatareremainingonthetable.Theyalsoindicatedatthatmeetingthat proclamationmentionedinyourcomment. theirintentionistostrengthenthesupportforplanAthrougharesolutionto Page 274 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

beforthcoming,hopefullyinthemonthofDecember,hopefullyinthemonth ofDecember2008. 850 Jim White MynameisJimWhite.I’mtheTownAdministratorforthetownofBerthoud. Commentnoted. Imadesomeofthecommentstothecourtreportedearlier,butIthoughtit wasimportantfortherecord,forthoseofyouwhotookthetime,our SeeAgencyComments–ResponsetoTownofBerthoud neighborswhocameouttotalkaboutthis,toidentifytheofficialpositionof comment#1–forresponsetotheTownofBerthoud theTownofBerthoudFirst,andthenImightmakesomepersonalcomments proclamationmentionedinyourcomment. aswell. TheofficialpositionoftheTownofBerthoudistosupportoptionA.ourtown hasbeeninvolvedinthisprocessforfiveorsixyears,watchingitasit’s evolvedandpayingmoreattentionasit’sgettingtothepointwherethe optionsarebeinglimitedandpareddowntothetwothatarepresent,three, IguessIshouldsay,thatarepresenttonight.SOwiththatourtownboard passedaproclamation,orissuedaproclamationonTuesdaynight,onthe 18thofNovember,andtheyplantostrengthenthatresolveandthatsupport througharesolutiononDecember9th,comingsoon. Sowiththat,thatrepresentstheofficialpositionofthetownboard.Andthis isanewtownboardpredominantly,viaanelectionthatoccurredinAprilof thisyear.Priortothis,ourotherboardalsoendorsedthesameoption, optionA.Soit’saprettyconsistentandconfirmedoptionintheTownof Berthoudofficiallythatthat’sourposition. Steppingnowtothepersonalside,IgrewupinChicago.There’sobviously railfrom,greatdistancesfromthedowntownareatobringpeopleintothe downtowntokeepitvibrant,stillallowthemtoliveawayfromthecity.I’ve spentsometimetravelinginEurope,notalot,butenoughtoenjoyboththe convenienceandthecomfortoftherailinthatcountyandsomeofthose countriesinEuropethatIvisited.AndalsoI’veseensomeplaceshereinthe UnitedStatesthathavehadtremendousrailservices.AndIthinkthat,Iwas happythatourtownhassupportedthisoption.Icertainlydopersonallyas well.Thankyouverymuch. 851 York IsupportPackageA.Thispackageincludesthetwocriticalpiecesofnew Commentnoted. infrastructureneeded;Firstandmostimportantisthecommuterrailfrom FortCollinstoDenverandsecondpromotingthebustransitlinkages InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, betweencitycenters.Buildinglargerroadsdoesn’thelpanyonejustlookat pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway la.ImprovingI25interchangesshouldbesecondarytothefirstandsecond Improvements. Page 275 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsatPublicHearings

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

prioritieslistedabove.Thetrainsneedtobequickandconvenientandallow forbringingbicyclesalongwithyou.Therailneedstoconnectexistingcity Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation centers.Themainthingtokeepinmindistopromoteconnectionsofexisting steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost citycenters. Issues.

Commuterrailoperationswouldmostlikelyoperativeunder similarbicyclepoliciestothoseusedbyRTD.RTDcurrently allowsfourbicyclespervehicleonitslightrailvehicleswithout anytimerestrictions.RTDhasnodetailedpoliciesforbicycles oncommuterrailvehiclesbutisexpectedtomaintainatleast thesameaccessibilityascurrentlyexistsonlightrailvehicles.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 852 Fred Allen IhaveattendedsomeofthepublicmeetingshoweverImissedthelastone.I Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 havealotofinterestinpackageA.Iwouldlovetoseesomethinghightech mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, fortherail.Ifeelthattheestimatedtraveltimeof120minutestogetto and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring Denveristoolongtogetpeopleoutoftheircarsontherail.Alsorailwill thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere dumpeveryoneinthesameplace.Abusmovesmorefreelyandoffersmore determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot varietyondestinations.Inthefuturewecouldhaveacleanerrunningbus. meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of Alsowithtrainsittakesadditionaltimetotransferwhereabuswouldleave theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing yourightwhereyouwanttobe.Ihaveriddentrainsallovertheworld,like necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat thetraininHongKong.Thetrainsbeingconsideredaretooslow.Thegoal theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto shouldbetomovepeoplefromdowntownFortCollinstoDenverasquickly manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe aspossible. themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. Page 276 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

853 James& Barnett MyhusbandandIareages61and63respectfully.Wehavebeenresidents InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Peggy ofFt.Collinssince1979!Wehaveneverregrettedourdecisiontomoveto pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway ColoradoandthebeautifulcityofFt.Collins.However,aswegetolder,we Improvements. dohaveagreatmanyconcernsregardingI25!SinceIseethatthedeadline togetinourfeedbackistomorrow,thismaynotbethemostorganizedletter Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 butwilltrytoputmythoughtsinshortconcisestatements! mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, 1.Gettingtotheairport!Myhusbandisstillworking,butwedotravelafair and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring amount.Ononeoccasion,weheadedtotheairportwithplentyoftimeto thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere spare,onlytogetsouthofLovelandtofindtheroadatastandstillduetoan determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot accident.Wesatandsatinthetrafficandfinallymyhusbandsaid,"ifwe meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of don'tstartmoving,wearen'tgoingtomakeourflight!"So,weillegallydrove theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing throughaditchtogetoffoftheinterstateandstartedheadingsouthand necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat eastandfinallyourstrangeroutedidgetustotheairportintimetorunand theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto catchourflight!Itisanabsolutemiraclethatthishasn'thappenedtous manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe moreoftenasweoftenfindtheroadatastandstillduetoanaccident! themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor. 2.Tourism!OnonetripbacktoFt.Collinslastsummer,thetrafficgoing northwasworsethanusualduetocarspullingtrailers,RV'setc.probably TheNorthI25EISregionalstudyareaextendsfromWellington goingtoRockyMountainNationalPark.Myhusbandcommentedthat inthenorthtoDenverUnionStationinthesouth,andfromUS "tourism"isoneofColorado'smainrevenues;but,hebetafterfightingI25 287andtheBurlingtonNorthSantaFeRailwayroutesonthe thepeopleintheRV'setc.wouldn'tbebacknorwouldtheyrecommend westtoUS85andtheUnionPacificRailroadroutestotheeast. goingtoEstesParktotheirfriends!" Whilethestudyareawaslimitedtolookingattravelneedsin 3.GettingtoeventsintheDenverarea!WearegoingtotheBuellTheater northernColoradoitdoesnotprecludetheextensionor tonighttoseetheplay"JerseyBoys"!Ourfriendsofferedtodriveandmy additionofraillinestoColoradoSprings,Puebloandbeyond. husbandwasmorethanhappytotakethemupontheiroffer.Wehave Additionally,theRockyMountainRailAuthorityhasconsidered ticketswithagroupoffriendstotheRockies.Lastsummerwestartedtoa highspeedrailbetweenWyomingandColoradoaspartof gameandthereweresomanywrecksanddelaysthatthegamewastruly anotherproject.Thisservesadifferenttravelmarketthanthat ruinedwhenwefinallygotthere,formyhusband,whowasthedriver. addressedbythisFinalEIS.Thetwoseparateeffortshavebeen 4.Commentsfromothers!Ourson,whogrewupinFt.Collins,andnow coordinatedthroughoutdevelopmentoftheEISPreferred livesinCalifornia,saidtomerecently,"Mom,Iknowthatyouthinkthereare Alternative. toomanypeopleinCaliforniabutatleasttheybuildroadstoaccommodate them!HeshouldknowasheisaTitleistRepandtravelsthroughagreatdeal ofNorthernCalifornia!HecommentedthattheroadbetweenDenverand Ft.Collinswasworsethananythinghehadtotraveloninhisterritory! 5.RevenuefromWyomingandadjoiningstates!IknowthatFt.Collins businessesandDenverbusinessesaswell,benefitgreatlyfromthepeople whocometoColoradofromLaramieandCheyenne.Theytoohavetotravel Page 277 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

I25andthereforeourstateverylikelyloosesrevenuefromadjoiningstates duetotheconditionofourroads! 6.Ourhopeforthefuture!NeithermyhusbandnorIconsiderourselves inactiveorold!But,accordingtoourlocalnewspaper,"TheColoradoan", Coloradoisnowthe5thfastestgrowingstate.Withroadsthatarealreadyin poorrepairandnotmeetingtheneedsofthecurrentpopulation,itisareal concernforthoseofuswhohopetobeabletoenjoyretirementandallof thebeautythatColoradohastooffer!Ifsomesortofcommuterrailservice wereavailable,wewoulddefinitelytakeadvantageofit!(And,Ihaveheard countlessfriendsechothesamesentiment!)Therefore,Ihopeyougive carefulconsiderationtoPackageAoftheCDOTNorthI25study. Thankyouforallowingmetoexpressmyconcerns!Inclosing,aquoteby BenjaminFranklin"Dostthoulovelife?Thendonotsquandertime,forthat isthestuffthatlifeismadeof." 854 Karen Benker PreferoptionArail.Railwillhavealastingpositiveimpactonland CommuterrailisincludedinPackageAandthePreferred developmentandencouragesdensityandbetteruseofwaterandother Alternative.Stationlocationsweredevelopedwithextensive utilities.Itcutsbackonthecarbonfootprintsandenhancesthesenseof communityinput.SH66andtheSugarMillwereidentifiedas placeandsenseofcommunity.TheLongmontrailstationsneedtobeinthe thepreferredlocationsbythepublic,projectteam,TAC,and city.DonotplacetheNorthstoponSH66,butmoveitto21st,17th,or9th participatingagencies.Thisprojectextendsthenorthwestrail Ave.TransferstationinthesouthmusttieintoFasTracksneartheGlennmill. linetotheSugarMillstationtoallowtransfersbetweenrail NeedtostartnegotiationwithBrightonRRjoinRTDinthiseffort. lines;wearenotcertainwhatismeantbytheGlennmill.Afull evaluationofsitelocationsisincludedinChapter2oftheEIS. CoordinationwithRTDhasoccurredthroughoutthe developmentofthisEIS. 855 Marc Cittone IhavereviewedbothpackagesAandBandthecriteriaforcomparingthe ThePreferredAlternativeisacombinationofPackagesAandB. twopackages,andhavesomecommentsthatfavorpackageA'scommuter ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSFrailroadtracks railoption(withcommuterbusfromGreeley)overtheBRToption.Thetwo betweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthmetroendof packagesarecomparedfortimefromFortCollinstoDenver.Ibelievethisisa linestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendoflinestationin poorindicatorfortworeasons: Longmont,commuterbusalongUS85betweenGreeleyand 1.)MuchofthecommutertrafficalongthiscorridorisbetweenFrontRange downtownDenver,interchangereconstructions,andthe cities(BoulderLongmonttoFortCollins)andEastWesttoGreeley;rather additionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes thanbetweentheNorthFrontRangeandDenver.Forexample,NFRMPO alongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobringlocal surveysandcensusdatarevealedapproximately46%ofworkersinLoveland traffictothecorridortrainservice.Moredetailedinformation commutefromelsewhere.OfemployedLovelandresidents,approximately concerningthePreferredAlternativeisincludedinChapter2 halfcommuteout,withthebulkoftheseemployeestravellingnorthtoFort AlternativesoftheFinalEIS. Page 278 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

CollinsorsouthtotheLongmontGunbarrelBoulderregion.Imyself commutedforoneyearbetweenFortCollinsandBouldertherewassimply Thepurposeandneedoftheprojectistoidentify nogoodwaytomakethistripasbothI25and287requirelongcartrips.A improvementsbetweennorthernColoradocommunitiesand railalternativewouldbeattractivetomaintainmobilityandtheabilityof theDenvermetropolitanregion.TheFinalEISincludestravel employeestoreachtheirjobswithoutbecoming"supercommuters."Iwould timesfromavarietyoforiginsanddestinations.ThePreferred suggesttheEISlookatamoresophisticatedprojectionofcommutertimes Alternativeprovidesmanyoptionstoenableuserstoselectthe forallmajorregionalcommutingroutes,notsimplyFortCollinsDenver. fastermodefortheirparticulartrip.TheMasonTransportation 2.)ThecomparisonofrailandBRTconsidersonlytimeinthemasstransit Corridorhasbeenincludedinthebackgroundnetworkofthe vehicle,nottotaltriptime.Yetthebulkofthepopulationlives,andwill FinalEIS.Thesizingofparkinglotsisbasedonforecastsof continuetolive,nearertheBNSFrailline(forFortCollins,Loveland, futurestationactivity,andacontingencyfactorisincludedto BerthoudandLongmont)orquiteeastofI25inthecaseofGreeley,rather estimatethenumberofparkingspaces.Socioeconomic thannearI25.ThetraveltimefromdowntownLovelandtotheI25park projectionsarebasedontheNFRMPOlongrangeprojections, andrideisatleast15minutes,ormore,inrushhour,makingBRTless includingpotentialTOD. convenientandattractive.ForGreeleyresidents,busservicefromGreeleyto DenvermaybemoreattractivethanthetriptoI25forBRT. CommuterrailservicealongtheexistingUnionPacificRailroad Additionally,theDEISmentionsthatrailtransitalongtheBNSFwillsupport routesbetweenGreeleyandDenverwasconsideredduringthe infilldevelopmentgoals.However,thisisnotmodeled.Iwouldsuggestthe alternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thisalternativewas EISincludeamodelbasedontherailtransitoptionandcurrentprojects determinedtonotbeareasonableoptionbecauseitcaused underwaysuchastheMasonStreetcorridorprojectinFortCollinsand outofdirectiontravel,hadhigherpotentialforimpactsto downtownredevelopmentinothercities,aswellasstationareaTOD environmentalresources,andwouldcostmoredueto50 opportunities,thatimpactlanduse.TheEISmayfinditworthwhileto percentmoreatgradecrossings.However,thePreferred exploremarkettrendsintheseareas.(Itisverydifficulttoaccommodate AlternativeincludescommuterbusservicebetweenGreeley supportinglandusesforBRT.)Italsoseemstomethattheproposedparking andDenver. atsomeoftheproposedrailstationsislimited,potentiallylimitingtheuseof ParknRideoptions. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand Basedontheseconcerns,IbelievethebestwayfortheNorthFrontRange transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 areatogrowistosupporttransitalongtheBNSFcorridor,withcommuter –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. busservicelinkingGreeleytosurroundingcommunities,asshowninoption A.TheabilitytouserailtransittoreachbothtoBoulderandDenverisan InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, importantcomponentofthisconcept,despitecurrentuncertaintiesabout pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway FasTracks.I25willneedimprovement,inparticularatinterchanges,but Improvements. thereisnoreasontotargetalltransportationfundstoI25tothedetriment ofexistingcommunities. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Page 279 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

856 Andrea Dsilva Iamstronglyinfavorofcommuterrailconnectingdowntowntodowntown. Commentnoted. Itsbetterthanhighwayexpansion. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 857 Gabrial Dsilva IaminfavorofthedowntowntodowntownrailconnectionusingtheBNSF Commentnoted. railroad. 858 Rudy Hall RapidgrowthinColoradoisanissuethatmustbeaddressedinaresponsible Commentnoted. andprogressivemanner;andisdeservingofatransportationsolutionthat benefitsallColoradoansaswellasourenvironmentandresources.Inthis TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout wayOptionAistheobviousandbestchoiceforthedevelopmentof throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed transportationinColorado.Wewouldappreciateourvoicesbeingheardin inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. thesupportofOptionA. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 859 Jeremy& Jasmine MywifeandIareinsupportofyournorthI25DEISandspecificallysuper Commentnoted. Christine supportiveoftransitcomponentofpackageA,mostspecificallypackageA, mostspecificallythecommuterrailconnectingcitycenters,FortCollinsto LongmontthatwouldconnectustoDenvermetroFasTracksandRTDbus routes.Ithinknowisaperfecttimetodothatanditgivesusgoodjobshere, goodmaintenancejobsandservicejobsforpeoplewhorunit.Andofcourse savesongasolineandenergyandallthatkindofstuffaswell.Ithinkthat wouldbeexcellenttoputinthefrontrange,Ihopeyouwillsupportthatand cometothatconclusion.Thankyou. 860 Nancy Klausmeyer I'mabigsupporterofpackageA.I'velivedherefor45yearsandusingthe Commentnoted. existingrailisthebestoptionforFortCollins. 861 Larry&Louise Maass BothhusbandandwifepreferpackageA Commentnoted. 862 Carolyn Mita EISnortherncoloradotransportationplaneisComment:HowcanIcomment Yourcommenthasbeennoted.Theidentificationofthe ontheEISforthenorthernColoradotransportationplan?Idonotsee PreferredAlternativecameaboutthroughacollaborative anythingonyourwebsites.Yes,pleasemaintainbridgesandroadsalreadyin decisionmakingprocess,asdescribedinGeneralComment#0 existencebutnomorelanes!!!Commutertrainsandbusesarewhatwe –DecisionMakingProcess.Considerationwasgiventopublic need.Yes,routebusesfromtownstoI25tocatchbusesandtrainsto inputreceivedthroughouttheEIS;however,notethatvotingis Denverandotherfrontrangecities.Butpleasealsoroutebusesandtrains notapartoftheprocess. alongtheotherroutesaswell(287,85,etc.).Wearesaddlingfuture Page 280 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

generationswiththedebttoimplementourtransportationsolutions,so InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseletusgivethemsomethingtheycanalsouse.Pleaselookat pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway costs/occupant/mile.IheardsomethingonNPRyesterdayabouthowa Improvements. freighttraincancarryatonofgoodsforcloseto500milesononegallonof diesel.Let'sgetrealaboutourenergyuseandhowitsupportsthevery Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal thingsweobjecttointherestoftheworld.Ifwekeepbuyingtheoil,how combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA canweobjecttowhattheychoosetospendthatmoneyon?Pleaseletme andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon knowhowtosubmitmycomments.Thankyou. theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.CommuterrailofPackageAandthePreferredAlternative providesanalternatemodeforI25andUS287travelers;but theprojectedridershipresultsinonlyanegligibleeffecton highwaytraffic.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

ThePreferredAlternativewasdevelopedthroughaseriesof workshopswiththeproject'stwoadvisorycommittees,as describedinGeneralResponse#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Thecommitteesidentifiedimprovementstoincludebasedon theircommunity'sdesires,theNorthI25PurposeandNeed (FEISChapter1.0)andthetechnicalanalysisofalternatives. Thecommitteesprioritizedsafetyandmobilityneedsnorthof SH66alongI25asaneartermpriority.Constructingrailfirst andwithoutimprovementtoI25wouldnotaddressthe identifiedprojectneedstoaddresssafety,aging infrastructure,andmobilityonI25.However,therewasa desirebythecommitteesandthepublictoshowastrong commitmenttotheconstructionofrailinthefuture.Thiswas achievedbyincludingthepurchaseofallrightofwaynecessary toconstructtherailinPhase1.

Chapter6.FinancialAnalysisprovidesinformationonthecost peruserbymodeoftravel.Thisanalysisshowsthatthecost peruserforcommuterrailishighest(over$70peruser)and Page 281 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thecostperuserofhighwayimprovements(includethecostto ownandoperateyourownprivateautomobile)islowest(less than$5peruser). Thetransitservices,asprovidedbyeitherPackagesA,B,and thePreferredAlternative,offeramodeforregionaltripsthatis morefuelefficientthanindividualprivateautomobiles.Note thatduetolesstrafficonI25,totalenergyuseforPackageB (360,371BTU)islessthanthatofPackageA(361,900BTU)or thePreferredAlternative(362,222BTU).Whilecommuterrail offersanenergyefficienttransportationmode,itdoesnot overcomethetrafficdifferencesamongthealternatives. 863 Karen Nystrom StrongsupporterofpackageA.Railisthewaytogo,morelanesonI25isnot Commentnoted. goingtoworkinthelongrun.Weneedtocatchupwiththerestoftheworld andputinrail. 864 Bernice Pollock IpreferoptionAoverplanB.IamalifetimehomeownerandresidentofFort Commentnoted. CollinsandIfeelverystronglythatrailbebuiltASAP.Projectisverymuch needed.Itneedstobebuiltnow,Icannotwaitanotherlifetimeforittobe Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation built. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 865 Jean Sanderson IsupportoptionA Commentnoted. 866 Linda Vrooman IstronglysupportoptionA,especiallytherailoption.Imovedhere11/2 Commentnoted. yearsago,IhadachoicebetweenPortlandORorhere.Iamoriginallyfrom NewMexico.Iwantedtoliveinaplacewithrail,Ichoseherebecauseitisn't ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail ascold.Railwillmakeuslessdependentonoilandonpersonalcars.Ithink fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe railiswhatwillbestserveusinthefutureandIwouldlovetohaveitsoIcan NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing visitmyfamilyinNM. toDenver.Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeed rail(79–125mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anew railalignment,and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswas consideredduringthealternativesdevelopmentprocess.These alternativesweredeterminedtonotbereasonableoptions becausetheydonotmeettheprojectpurposeandneed,as definedinChapter1,oftheFinalEISduetolimitedstations andgreaterstationspacingnecessarytosustainspeed.Overall, itwasdeterminedthattheseoptionswouldnotestablishthe Page 282 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 VerbalCommentsviaProjectHotline

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

desiredconnectivitytomanynortherncommunities. Commuterrailwasfoundtobethemosteffectivesolutionfor thiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 867 Mary Willard AstworetirededucatorsmyhusbandandIarestrongsupportersofoptionA. Commentnoted. 868 Papan Adams Hopefullyusing287railroadlinesratherthanstraighthardI25. Commentnoted. 869 James& Allen WestronglysupportacommuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFe Commentnoted. Harriett railcorridor. WedonotsupportlaneadditionstoI25.Oneneedsonlytogotosouthern InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Californiatoseewhatwearebecoming.However,weseemalwaystohave pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway togivecarandtruckloverssomethingtheywantorelsewehavenohopeof Improvements. gettingconvenient,taxsupportedpublictransportation. Therefore,Isupposewearecompelledtogoalongwithlaneadditionsand interchangerebuilds–allofwhichencouragepeopletodrive—inhopesof gettingarailline. 870 Anonymous Weneedtobuildourfuture.Thepopulationalongthefrontrangeof Commentnoted. Coloradoisgrowing,andwillcontinuetogrowatafasterpaceforthe foreseeablefuture.Weneedtodevelopatransportationinfrastructurethat willaccommodatethepopulationgrowthandthenincreasinglyregionalized jobmarketinColorado.AddinglanestoI25willnotdecreasecommuteruse; inotherpartsofthecountrywehaveseenthatmorelanesmoretrafficwith nochangeincongestionincommunities.Commuterrailisavitaloptionthat canreducetrafficandcongestionalongI25.Byalleviatingthenegative effectsofsinglevehiclescommutingonairqualityandfostereconomic developmentalongthefrontrange.LosAngeleshadthisoptioninthe1950’s Page 283 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

butdeclined.WecanmakeaninformedchoiceandencouragetheDOTto makeachoiceforqualityofrule,preservationorournaturalresourcesand theColoradoeconomy. 871 David Aqpsadde PreferrailtorunonexistingtracksnotonI25. Commentnoted. 872 Adam Banducci AcommuterrailthroughFortCollins,Loveland,LongmontandDenverwould Commentnoted. bemorebeneficialthananexpansionofI25.Arailwouldalleviate congestion,provideforbetterairqualityandalleviatethecostofgasfor InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, NorthernColoradoresidents.Inadditionitwillallowforlessstressanda pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway betterwayoflifeforcommuters. Improvements. 873 Camilla Barrett Pleasehelpalleviateourairpollutionandtraffic,whichisalreadysignificant Commentnoted. andwillbeunbearableby2030.BycreatingabuslinetoDenverASAP.Asa citizenofFortCollins,ifIalsohadtheoptionofacommuterrailtoDenver,I InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, woulduseitfrequentlyandwoulddrivetherealmostnever.Wemust pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway becomemoreprogressivewithourtransportation! Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 874 Dorothy Bauckman Assomeonewhochoosesnottoownacaritwouldbeincrediblyhelpfulto Commentnoted. havefasterandcheapertransportationoptionsaroundColorado.Thelackof transportationtosurroundingcommunitiesseriouslylimitsemployment optionsIwouldalsodefinitelymakeuseofacommuterrailtoDenver,which wouldhelpmaketripstotheairportlessstrenuous. 875 Shelley Bayardde Wecannotmoveintothe21stcenturywithoutrapidtransitamongour Commentnoted. Volo communities.IgrewupinSo.Californiaandgrewupintheuttermessofthe So.Californiatransportationsystem.Don’tmakethatmistake!Give commutersoptionsotherthanpollutingcars.Evenwithnonpollutingcars, trafficisaproblem.IwouldshopandvisitDenvermoreoftenifIcouldcatch atrain.Itwouldalsoopenemploymentopportunities,Iwon’tdrivethere however. 876 Alexander Beerhorst DevelopingcommuterraillinestoDenverwilltakeawhile.Thetimeis Commentnoted. comingwherefuelpriceswillbeprohibitivelyhighandpeoplewillwant othermeansoftransportation.Thatiswhywemustbegintheinvestmentin Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Page 284 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

railnow.Inthemeantime,bustransportationwouldbeaneconomic steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost solution.WeneedtokeepColoradoFutureminded!Wewantbusandrail Issues. linesnow. 877 Kathy Benedict IsupporttheplanningandimplementationofacommuterrailthroughFort InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Collins,LovelandandLongmont.Pleaseconsiderthatweshoulddevelop pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway masstransitoverenablingindividualcarstoreduceemissionsandbuilda Improvements. strongercommunitybyprovidingaffordabletransportationforallinthe future.AdditionallyinyourplansdoaccountforincludingDenver Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal internationalAirportwithouthavingtotraveldirectlyintoDenverproper. combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA Thanks! andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.Ineachalternative,transitusersfromnorthern communitiescanaccessDIAviabuswithoutgoingthrough downtownDenver.InPackageA,CommuterBusfromUS85 goestoDIA.InPackageB,BRTgoestoDIAfromFortCollins.In thePreferredAlternative,ExpressBusfromCountyRoad8 goestoDIA. 878 Asa BenHur CongestiononI25isonlygoingtoincrease.Addinglanesisnotasustainable Commentnoted. solution.Weneedalternativestousingourcars.Sincerailserviceswilltake timetoconstructacommuterbusisagoodinterimsolution. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 879 Cameron Berry WewantacommuterrailthroughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmontto Commentnoted. DenvernotexpansionofI25. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 880 Travis Bigg IsupportalightrailonexistingtracksasanalternativetoexpandingI25. Commentnoted.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Page 285 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 881 Erin Bisenius It’stimeforcommuterrail!Ionlysupportthebusasatemporarymeasure Commentnoted. untiltherailisupandrunningIdonotsupportexpandingnorbuildingmore roadsatall! InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 882 Janet Bray AbuslinetoDenverthroughFortCollins,Loveland,andLongmonttoDenver BusservicealongUS287wasconsideredduringthe isneeded.Thisisnotfinancialgoodtimesnowbutwhenis? alternativesdevelopmentprocessbutwasnotadvanced becausetraveltimeswerenotcompetitiveforregionalservice andthereforeridershipwaslow.Commuterrailserviceinthat corridorismoreappropriateandattractshigherridershipand isincludedaspartofthePreferredAlternativeandPackageA.

ThePreferredAlternativeincludesexpressbusserviceonI25 betweenHarmonyRoadand84thAvenue,withservicetoFort CollinsalongHarmonyRoadandservicetoGreeleyalongUS 34.ExpressbusservicewillalsoserviceDenverInternational AirportalongE470.

Page 286 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 883 Jessica Breemen IcommutefromFortCollinsN.toDenverforcollegeandwork.Ispeakfor Commentnoted. myselfandallotherswhocommutethesameroutethatweneedlightrail servicebetweenFortCollinsandDenver. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 884 Marcia Brokish OurfamilywouldliketoseealightrailsystemfromFortCollinstoDenver, ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail notmorelanesonI25. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 885 Lucilla Bruned TheneedforpublictransportationtoDenverisnoted.Bustransportationto Commentnoted. Denvershouldbeapriorityandplansforrailtransportationshouldbegin now. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Page 287 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

886 Luke Caldwell Thefutureforourcommunityistoinvestinmasstransit.Icompletely Commentnoted. supportandvoteforchangesinthewayswetransportourselves. TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 887 Anne Carey ItwouldbegreattohavealightrailfromFortCollinstoDenveralong287 PackageAandthePreferredAlternativeeachpropose (NotI25). commuterrailontheBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesa BRTsystemonI25.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferent technologythanlightrail.Lightrailwasconsidered,butwas eliminatedbecauseoftheservicedistancesinvolvedand inabilitytooperateinafreightrailcorridor.Commuterrailcan operateinfreightrailcorridors,andcanachievefasterspeeds overlongercorridorsincontrasttolightrail.Commuterrailhas beenidentifiedforthiscorridorandisconsistentwithRTD plans. 888 Katie Cassis AcommuterrailthroughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmonttoDenverNOT Commentnoted. expansionofI25isawonderfulidea!Weareinfullsupportaswebelieveit wouldbethemostcosteffectivewiththeleastimpactonourcommunity. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Thankyou. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 889 William Castle Ifavoroption1withraillinestoandfromLongmont.IfneedbeIcouldwalk Commentnoted. toanintownraillocation. 890 Kate Chappelle IusedtocommutetoDenver.Havingacommuterrailwouldhavehelpedout Commentnoted. tremendously.ManyofmyclientscommutetoDenverandallhave commentedthatpublictransportationisverymuchneeded.Itwouldbe fasterandlessstressfulthandrivingwhichwouldimprovetheirqualityof life.Itwouldbelessexpensivewhichwouldenablethemtospendmorein thiscommunityorsave,orpaydowntheirdebts.Jobsinthecommunityare. 891 Maggie Clark IamincompletesupportofabuslinetoDenvernowandcommuterrail Commentnoted. throughFortCollins,Loveland,andLongmonttoDenverinthelongterm. Thesenewtransportationoptionswillreducetraffic,congestion,and Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation improveairqualityinourcommunities.Iaminfavorofanyactiontoreduce steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Page 288 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

sprawlalongI25andthesenewtransportationoptionswillonlyencourage Issues. growthinourcitycenters. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 892 Catherine ColeJanonis EverytimeIdriveI25Ifeelguilty.Allthatoil.Allthosefumes.Isn’ttherea Commentnoted. betterwaytotravelthatwouldbebetterfortheenvironment?Ifwehada lightrailsystemIwouldmakeeveryefforttoutilizeit.Whilewewaitforrail, ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail abusservingFortCollinstoDenverwouldbemorethanappreciated.Iused fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe tousethebusthatexisted. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 893 Rardon Conck IwouldstronglysupportsomeformofpublictransportationfromFortCollins Commentnoted. toDenver.IopposeexpandinglanesonI25. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 894 Esther Croak Please,pleasesupportaninitiativetobuildarailsystemtoDenver.Thisis Commentnoted. themostsustainableoptionandwouldbewellworththecostfortheoptions itwouldofferNorthernColoradoans! 895 Ed Crothers Despitetherecentreductionoffuelcosts,itisimperativethatthelong Commentnoted. neglectedplansformasstransportationbedevelopedinatimelymanner. Theneedformasstransitwillonlygrowgreaterandmoreexpensivethe Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation longerthisissueisputoff. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. Page 289 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

896 Keith Dameron Package"A"isthebestsolution. IncontrasttoPackageA,thecommuterrailincludedinthe PreferredAlternativeissingletrackedbetweentheSouth IhaverealquestionsaboutsomeofthecapitalcostsincludedinPackage"A": TransitCenterandthedowntowntransitcenterinFortCollins, IdonotbelieveweneedtodoubletracknearlyalltheBNSFrightofway achievingcostsavingsandlessenvironmentalimpactsasyou fromLongmonttoFt.Collins.Certainsection(andeverystation)shouldbe suggest. doubletrackedbutportionsofsingletrackwillstillworkandsavealotof money! DuringthedevelopmentofthephasingofthePreferred It'sNOTnecessarytobuildtherailconnectionfromLongmonttoThornton Alternativemuchconsiderationwasgiventothesectionof immediately.ItcanbedoneovertimeasRTDfinishedtheirtracktoHwy7. commuterrailbetweenthetwoFasTracks'raillines(North FasTracksconnectionatLongmontwouldstillexistviaBouldertoDenver MetroandNorthwest)thatgenerallyparallelsSH119andCR7. usingcommuterrail.AlsotheLXbuscanrunfromLongmontsouthusingI25 Throughthisevaluationthephasingofthissegmentis ... identifiedforlaterstages,asyousuggest. ThecommuterrailstationsdoNOTneedtobesofancywithanoverhead bridgetotheothertrack!(Itmaybenecessaryatsomestations)Savemoney Thelayoutoftherailstationshavebeendevelopedto bycrossingthetracksatheplatform. maximizesafetyandtravelerefficiency. ThecommuterbusonHwy85isagoodidea!GreeleytoDenver. Aretheestimatedhighwaycostsaccurate?RTDfoundcostshaverisen BothPackageAandthePreferredAlternativemaintain greatlyforsteelandconcrete.IsuspectCDOTmightbeaffectedbythisalso. commuterbusserviceonUS85. .. Ridershipnumbersappearlowforcommuterrail.Historicallyeveryrail Inordertoprovidethemostaccurateopinionofprobablecost, transitprojectexceedsthepredictednumbersestablishedinyour'formula.' FHWAandCDOTconductedaCostEstimateReview.Thecost Tolllaneusageappearshigh.E470justreachedtheirprojectedvehicle estimatereviewisanunbiasedriskbasedreviewtoverifythe usageinthelastyearorso.Thatis,thenumberstheyprojectedonopening accuracyandreasonablenessofthecurrenttotalcostestimate daytookover10yearstoachieve. tocompletetheprojectandtodevelopaprobabilityrangefor Package"B"leansveryheavilyonthetheorythatnearlyeverybodycan(or thecostestimatethatrepresentsthecurrentstageofproject wantsto)drive.StudiesIhaveseenshowamuchhigherridershipon design.Partofthisstudyistoalsoreviewtheproposed passengerrailoverabus.Ibelievebyafactorof4!! constructionscheduletodetermineitsimpactontheproject LanduseimpactsstronglyfavorPackage"A" cost.Duringthecourseofthereviewtheteamidentifiedand Thecostofmaintainingnewtrafficlanesismoreexpensivethanyouthink. discussednumerousthreatsandopportunities.Athreatis CDOTneedsmoreemployeesandvehicleswhentheyaddlanemiles. anythingthatcanaddtothecostoftheproject.An opportunityisanythingthatcanreducethecostoftheproject. Thisprobabilisticanalysisresultedinacostestimateatthe70% confidencelevelof$9,474.9million(inYearofExpenditure [YOE])forthePreferredAlternativeoftheNorthI25Project. ThecostforPhaseIatthe70%confidencelevelwas$1,271.2 million(YOE).YOEaccountsforescalationincoststhatis Page 290 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

expectedtooccurovertimeforprojectsconstructedinfuture years.

Thetransitridershipmodelwascalibratedandvalidatedto observedtravelpatternsintheDenverarea.Projectionsare basedonempiricalbehavioroftravelers,aswellasfuture geographicalprojectionsofpopulationandemploymentand estimatedtriporiginsanddestinations.Recenttravelsurvey datacollectedbyDRCOGindicatesthat,asyousuggest,current actualridershipishigherthanhadbeensimulatedinthe model.Section4.2.6.3describesthepotentialeffectthese behaviorchangesmighthaveonridership.Forexample, commuterrailridershipmightbehigherbyabout40%thanthe earliermodelestimates.

Thetolllaneusageestimateswerepreparedusingstandard trafficandrevenueindustryforecastmethodology,as explainedinSection4.2oftheFinalEIS.

Indeed,railtendstoattractmoreridershipthanbusservice. Differentialfactorsaredependentupontheunique characteristicsofindividualcorridors.

ApotentialbenefitofthecommuterrailofPackageAandthe PreferredAlternativeisthatitwouldprovidegreater opportunityforTransitOrientedDevelopmentnearrail stations.However,anexpertpanelconvenedtoassesstheland useimpactsofPackageAandPackageBconcludedthatthe impactsalongthehighwayweresimilarforbothpackages.See Section3.1.2oftheFEIS.

Operationsandmaintenancecostsarefullyaccountedforin Chapter6oftheFEIS,forbothhighwayandtransit components.

Page 291 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

897 Lynn Davies WeneedareliablecommuterrailconnectingDenverwithNorthColorado Commentnoted. Communities!(Soonerratherthanlater) Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 898 Cheryl Day IurgeyoutoaddresscongestionalongtheI25corridorbybuildinga Commentnoted. commuterrailsystembetweenFortCollinsandDenver.Therearealready existingtracksthattravelthroughtheheartofFortCollins,Loveland,and Longmont.Largenumberofpeople,includingthosethatworkatorattend CSU,wouldbeabletowalktointownlightrailstations.Inaddition, commuterraildoesn’tdegradeourairqualityinthewaythatautotraffic does.Peoplewilldriveless,conservingnaturalresources,butonlyifviable publictransportationalternativesexist. 899 Kelly Deligio CommuterrailthroughFortCollinstoDenverismuchdesiredinmy Commentnoted. householdforsafetyandeconomy.Idon'twanttohavetomovefromFort Collinsformyjob!IdratherlivehereandnotDenver. 900 Kyle Dickey It’ssimplyridiculousthatwedon’thaveanextensive,reliablecommuterrail Commentnoted. fromNorthernColoradotoDenver.Therearemultitudesofpeoplewho benefitfromandtakeadvantageofacommuterrail.Businesscommuters andconcertenthusiastsalonewouldjustifythis,thiswouldcutbackona significantamountofpollution,saveatremendousamountofenergyand provideasafermeansoftravel. 901 Alison Dickson Mostpeopledon’tlivealongI25.TheyliveclosertoHwy287.Therefore Commentnoted. moremasstransportationpotentialuserswouldfindsomethingcloserto287 ratherthanI25moreuserfriendly.Also,itneedstobequick,ratherthan InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, stoppingevery5minutesatmanycities. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridor. CommuterrailalongI25wasscreenedoutasitprovidesless accesstopopulationcentersthantheBNSFcorridor.

Notethatthestationlocationswereselectedtooptimize Page 292 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

transitservice.Abalancemustbestruckbetweenproviding frequentaccesstotheserviceandlimitingthenumberofstops tomaximizeoverallspeed.Thestationspacingproposedfor boththecommuterrailandbusservicesisconsistentwithboth theneedsofthecommunitiesalongthecorridorsandthe selectedtechnologies. 902 Coby Drum WewantabuslinetoDenverandacommuterrailthroughFortCollins, Commentnoted. Loveland,andLongmonttoDenver. 903 Anthony Earl CommuterrailintoFt.Collins,N.ColoradoandDenverwillencourage Commentnoted. constructivegrowthandpositiveinteractionsbetweenthecitiesandtheir communities.Thiswillleadtonewandinterestingbusinessesand opportunitiestoenricheveryone. 904 Mark Easter ImplementinganeconomicallyfeasiblemasstransitsystemalongtheI25 Commentnoted. corridorismoreimportantnowmorethanever.Thiswouldrelievepressure onI25eliminatingtheneedformorelanesorroadways.TheU.S.isdecades InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, behindinmasstransitcomparedtotheinternationalcommunity.Thisneeds pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway tochange. Improvements. 905 Heidi Ericksun Donotdevelopinundevelopedareas.Keepconstructionimpactoftrafficto Commentnoted. aminimum. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 906 Rachel Estle IwouldlovethelightrailfromDenvertoFortCollinsbutpleaseno8lane ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail highway. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Page 293 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 907 Lisa Falloon TheColoradoDepartmentisconsideringthreemorealternativesIbelievethe Commentnoted. buildingcommuterrailfitsthegrowingneedforsafesouthboundtraffic.I25 hasbecomesodifficulttouse.Heavytrafficathighspeedsissodangerous. Theincreasedpollutionthatcomeswithallthattrafficisruiningour environment.Lightcommuterrailsolvessomanyproblemswithoutcosting asmuchastryingtoaddlanestoI25.I25expansionwillalwaysbeout datedbeforeitiscompleted,thesafetyissuesduringconstructionarealways aconcern.Andthefinalproductdoesn’tactuallysolveanyoftheproblems. 908 Allison Floyd Continuingtosolvethetransportationproblembyexpandingtheuseof Commentnoted. singlepersonvehiclesisabsolutelyirresponsible,aswesawthispast summer,weareatthemercyofforeignnationsthathavenoparticular incentivetomitigatetheflowofcashfromheretothere.Additionally,weall paythepriceofclimatechangetotheextentthatwecannotfindalternatives toourcurrentrouteofgreenhousegasemissions.Icarpoolbetweenfront rangecitiesdailyandwouldloveanalternative! 909 Jane Folsom ItiscriticalthatataminimumabusroutefromWellingtontoDenveris Commentnoted. created,fundedandfunctionalin2009.Weneedthisservicenow.Plusas thisservicebecomesmorepopularwithNorthColoradocitizenswehavea Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation basepopulationtogetoffthebusandontoabrandnewlightrailsystem. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Gasisn’tgoingtostayatunder2.00pergalforever,weneedtoleadandnot Issues. follow. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Page 294 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 910 Cory Forrester Idowantalightrailtransportationsystemthatrunsthroughthecenterpart Commentnoted. oftown. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 911 Ariana Friedlander IthinkthattomeettheneedsofourgrowingcommunitythattheI25North Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal projectshouldincludeabuslinetoDenvernowandacommuterrailinthe combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA longterm.Ibelieveincreasedpublictransportationoptionswillbettermeet andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon ourneedsandbebetterfortheenvironmentthenwideningI25. theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.ThePreferredAlternativewouldalsoincludeexpressbus servicealongI25andcommuterbusservicealongUS85. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 912 Joni Friedman Toencouragemoreusageforcommunitiesitwouldworkfarbettertohavea Commentnoted. commuterrailsystemthenmoreusageofI25.Iwouldusecommuterraila lot! 913 Phil Friedman RealcommuterrailthrutownbasedbetweenFortCollinsLovelandGreeley ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Longmontetc.toDenverhighspeed,fast,efficientandfrequent.Providea fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe bustransitsystemnowwhilewerampupthecommuterrailsystem. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing AvoidingI25withrailavoidsundesirablegrowthoutside. toDenver.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. Page 295 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 914 Barbara Gibbens Iamwritingashortletterofsupporttoencourageyoutohelpmakealight Commentnoted. rail(usingexistingtracks)fromDenverheadingnorthareality.Thetraffichas justgottenworseandworse(asyouwellknow!).Whenmydadwasdriving ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail forthegovernmentagencyheworkedforafewyearsago,hewouldsay fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe therewasmoretrafficonI25at2:00amthanthereusedtobewhenhefirst NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing movedtoColoradoat2:00pm!Pleaseseriouslyconsideranythingand toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology everythingthatwillalleviatesprawlandsmog.Air:Forpeoplewhobreathe. thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail Farmland:Forpeoplewhoeat. corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 915 Jim Glenn IsupporttheideaofacommuterrailpassingthroughthecitiesoftheFront Commentnoted. RangeratherthandowntheI25corridor. 916 Margaret Graham It’sessentialthatourstatehaveefficientaccessibleandsustainable ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail transportationalongtheFrontRange.Pleaseuseexistingtracktodevelopa fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe lightrailsystembetweenFortCollinsandDenverby2015.Istronglysupport NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing thisinitiativeandIvote. toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand Page 296 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

isconsistentwithRTDplans.

TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 917 Diana Greer Firstimpressions: 1]YouarecorrectthatPackageBconcentratestransportation 1)PackageBseemsDenvermetroarea&I25centric.Seemsaimedatjust improvementsontheI25corridor,whilePackageAandthe gettingpeopletoDenver.2)WithPackageB,mostoftrafficwouldtravelI PreferredAlternativeincludeimprovementsonmultiple 25,whathappenswhenanaccidentclogsI25ifeverythingfeedsintoI25? corridors.However,allthreebuildpackagesareintendedto 3)PackageAseemstobetteraddressneedsofcommunitiesfurtheroutfrom meetthepurposeandneedestablishedfortheproject. I25.4)WheretheimprovementsaremadesuchaswhenRR'sfirstcame affectsthevalueofthepropertyalongside.Hasthisbeenconsidered?5)How 2]PackageBdoesnotattractnotablymoretraffictoI25than dowegettoDIA?Isthedemandtoolowforsomethingmoredirect? otherbuildpackages.UndereachofthebuildalternativesI25 attractsasimilarleveloftraffic.IfthereisanaccidentonI25 inPackageBorPreferredAlternative,tolledexpresslanes couldbeopenedtogeneraltraffic.Incontrast,PackageAdoes nothavetheflexibilityofprovidingseparatelanetypesforthis potentialuse.However,PackageAandthePreferred AlternativedoprovidealternatemodesoftravelonUS85and US287thatcouldbeusedinlieuofI25,ifnecessary.Eachof thebuildalternativesalsoincludesacourtesypatrol/incident managementprogramtominimizedelayscausedbyaccidents.

3]Commentnoted

4]Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning.

5]ThecommuterrailserviceofPackageAandthePreferred AlternativebetweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenverhasa connectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines. BothoftheFasTrackslinesconnecttodowntownDenver wheretravelerscantransfertotheFasTrackseastcorridorto Page 297 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

reachDIA.Inaddition,thePreferredAlternativesincludes expressbusservicealongtheI25,HarmonyRoad,US34,andE 470corridorsthatprovidesdirectconnectionsfornorthern ColoradotravelerstodowntownDenverandDIA.PackageB includesaBRTroutetoDIAfromthenorthernfrontrange.

Also,thePreferredAlternativeincludesadirectExpressBus servicefromWeldCountyRoad8toDIAviaE470.Thisstation atCountyRoad8canbeaccessedviaprivateauto(usingthe parkandride),feederbusservice,expressbusservicefrom northerncommunities,orthecommuterrailline.(SeeChapter 2Alternativesforadditionaldetail). 918 Sabrina Grieser PleaseconsiderwithtoppriorityacommuterrailservicefromFortCollinsto Commentnoted. Denver.ThisisbestforairqualityinNorthernColoradoandalsoless expensivetobuildthanautoorHOVlanesonI25 Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI 25.

HighwayimprovementsincludedinthePreferredAlternative (generalpurposelanes,tolledexpresslanes,frontageroads, crossstreets,etc.)areexpectedtocostapproximately$1.4 billionfor555newlanemiles.Thisequatestoabout$2.5 millionperlanemileorabout$23millionpermile.Commuter railimprovementsareexpectedtocostapproximately$649 millionorabout$14millionpermile.

Chapter6.FinancialAnalysisalsoprovidesinformationonthe costperuserbymodeoftravel.Thisanalysisshowsthatthe costperuserforcommuterrailishighest(over$70peruser trip)andthecostperuserofhighwayimprovements(include Page 298 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

thecosttoownandoperateyourownprivateautomobile)is lowest(lessthan$5perusertrip). 919 Kevin Griffith AsaresidentofNorthernColorado,IaskCODOTtoprovideopportunityfor Commentnoted. publictransitinthearea,especiallybetweenNorthernCOtownsandDenver. Mypreferenceisrail,butanyeconomicaloptionwouldbeofvalue.Thank you. 920 Leah Hager ItisbothcrucialtoourenvironmentandthelongtermvitalityoftheFort ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Collinseconomyandculturethatacommuterrailbebuiltonexistingthru fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe towncorridors.Thereisanundeniableexplosionofpopulationand NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing developmentallalongthenorthernFrontRange.Ifwesimplythinkin toDenver. traditionalandoutdatedtermsabouthowtorespondtothisgrowth,andit’s resultingtransportationneeds,wejeopardizetheveryaspectsoftheFront NotethatPackageAandthePreferredAlternativeservethe Rangethathaveattractedresidentsfromalloverthecountry:pristine populationcentersofFortCollins,Loveland,Berthoud,and wilderness,farmlands,andbreathtakingviewsofourmountains.Itisour Longmontwithcommuterrail.PackageBservesthese responsibilitytothinkandplanprogressively,lookingforwardtothefuture populationcenterswithBRTservicetotheFortCollinsSouth ofhealthy,safe,andenvironmentallyresponsiblecommunitiesfromFort TransitCenter;andfeederbusservicetotheI25BRTfromthe CollinstoDenver.Pleaseinitiateaplantostartacommuterrailsystemto othercommunities. serveColoradoansalongtheFrontRangeimmediately.Thankyouforyour attentiontothisurgentmatter. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 921 Elisha HanfordSmith Giventheconcertingtimesinoureconomyandwithglobalwarmingit’svital Commentnoted. thatweactincreatingabetterpublictransportationsystemlinkingNorthern Colorado. 922 Brisa Hanna Isupporttheideaofimprovingairqualitythroughtheimplementationofa Commentnoted. commuterrail(throughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmonttoDenver)that doesnotexpandI25. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 923 Kimberly Harstmann WeneedacommuterrailfromFTCtoDenverespeciallyinsteadofadded Commentnoted. autolanestoI25.Costwisebetter,greenwiseimportant.Coloradohas alwaysbeenaleaderinhavingahealthycommunityandgreenactivities. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Please,atthetimewithglobalwarminginthecenterofattention,makethe pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway choicesthatwillbenefitthefuturegenerations. Improvements. Page 299 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

924 Steven Hartman Pleasestartseriouslyconsideringbetterpublictransportationservicessuch Commentnoted. ascommuterrailsandbusroutesbetweenFortCollinsandsurroundingareas andDenver.Itwouldbebeneficialforworkingclasscitizens,travelers,etc. andalsohelpourenvironment.IfNorthernColoradoisoneofthefastest growingurbanareas,weneedPublictransportationtogoalongwithit. 925 Keira Havens IwantcommuterrailthroughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmontto Commentnoted. Denver,NOTEXPANSIONOFI25. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 926 Alex Hernandez PleaseconsiderthePublicCommuterRailplan,notonlyisittheleast Onapermilebasiscommuterrailimprovementsareless expensivebutithasgainedpopularityinmanyotherareas.Thishas expensivethanhighwayimprovement.Highwayimprovements profoundeconomic,environmental,andculturalimplicationsthatcantruly includedinthePreferredAlternative(generalpurposelanes, helpLarimerCounty. tolledexpresslanes,frontageroads,crossstreets,etc.)are expectedtocostapproximately$1.4billionfor555newlane miles.Thisequatestoabout$2.5millionperlanemileorabout $23millionpermile.Commuterrailimprovementsare expectedtocostapproximately$649millionorabout$14 millionpermile.

Onaperusertripbasishighwayimprovementsarecheaper thanrailimprovements.Chapter6.FinancialAnalysisprovides informationonthecostperuserbymodeoftravel.This analysisshowsthatthecostperuserforcommuterrailis highest(over$70perusertrip)andthecostperuserof highwayimprovements(includethecosttoownandoperate yourownprivateautomobile)islowest(lessthan$5peruser trip). 927 Richard Hershcopf WithregardtothedraftversionoftheNorthI25EISwestronglysupport Commentnoted. optionA.WehavelivedinFortCollinsfor40yearsandweareinour80’sand cannolongerdrivetoDenverasweusedto.OptionAinourjudgment ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail affordsthemosteffectiveconvenientandefficientmethodofsolvingor fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe relievingtheveryserioustrafficconditiononI25.Thecommuterlightrail NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing alongtheexistingrailroadcorridormakesagreatdealofsense,especiallyby toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology continuingthecenterofthecommunitiesaffected.Itwillalsofacilitate thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail Page 300 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

commercialdevelopmentinthedowntowncenters.Thankyouforlettingus corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors comment.Publicinputisalwaysimportantandworthwhile. incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 928 Peter Hevenor WewantcommuterrailthroughFortCollins,Loveland,andLongmontto Commentnoted. Denver.NotexpansionofI25. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 929 Nate Hoffman IhavelovedonesallovertheFrontRange,havinggrownupinBoulder, Commentnoted. attendingcollegeinDenverandpresentlyresidinginFortCollinsandworking inLoveland.Ihavefamilyandfriendsspreadthroughoutthearea.Busline InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, betweenFortCollinsandDenvernowandcommuterrailintheeventualwill pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway helpbringpeopletogetherinawaycurrentlyimpossible. Improvements. 930 Darcy Hoggnh AbuslinetoDenvernowandacommuterrailthruFortCollins,Loveland, Commentnoted. andLongmonttoDenverinthelongterm. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 931 Arne Holmes PleaseconsideroptionAinplanningthefutureofpublictransportation Commentnoted. betweenNorthernColoradoandDenver.OptionAwillbemuchmore convenientforpeopletousebecauseitwillbringtheraillinestotown.Itwill savetaxpayermoneybecauseofusingexistingraillines.Itwillpromote downtownsandareasintownwherethestationswillbeplaced.Pleaseopt foroptionA. 932 Deborah Homan WewouldlovetoseecommuterrailconnectingFortCollinswithDenver,and TheregionaltransitservicesprovidedbyPackageA,PackageB, alsotoDIA.Wheneverweareinothercitiesorcountrieswithtrainsor andthePreferredAlternativeeachoffermobilityoptionsfor metros,weusethemforourtransportationneeds.Commuterrailshouldbe theelderly,disabled,andyoungadults.Inparticular,the aprioritybeforeitbecomesmoredifficultwithallthegrowthalongtheI25 PreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailservicebetween Page 301 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

corridor.Railmakessensetogetfromonedenselyusedareatoanother, FortCollinsanddowntownDenveralongtheBNSFandSH119 especiallytheplaceswhereparkingisalreadytight.Railisalsoeasierto withaconnectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestrail figureoutthanbusroutesandprovidesserviceforelderly,handicapped,and lines.BothoftheFasTrackslinesconnecttodowntownDenver youngerpeoplewhodonotdrive.Weliveandworkdowntown,walkto wheretravelerscantransfertotheFasTrackseastcorridorto destinationsfrequently,andhaveasonwhodoesnotdrive.Heusesthebus reachDIA.Inaddition,thePreferredAlternativeincludes andwalks.Iamverytiredofseeingsomuchofourlocaltransportation expressbusservicethatprovidesadirectconnectionfor planningdirectedtobicyclistsattheexpenseofpedestriansorignoringthe northernColoradotravelerstoDIA. disabledandelderly.Regionaltransportationisveryimportant,too,andit wouldbegreattoseeNorthernColoradotryingtomeetthoseneedsinways EachofthepackagesincludesadditionallanesonI25asa thathelpenvironmentallyandcommunallywedon'tneedmoreroadsor resultofthelanduseplannedintheregionandtheanticipated lanesfortrucksandSUV'swithfewpassengers.Pleasemakeitagoaltohave travelpatternsin2035.Theadditionallanesareneedednotto apublictransportationsystemthatiseasyforalltouse,andwewon'tneed provideatimesavingscomparedtocurrentconditions,butto tohaveallthoseadditionallanesandinterchangesfor…Evenifthereisatime provideareasonabletraveltimetohandletheanticipated savings. trafficgrowthintheregion.BasedonthisdataI25willneedto bewidenedsouthofSH14toaccommodateanticipatedtravel demand,whichcouldnotbeaccommodatedbytransit improvementsalone.Notethatnoneofthepackagesproposes additionalinterchangesonI25.

Thetransitservicesofferedbythepackagesgenerallyprovidea comparabletraveltimecomparedtogeneralpurposelanesto downtownDenver.ThetransittraveltimebetweenDenverand FortCollinsis93minutesforPackageAcommuterrail;70 minutesforPackageBBRT;94minutesforPreferred Alternativecommuterrail;and63minutesforPreferred Alternativeexpressbusin2035.CommuterRailwouldbefaster thanthe132minutesforautotravelintheNoAction,and fasterthanthegeneralpurposeautotraveltimeof107to117 minutesinthebuildalternatives.Thetraveltimecomparison forallalternativesandallmodesisavailableinChapter4ofthe FEIS.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Page 302 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

933 Paul Honeycutt WeneedbetterpublictransportationbetweenFortCollinsandtheMetro Commentnoted. DenverArea!Haveyouevertriedtogettherewithoutacar?Itsimpossible. 934 Gerry Horak Wecannotbuildourwayoutofcongestionwithmorelanemiles.Weneeda Commentnoted. multimodalapproachfocusingonbusesintheneartermandcommuterrail inthemidandlongterm. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 935 BT Huntley Mytoptransportationpriorityisacommuterrailsystem.Itbordersonthe Commentnoted. ridiculousthatourstatehasstillnotembracedthisoption.Manyofmy facultytravelfromDenverandLongmonttoteachinFortCollins.Theywould allusethissystemorabussystemwereitavailable.Greatchangecomes fromleaderswillingtotakerisksandfromthosewillingtopushintopeoples comfortzones.Thewildwestisgone,it’stimewerecognizedthatfact! 936 Bill Jenkins MyopinionisthatPackage"A"wouldbetheoverallbestsolutionforpeople Commentnoted. transportation.Downtowntodowntownconnectivitywouldbeabetter focusedeffortregardingthemostefficienttransportationsystem.PackageB Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand putstoomuchemphasisonI25developmentwhichIbelieveisnot transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 sustainableoverthelongrun.PleasegoaheadwithPackageA. –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 937 PordeliaK. Jeron IsincerelybelievecommuterrailthroughFortCollins,Loveland,and Commentnoted. LongmonttoDenverwouldinthelongrunbethebestdecision.Mason wouldbeaverygoodchoice. 938 David Jones Isupportthedevelopmentofanorthernfrontrangecommuterbuslike Commentnoted. betweenFortCollinsandDenver.Alongtermpriorityshouldbeacommuter railalongthesamecorridorandDIA. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 939 Kim Jordan NewBelgiumBrewingCompany500LindenSt.FortCollins,CO80524 Commentnoted. Ascofounder/CEOandSustainabilityDirectorofthenation’sthirdlargest craftbrewery,wearewritingtoexpressourstrongsupportforPackageA Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation withintheNorthI25DraftEIS. steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost EnvironmentalstewardshiphasbeenacorevalueofNewBelgium’ssinceour Issues. inception.OurcoworkersutilizetheI25corridorquiteoften,andwewould bepleasedtohavetheoptiontotravelbyrailaswefeelitistheonlysolution InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Page 303 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

onthetablethatwillbenefitourenvironmentandourhealth. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Byinvestingincorecitytransitsystems,PackageAwillincreasealternative Improvements. transportationoptionsand,bydoingso,willreducegreenhousegas emissions,vehiclemilestraveled,airpollution,andColoradocitizens’ financialcostsoffuel.Itwillreduceourimpactstoopenspace,wildlife habitatsandrivercorridorsanddirectlyaidurbanrenewalplanningin NorthernColorado. NewBelgiumispurposefullylocatedintheheartofOldTownFortCollins. Wechosethissiteoverlessexpensiveoptionsoutsideoftownbecausewe wantedourcoworkerstohavetheopportunitytoridetheirbikesandwalkto work,therebyincreasinglytheirqualityoflifeandhelpingthemtohavea smallerimpactontheenvironment.PassengerrailalongtheFrontRange wouldalsoaidinthiseffortbyreducingmilesdrivenincars,currentlyour onlyoption. Therealityofourclimatecrisisiswidelyknown,andweareseeing governmentsandprominentbusinessesacrosstheworldmakeconcerted effortstoreduceourimpactontheenvironment.Transportationplaysakey roleinthisendeavor,andtheavailabilityofpassengerrailwillgreatly increasetheabilityofourFrontRangecommunitiestoplanandimplement sustainabledevelopment.Coloradoisquicklyemergingasaleaderinthe NewEnergyEconomy,andwestronglyfeelaprogressiveand environmentallywisetransportationplan,asdescribedinPackageA,will solidifyourleadershiprole. Onbehalfofourselvesandthe300coworkersemployedbyNewBelgium,we urgeyoutosupportPackageAfortheI25NorthCorridor.Wealsostrongly encourageyoutoimplementthepassengerrailsystembeforeI25isfurther widened.Byinvestinginpassengerrailfirst,the1.3billiondollar expenditureforwideningI25maybesignificantlydelayedorpossibly unnecessaryandwillsignificantlyreduceongoingmaintenancecostson northI25. 940 Ross Kantz WouldrathernothaveraildownI25. RailalongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduringthe alternativesdevelopmentprocess.CommuterrailalongI25 wasscreenedoutasitprovideslessaccesstopopulation centersthantheBNSFcorridor.Therefore,thePreferred AlternativeincludescommuterrailservicebetweenFortCollins anddowntownDenveralongtheBNSFandSH119witha Page 304 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

connectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroandNorthwestraillines. 941 Les Kaplan ThedraftdesignfortheEastFrontageRoadbetweenMulberryStreetand ThePreferredAlternativedoesincludechangestothefrontage ProspectRoadbendseastandbecomesadeadendculdesacacrossLot1of roadasnotedinthecomment.Withthepreferredalternative, theLeeMinorSubdivision,therebymakingthisplottedlotundevelopable.In thefrontageroadontheeastsideofI25wouldextendsouth ordertoprovidetwopointsofaccesstothisandotherpropertiesfrontingI fromMulberryStreetandendinaculdesacatthesouthern 25,includingtheInterchangeBusinessPark,thisEastFrontageRoadshould endofLot1ofLeeMLD.Thisfrontageroadalignmentwas remaininaNorthSouthconfiguration,connectingMulberryStreetand chosenbecauseitwouldmaintainaccesstotheexisting ProspectRoad. residencesandbusinessesthatcurrentlyaccessthefrontage (CopyofDec.8’08lettertoThomasW.Anzia,elaboratingonabove road.Theroadbecomesaculdesactoprovideaccesstothe commentsisattached.) historicfarmbutavoidimpactingit.Itwasnotpossibleto DearTom: retainaconnectiontoProspectRoadandavoidthehistoric PleaserecallthatwemetearlyintheeveningofthePublicHearingforthe farm.Whilethisprocessdoesworktomaintainexisting NorthI25EIS,heldatNovember19attheFortCollinsLincolnCenter.We accesses,itdoesnotaddressallpotentialfutureaccesspoints discussedmyconcernsregardingthecurrentdraftmodificationtotheEast thatcouldberequestedbyunplattedparcels.Itisimportantto FrontageRoadbetweenMulberryStreetandProspectRoad.Ihave notehowever,thatthefrontageroadalignmentcanbe submittedaCommentsFormtoCarolParratCDOT(copyattached),and changedtomeettheneedsoffuturedevelopmentplanning wantedtoelaboratemyconcernstoyoudirectly. throughyourlocalplattingandapprovalprocess.CDOTwill Ascurrentlydepicted,thefrontageroadwouldnolongerconnectProspect participateinthisprocess,asappropriate,andisanadvocate RoadandMulberryStreet.Tothenorth,itwouldfollowitscurrent ofrealigningthefrontageroadstomeetfutureplattingneeds. configuration,butendwithaculdesacbendingtotheeastonLotIofthe LeeMLDinwhichmycompanyownsaninterest.Therationalefornot Asnotedinyourcomment,muchofLot1islocatedwithinthe continuingtoconnectProspectRoadandMulberryStreetwithafrontage FEMAfloodplainandfloodway.Itissuggestedthatyouwork roadisnotapparent,andonewouldthinkthatcontinuingtoprovidetwo withtherelevantlocalauthoritiesregardingfloodplainand pointsofaccessfromthefrontageroadtobothLot1andotherpropertiesto accessconcernsfortheproperty. thesouthcurrentlyfacingthefrontageroadhasmerit. Moreover,endingthesouthextendinglegofthefrontageroadascurrently shownonLotIisridiculous.MuchofLot1isintheFEMAfloodplainand floodway.Suchaculdesaccouldsignificantlyunderminethealreadylimited developmentpotentialofLotIandrenderthispropertynondevelopable. Additionally,endingtheFrontageRoadonLotIwouldbeextremely confusingtomotoristswhowouldunderstandablybeexpectingtheFrontage Roadtocontinuesouth.Basically,thedraftdesigntakesafunctioningand logicalconditionofconnectingtheFrontageRoadtotwoarterialsand replacesitwithaconditionthatwouldpromoteerranttraffictoadeadend road,2)forcelocaltrafficbetweenProspectRoadandMulberryStreetonto Interstate25,3)significantlyburdenLotIoftheLeeMLDand4)restricttoone Page 305 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

pointofaccessfuturedevelopmentalongtheFrontageRoad,includingLotl. Iwouldcertainlyliketomeetwithyou,arepresentativefromCDOTand whomeverelseyourecommendtodiscusswhatevertherationalemaybefor notcontinuingtoconnectProspectRoadandMulberryStreetviathe FrontageRoadandtoexplorealternativestothecurrentdraftdesign.Thank youforyourattentiontotheseconcerns. 942 Milan Karspeck Istronglysupportcommuterrail(OptionA)becauseitconnectthe Commentnoted. populationcenters,encouragesmorepeopletoutilizetransitbecausethey liveintheproximityofarailstation.MosttripsintheNorthFrontRangeare AnalysisofpotentialrailalignmentsintheFinalEISconcurs withintheregion,populationcentertopopulationcenter(ratherthanto withyoursentimentthatthecommuterraillineshouldtravel downtownDenver),andrailsupportsthesetravelpatternsbetter.Iwould throughandservedirectlythewesterncommunities.Asa liketoseesome"averagetraveltime"summarycomparingrailtoBRT,rather result,thePreferredAlternativeincludescommuterrailalong thatjustthecomparisonoftraveltimefromFt.CollinsandGreeleytoDUS. theBNSFtyingintoRTD'sFasTracksraillinesintwolocations, Also,IwouldliketoRCC/TACtoconsiderusingtheoriginalrailalternativeto LongmontandThornton. connecttotheNorthwestCorridorratherthanbuildingnearrailalongHwy 119andS.intoDenver.Thiswouldsignificantlyreducethecapitalcostof TraveltimesinsteadofaveragespeedsareprovidedinChapter OptionA. 4oftheFEISforpurposesofmoreprecisecomparisons betweenmodes.ThetransittraveltimebetweenDenverand FortCollinsis93minutesforPackageAcommuterrail;70 minutesforPackageBBRT;94minutesforPreferred Alternativecommuterrail;and63minutesforPreferred Alternativeexpressbusin2035.CommuterRailwouldbefaster thanthe132minutesforautotravelintheNoAction,but slowerthangeneralpurposeautotraveltimeof107to117 minutesinthebuildalternatives.

DuringthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternativemuch considerationwasgivingtothepossibilityofeliminatingthe sectionofcommuterrailbetweenthetwoFasTracks'raillines (NorthMetroandNorthwest)thatgenerallyparallelsSH119. Theproject'stwoadvisorycommitteesreviewedinformation aboutthecostofthatsectionofthelinecomparedtothe traveltimesavingsandridershipincreases.Throughthis evaluationofcostsandbenefitsthecommitteesoptedto retaintheentirecommuterrailalignmentinthePreferred AlternativeincludingtheportionalongSH119. Page 306 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

943 John Kefalas AplanforintegratingcommuterrailconceptfromNI25corridorto InformationontheNorthI25EIScommuterrailwillbeusedby statewidecommuterrailsystem.DoesDEISconsiderlongtermfinalcosts, CDOTinthedevelopmentoftheirstatewiderailplan.The publichealthcostsincreaseddrivingpollutionconcerningcost CDOTstatewiderailplaniscurrentlyunderway. effectivenesspublicbenefits?BenefitofTODlessurbansprawleconomic developmentjobcreation CommuterrailalongtheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailroad tracksbetweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthMetroend oflinestationinThorntonandtheNorthwestRailendofline stationinLongmont,isincludedinthePreferredAlternative. SeeChapter2AlternativesintheFinalEISformoredetailed informationonthePreferredAlternative.ThePreferred Alternativecommuterrailwouldtieinwithandbe interoperablewithtwoplannedcommuterraillinesinRTD's serviceareaNorthMetroandNorthwestCorridorto maximizeusermobility.

Thelongtermcostsareconsideredforeachofthealternatives. ThecapitalcostsofPackageA,PackageB,andthePreferred Alternativeare$1.963billion,$1.715billion,and$2.178billion respectively.TheannualoperatingcostsofPackageA,Package B,andthePreferredAlternativeare$45million,$23million, and$52millionrespectively.

Regardingincreaseddriving,PackageBactuallyresultsinless overallvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)comparedtoPackageA andthePreferredAlternative,duetotheslightlyless attractivenessofitsTELandgeneralpurposelaneconfiguration onI25comparedtotheotherbuildpackages.Noneofthe buildpackageswouldprovideareductioninairpollutionwhen comparedtotheNoActionAlternativeexceptforthoseair pollutantsassociatedwithtrafficcongestion(carbonmonoxide andhydrocarbons).Airqualityanalysisaswellasfurther informationonpublichealthcostsofthepackagesis documentedinChapter3oftheEIS.

Commuterrail’sinfluenceonlanddevelopmentpatternswas examinedbyanexpertpanelconvenedtoevaluatethe Page 307 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

alternativesregardinginducedgrowth.TheeffectofPackageA, PackageB,andthePreferredAlternativeongrowthpatternsis describedinSection4.2.7:Sincethehighwayimprovements aregenerallysimilarbetweenthepackages,asimilaramount ofgrowthnearI25isanticipatedforanyofthepackages. HoweverthecommuterrailinPackageAandthePreferred Alternativewouldintensifythedensityofdevelopmentsnear stationsinthecitycenters.Whilethetransportationsystem caninfluencelandusepatterns,developmentisregulatedat theleveloflocalgovernment.TheTransitOriented Development(TOD)fosteredbythePackageAandPreferred Alternativecommuterrailstationsincitycentersdoessupport awalkableenvironment,withitsassociatedpublicand communitybenefits.

Theeconomicbenefitsofthecommuterrailincludelongterm growthofpropertytaxbaseandrevenuesasaresultofTOD. ThesebenefitswouldbesimilarunderbothPackageAandthe PreferredAlternative.UnderPackageBeconomicbenefits relatedtoTODarealsoexpectedinrelationtothe developmentofBRTalongN.I25howeverthebenefitsare expectedtobemorelimitedasstudiesshowthatthedemand forTODislowerinrelationtoBRTcomparedtocommuterrail. UnderthePreferredAlternativedevelopmentofthecommuter railandexpressbuscomponentscanbeexpectedtoresultin thehighesteconomicbenefitsrelatedtogrowthinproperty taxbaseandrevenuesforthecommunitieswithintheregional studyarea.Seesection3.3.2foradditionalinformation regardingEconomicImpactsoftheAlternatives.

TheFinalEISevaluatedtheoverallcostsandbenefitsfor transportationimprovements,environmentalresources,social resources,economics,anddevelopmenteffects.SeeChapter7, EvaluationofAlternatives.

Page 308 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

944 Larry Klatt Istronglysupportthecommuterrailalternativeasapivotalsolutionto Commentnoted. futuretransportationneeds.It’sthemostpragmaticideawithrespectto moneyandtheenvironment.PLEASEstronglyconsiderthisalternative.Thank you! 945 Bob Klebes IfeelthatinorderforNorthernColoradototrulyaddresstheenergyissues ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail andthefuturewemustcreatealightrailtoDenver.Inadditiontoeasing fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe trafficandloweringpollutionwewillalsoimprovebusinessinourmajorcity NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing duetoincreasespendinginDenver.Itistherightmovenowandforthe toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology futureofourstate. thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Thetransitservices,asprovidedbyeitherPackagesA,B,and thePreferredAlternative,offeramodeforregionaltripsthatis morefuelefficientthanindividualprivateautomobiles.Note thatduetolesstrafficonI25,totalenergyuseforPackageB (360,371BTU)islessthanthatofPackageA(361,900BTU)or thePreferredAlternative(362,222BTU).Whilecommuterrail offersanenergyefficienttransportationmode,itdoesnot overcomethetrafficdifferencesamongthealternatives.Note thatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnologythanlightrail. Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrailcorridors,andcan achievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridorsincontrasttolight rail.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorandis consistentwithRTDplans. 946 KennethD.& Knievel ThankyouforthisopportunitytocommentontheCOOTProposalsfor Commentnoted. Marjorie improvingthenorthI25trafficproblem.Itisachallengewehavetoface.I amaLovelandnative,inmy80's,soIhaveseenfirsthandallmylifethe InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, neverendingincreaseintrafficbetweenFortCollinsandDenver. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway IamdefinitelyinfavorofPackageA.IknowitisalreadyapossibilityasIwas Improvements. acollegestudentinDenverduringthe1940's,andIcouldtakethetrainfrom LovelandtoDenver,andmyhusbandtookthetraintotheUniversityof Page 309 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ColoradoinBoulderatthattime.Themostimportantconsiderationintrain transportationisthattheymustrunonschedule,sothatyoucancounton beingwhereyouneedtobeontime.TrainsinEuroperunontime,soIknow itispossibleforustohaveequallydependableservice. Ialsoaminfavoroftollroads.Imentionedthatmyhusbandwasan EngineeringstudentatC.U.duringthe'40's.Oneoftheirprojectswas designingthe"TollRoad",Highway36fromBouldertoDenver.Itwaspaid offlongbeforeitwasexpected,anditisnolongeraTollRoad.Inmoststates evenafterthetollroadispaidfor,atollisstillcollectedtopayforthe upkeepofthathighway.IthinkColoradomayhavetoadoptsuchaplanin ordertokeepupwiththeincreasingdemandforourhighways.Peoplewho usetheroadsneedtohelppayforthem. Thankyouforthisopportunitytoexpressmyopinion.Youhaveavery challengingjob,butaverynecessaryone.Iwishyousuccessintheplanning andimplementation\onofallyourprojects. 947 Linda Knowlton IstronglyfavorPackageAoverPackageB,althoughmyrealchoicewouldbe Commentnoted. the"noaction"alternative.Ibasicallydon'tthinkweshouldbedoing anythingtoencouragepeopletolivefarfromwheretheywork.But AlternativeAwouldatleasthonortheindividualcommunitiesinthecorridor ratherthandrivingalldevelopmenttoI25andendangeringtheviabilityof downtownsfromFortCollinstoLongmont. 948 Ray Krueger I’vetraveledaroundtheworldandhaveseenbetterpublictransportation Commentnoted. solutionsnearlyeverywhere.Howcantherichestcountyintheworldalso remainthedumbest? 949 Jason Kruta WitheverincreasingpopulationofNorthernColoradoanderraticgasprices, Commentnoted. weneedtosolveourregionaltransportationnightmares.Ibelievea commuterrailfromFortCollinsdowntoDenver,andpossiblyfurther,isthat Thepurposeandneedoftheprojectistoidentify solution. improvementsbetweennorthernColoradocommunitiesand theDenvermetropolitanregion.Thisprojectdoesnotpreclude futuretransitexpansionstofurtherareas. 950 Maggie Kunze IhaveafriendwholivesinDenverwithnocar.Heisabletogetaround Commentnoted. metroDenvernoproblem,whenheattemptstocomeherethebusisover soldandnotaccessible.Pleasemakemasstransitapossibilityformany peoplewhoneedtomakethecommute. Page 310 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

951 Michael Kurtz Iwouldlikearailintown.AndweneednomoredevelopmentonI25. ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridor. CommuterrailalongI25wasscreenedoutasitprovidesless accesstopopulationcentersthantheBNSFcorridor.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 952 Andrea Laleta Publictransportation,notmoreroads,istheanswertothemesswecallI25! Commentnoted.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 953 Monica Lamberz IwantacommuterrailthroughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmontto Commentnoted. Denver,notexpansionofI25toreducethepollutionthathindersourview ofthosebeautifulRockyMountainsandtohelpwiththespiralofglobal InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, warmingthatisuponus!!ItwouldbesuchapleasuretorideintoDenver pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway withmyfamilytoseeashow,touramuseumorattendaneventwithoutthe Improvements. hasslesofdriving! 954 Lynda Laughlin IbelieveitwouldbegreattohavecommuterrailthroughFtCollins,Loveland Commentnoted. andLongmonttoDenver. 955 Christopher Leck OpeningupcommuterrailfromFortCollinstoDenverwoulddramatically Commentnoted. impactmylifeforthebetter.IgrewupoutsideofChicagoandamveryused totakingthetrainintothecityforballgames,museumsandshows.Alsowe InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, couldopenupCSUasacommuterUniversitytoahugeportionoftheFront pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Range.PuttingaraillinethroughtheheartofFrontRangedowntownsallows Improvements. ustoleaveourcarsathomeanditconnectscommunities.Don’tbuildouton I25!! 956 Cristie Lee IsupportDraftEISPackageAforthefollowingreasons: Commentnoted. •COMMUTERRAIL! •Favorsmasstransitoverroads. ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements •Betterdistributionofservices;busservicefromGreeleytoDenver,I25for onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF vehicletraffic, corridor.Inaddition,toprovidegreateraccesstotransitforall •Commuterrailforthepeopleifyoubuildit,theywillcome! communities,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor,express Page 311 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

•CommuterraillinewouldconnecttoFasTrackslineinThorntonwhich,in busalongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusservicebetweenthe effect,extendscommuterrailallthewaytoDenverUnionStation. mainlinesandoutlyingcommunitiesareincludedinthe •CommuterraillinewouldconnecttoFasTrackslineinLongmont,go PreferredAlternative.Alsonotethatyes,thereisevidencethat throughBouldertoDenverUnionStation;wouldmaketakingthetrain "choicetransitriders"thoseridersthathaveothermeansof convenientandefficientformorepeople. transportationanddonotneedtousetransitdopreferrail •Morechoices;bus,vehicle,rail transittobus.Thisisgenerallybecauserailprovidesmore •Morereductioninvehicletraffic reliableandcomfortableservicethanbus. •Lesstrafficnoise •Lessimpacttothreatenedandendangeredspecies Intermsofhighwayimprovements,thePreferredAlternative IdonotsupportPackageBforthefollowingreasons: includessafetyimprovementsthroughoutthecorridor,the •Nocommuterrail additionofgeneralpurposelanesonI25betweenSH14and •MosttrafficisstillconcentratedalongI25. SH66,tolledexpresslanes(TEL)onI25betweenSH14andUS •NoservicesfromGreeleytoDenver. 36,andinterchangeimprovements. Inmyopinion,peoplearemoreinclinedtousecommuterrailthanrideabus. IurgeyoutoidentifyPackageAasthePreferredAlternativefortheproject. Thereisnotimelikethepresenttomaketherightchoiceforthefuture. Thanksforconsideringmycomments. 957 John Lesmeister ThisletteristourgetheColoradoDepartmentofTransportationtochoose Commentnoted. OptionAforthefutureoftheI25corridor.Commuterrailtransithasamuch lessadverseimpactonpublicsafety,publichealthandtheenvironmentthan InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, continuationofthesameoldsolutionofmorelanesandmorecars.Therapid pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway transitandtolllanealternativesalreadyoperatingintheDenverareahave Improvements. notbeenveryeffectiveduetoinsufficientuse.Sowhyconstructmoreof them?Ontheotherhand,commuterrailsystemsaroundtheworldare ThePreferredAlternativeisacombinationofPackagesAandB. usuallyusedbymorepeoplethanthepreconstructionestimatesproject. ItincludescommuterrailalongtheBNSFrailroadtracks Theyaresafeandpeoplefindwaystomakethemmoreconvenientfortheir betweenFortCollinsandtheFasTracksNorthmetroendof personaluseastimegoeson. linestationinThorntonandtheNWrailendoflinestationin Theperpersonperusecostcomparisonof$57.00forOptionAversus$0.27 Longmont,commuterbusalongUS85betweenGreeleyand forOptionBismisleadingandsomewhatlikecomparingappleswithoranges. downtownDenver,interchangereconstructions,andthe Itdoesnotaccountfortheeverincreasingrealcostsofairpollutionandthe additionofgeneralpurposelanesandtolledexpresslanes everincreasinghealthcarecostsfromsuchpollutionorfrommorevehicle alongI25.Feederbusservicewouldbeprovidedtobringlocal accidentsasmorecarsusetheroads.Furthermore,OptionAincludesthe traffictothecorridortrainserviceorexpressbusservice.More capitalcostsoftherailcarsin,its$57.00perpersonperusecalculationwhile detailedinformationconcerningthePreferredAlternativeis OptionBfailstoincludethecapitalcostoftheindividualdriver'scarsasthe includedinChapter2AlternativesoftheFinalEIS. actualtransportvehicleusedontheroad.Consequently,the$0.27costper personperuseassertedforOptionBisgrosslyunderestimated.Ifthereisno Regardingthenumberofusersofexistingfacilities,information Page 312 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

optiontoindividuallyoperatedcarsasthetransportvehicleandmorecars aboutE470canbefoundathttp://www.e470.com;andRTD usetheI25corridorasthefrontrangepopulationincreases,thecost canbecontactedathttp://www.rtddenver.com.Regarding calculationof$0.27perpersonperuseforOptionBbecomesevenlessand usercosts,theaveragecostperuserincludingthecostof furthermisleading. privateautomobilesis$4.47fortheNoAction,$5.26for ThelongrangefutureoftheFrontRangewilllikelyinvolvecontinual PackageA,$5.08forPackageB,and$5.14forthePreferred increasesinenergy,pollution,publicsafetyandpopulationgrowthcosts.The Alternative.SeeChapter6FinancialAnalysisformore sameoldsolutionstotransportationneedshavebeenandwillcontinuetobe information. inadequate.Itistimetomakepublicinvestmentsthatactuallysolve problemsratherthanassuringtherecontinuationtofuturegenerations.Itis timeforbroadervisionandimplementationofcommuterrailservicein OptionA. 958 Susan Lizak Passengerrail(packageA)isanalreadyexistingBNSFraillineandeasily Commentnoted. utilizesaccessforourestablishedtownshipswestofI25fromFortCollinson South.EspeciallyFortCollins,Loveland,Longmont,Lafayette.Eacholdtown InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, centerhasanhistoricrailstationthatservicedourneedsfromconceptionto pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway thetimewhenrailtrafficwasnolongersubsidized.Alldepotshaveparking Improvements. lotsadjacenttothemnotbeingused.OurOldTowncentershavequaint restaurantsandshopsthatwouldbenefitfromcommutertraffic.Ourtown Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand centersarevitaltoourtownshipsidentitieswithgalleriesandcultural transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 attractions.AFortCollinsCollegestudentcouldcatchaBroncostrainto –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. DenverinsteadofabusoradaytripfordowntownDenvertoUnionstation foraRockiesgamewithoutdriving.Thisimpactismutuallybeneficialto Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Sportsfansandcommutersonadailybasis.Ienjoyvisitingmydaughterin steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost DenverandwouldlovetocatchatraintoUnionStationforhertopickmeup Issues. toshopandlunch.Thedepotiswithinwalkingdistanceofmyresidencein Berthoud.ASeniorRailPasspricewouldbegreatincentivetoretiredfolksto visitthebigcityalongwithastudentIDpricingtorKids. The"mainstreetfund"mayhaveawaytohelpwithrevitalizingthisdepot ideaasit'smainpurposeistoboostoldtownmainstreetareas.Parking Garagesasnewventuresindependently. IhaveutilizedrailcommuterlinesfromsuburbsofChicagoforfunand SeattlefromPortlandtogotoanartfestivalwiththewholefamilysight seeing.ItissoworryfreecomparedtoI25drivingespeciallyafterdarkorat rushhour.Thetraingoesrighttoyourstopnomissedexits,notrafficjams, andsomuchcleanerairthanRTDbusridesthatIhavetaken. PleasestayawayfromtheI25IDEA.TheBNSFlineisresponsibleforour Page 313 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

townshipsexistenceandisamuchbetterwaytoeasilyaccessrailtraffic. MuchlessdrivingforourpopulationcentersonthewestsideofI25and insurestherailusage. 959 Marilee LongSaxe AvoteforpackageAusingtheBurlingtonNorthernTracks! Commentnoted.

TheidentificationofthePreferredAlternativecameabout throughacollaborativedecisionmakingprocess,asdescribed inGeneralComment#0–DecisionMakingProcess. Considerationwasgiventopublicinputreceivedthroughout theEIS;however,notethatvotingisnotapartoftheprocess. 960 Melissa Lopez IamgravelyconcernedabouttheprospectofbuildingmorelanesonI25, Commentnoted. thisnotonlyencouragesmoredrivingbutdoesnotaddresstheefficiency andlogictousethecurrentinfrastructureinFortCollinsforlightrailbecause ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail ofit’seasyaccessforthedensepopulation. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 961 Terri Lupezowetz WiththepopulationofNorthernColoradoeverincreasing,thereisapparent Commentnoted. needtoexplorealternatetransportationmodes.Thestateofoureconomy andenvironmentcommandsthatwekeeppushingforpublictransportation toconnectourcities.Ihavealwaysbeeninclinedtosupportaraillinesystem andbelieveactionneedstostartrollingbeforeweuseupallourspace. 962 Julie Lynam Asthefrontrangebecomesincreasinglypopulatedthecommutertrafficwill ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail naturallyincrease.Coloradoismiserablybehindonit’sresponsetothis fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe populationincreaseintheFortCollinstoDenvercorridor.Puttinglightrailin NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing Page 314 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

wouldmakesense,bothintryingeconomictimesaswillasinresponseto toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology currentecologicalneeds.ColoradoneedslightrailthroughFortCollinsto thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail Denver. corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 963 David Macphee Westronglyendorseanincreaseinfundsformasstransitalongthefront Commentnoted. range.WebelievethatabuslinefromFortCollinstoDenverasan immediate,viableoptionbutthelongtermsolutionmustinvolvea Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand commuterrailsystemliketheoneNewMexicoisbuildingbetweenSantaFe transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 andAlbuquerquedownthemedianofI25.Increasethegastaxanduse –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. developmentfeestoreducegreenhousegassesandurbansprawl.Pleaseact nowbeforethesituationgoesfrombadtoworse. 964 David March ExpandingI25willleadtomorecarsandpollutionIbelievecommuterrailis Commentnoted. agoodideafornorthernColorado.ItwillcombatbothproblemsandIknowI wouldpersonallyusesuchasystem. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 965 Jamisen Martin NorthernColoradohasalargenumberofcommutercommunitiesalongtheI Commentnoted. 25corridor.Apublictransitalongthiscorridorwouldattractmany professionalswhochoosetoliveoutsidethecapitalandcommutetowork. Myself,Idrive60milesadayroundtriponaroutethatcouldeasilybemade tohavepublictransitavailable. 966 Justin Mauck Weneedplansforsomesortofmasstransitsystem(railed)alongtheFront Commentnoted. RangeofColoradobeforeresidentialandcommercialdevelopmentmakesit impossible.Todoso,thisiskeytothegrowthandsustainabilityoftheregion. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 967 Elizabeth Mayo IstronglysupportlightrailfromFortCollinstoDenverespeciallynotifplaced ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail closetoI25.Highway287ispreferable. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail Page 315 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 968 Janet McCulloch Isupportcommuterrailusingthehighway287corridor.IDONOTsupport RailalongtheI25corridorwasconsideredduringthe railservicealongtheI25corridor.UsingI25isanightmareatpresent.Andit alternativesdevelopmentprocess.CommuterrailalongI25 isadetrimenttothecommunitiesalongtheFrontRangetopourmore wasscreenedoutasitprovideslessaccesstopopulation moneyforexpansionintothatcorridor. centersthantheBNSFcorridor.Therefore,thePreferred AlternativeandPackageAincludescommuterrailservice betweenFortCollinsanddowntownDenveralongtheBNSF andSH119withaconnectiontoFasTracksNorthMetroand Northwestraillines.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 969 John McGuire IwouldlikeacommuterrailthroughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmontto Commentnoted. DenvernotanexpansionofI25.Thiscouldutilizeexistingtracks. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 970 Stephen McLullach AbuslinetoDenvernowandacommuterrailthroughFortCollins,toDenver Commentnoted. inthefuture.Wedon’twantsprawlalongI25. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Page 316 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 971 Karen McMcinus WhatweneednowaswehaveneededsinceImovedherein1978isa Commentnoted. commuterrailfromNorthernColoradotoDenver.Howmaytimeswillallof uswitnessthehightrafficcongestionfromFortCollinstoDenverandthe Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation unnecessaryaccidentsthatoccurbecauseofitbeforeweallmaketheright steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost decision.Iurgeyoutocreatethiscommuterrailnow.Weneedtodecrease Issues. thecarbonfootprintandincreaseourgoalofasustainabletransportation source. 972 Brad McNutt IbelieveacommuterrailinNorthernColoradoisagreatideatoreduceair Commentnoted. pollutionandtoprovideasensibleresourcefordailycommuters.Witha growingpopulationintheareadirectlycontributingtoincreasedtrafficand autopollution,thiswillbeaneffectivestrategytoreducecarbonemissions.I donotcommutetoDenvereverydaybutIknowIwouldusearailtotravel forpersonalreasons. 973 Pat McVey Fordecades,we'veknownweneededfastcommutertrainsfromnorthern Commentnoted. CotoDenver.Whydowekeepaddingmorelanesinsteadoftrainswhenso manyotherstateshavegonedownthatroadtotheirperil:impossible ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail pollution,dangeroushighways,anditisneverenough. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe IusedtoliveinNJwheretheykeptaddinglanestotheturnpike.Theycould NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing neveraddenoughandthecancerrateandrespiratoryproblemscontinueto toDenver. raiseastheairqualitydeteriorates.Theyalsoneglectedtodevelopsufficient fastcommutertrainsandseemcaughtinthesamenowinraceweareinthe Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 earlystagesof.ItissoveryhardtoreverseasCaliforniahasalsofound. mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, Wehaveanopportunitynowtomakeaveryimportantdecisiontogivethe and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring nextgenerationcleanerair,lesscostlyandsafertransportation,andhelp thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere withglobalwarming. determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot EveryoneI'vetalkedtowantscommutertrainsfromFtCollinstoDenver.Itis meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of soclearthatitistheonlythingthatmakesanysense. theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe Page 317 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 974 Sara Melena Moreroads/laneswillmakeiteasierforpeopletodrive,morepeoplewill Commentnoted. driveandthentheywillwantmorelanestoeasecongestion.Abusjustrides withthetraffic.Whytakeabusintrafficifyoucoulddrive.Acommuterrailis InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, theonlyoptionifColoradoiscommittedtocleanairandsmartgrowth.Ina pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway timewhengasisexpensiveweneedtothinkofnonautotransportation. Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 975 Horton Nash AsaFortCollinscommunitymember,Iwantcommuterrailontheexisting Commentnoted. railwaysthroughoutColorado. 976 Kent Nixon Ifeelinthesehardeconomictimesweneedtofocusonmethodsof Commentnoted. transportationthatsupportasustainablefutureforNorthernColorado.I believeacommuterrailthroughFortCollins,Loveland,LongmonttoDenver wouldalleviatethisnotexpansionofI25. 977 Rob Noble ImprovingmasstransportationbetweenlargepopulationcentersinColorado Commentnoted. shouldbeatoppriority,andthestateshouldutilizeexistingraillineswhich alreadyrunthroughtowncenters.Thisplancanbeimplemented ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail immediately. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Page 318 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 978 Casey Opdahl Ifullysupportexpandingpublictransportationbetweenournorthern PublicTransportationimprovementsproposedunderall Coloradocommunities.AsIlookforwork,theabilitytocommuteto alternativesareexpectedtoimproveaccessandexpand Wellington,orLoveland,orevenDenverwouldbegreatlybeneficial,butthe employmentopportunities.ThePreferredAlternativewith abilitytocommutewithoutrelyingonexpensivevehiclesI’drathernotown expansionofpublictransportationincludedalongallcorridors (carsetc.)wouldbothexpandmyeconomicopportunitiesandminimizeugly wouldprovidethemostcomprehensivepublictransportation sprawl. improvementsandimproveaccessthroughouttheregionthe most.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 979 Buff Palm PleaseincreasetrainandlightrailalongtheFrontRange.Freewaysare Commentnoted. expensive.Thousandsoflivesarelostduetotrafficaccidentsandmanymore aremaimed.Patrollingroads,upkeep,andsnowremovalareallexpensive. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Sandistakenfromtaxrolesaslanesareincreased.Ourairbecomesmore fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe polluted.IjustreturnedfromNewYorkCity.TheNewYorkTimesreported NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing that,despitepopulationgrowth,autouseandpollutionhavedecreasedas toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology peopleusemoretrainsandsubways.IrodethreesubwaysfromGrand thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail CentralStationtomydaughtersinBrooklyn,andittook25minutes.Adrive corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors wouldhavetakenmuchlongerandcostmore.Raisegastaxes(apercentage incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis ofprice?)topayforrail.Pleaseleadthewestinpassengerandfreightrail. corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit Wecouldavoidwarbynotneedingforeignoil.Peopleareflockingtolight choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand railwheneveritisintroduced.Thankyou. isconsistentwithRTDplans. 980 Jonmikel Pardo CommuterrailistheonlyanswertotransportationissuesalongtheI25 Commentnoted. corridor.Weneedtostartdevelopingthesenowandnotwaitanylonger! ThenumberofpeoplewhocommutetoDenverisgrowingallthetimeand changesarethatthey’relivinginFortCollinsbecauseofallofthegreen natureofthissmallcity.Sowhatbetterwaytoencourageecofriendly lifestyles?Manyofthesepeoplewouldtakeadvantageofsuch transportation,especiallytocatchaquicknapbeforework! 981 Jane Philer IwantcommuterrailthroughFortCollins. Commentnoted.

Page 319 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver. 982 Citizensfor Pollock TheonlyonewhichincludespassengerrailontheBurlingtonNorthernSanta Commentnoted. Smart FelinesisPackageA.PackageBincludesaddinglanestoI25andbusservice Transportatio toDenver. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, n PackageAalsoincludesadditionallanes. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway WeareadvocatingtheimplementationofthepassengerrailONLYfrom Improvements. PackageA.RailservicefromFortCollinstoBoulderandDenverwill significantlydecreaseairpollution,gasolineusage,andincreasepassenger safetyforcommuters.Therearecountlessothergoodreasonsforcommuter rail,mentionyourfavorites.

ItisofmywishesthatCDOTimplementthePassengerrailONLYfrom PackageA. 1.Thiswouldincreasepassengersafety(nomorelanesoftrafficonI25!) 2.Decreaseuseofcarswithlesspollutionandlessgasolineusage 3.Moreaccessibletransportationforseniorcitizens/children 4.Canbeaverycosteffectivemodeoftransportation 983 Bill Pool CommuterbusestoDenverwouldbehelpfulintheshortterm.Ultimately, Commentnoted. commuterrailwouldbeagreathelptotransportationontheFrontRange. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 984 Owen Richard Iwouldlikeatemporary,23year,buslineestablishedalongtheI25corridor Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal fromwellingtontounionstation,Denveruntilapermanentlightrailsystem combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageB canbebuilt. proposesaBRTsystemonI25,andPackageAandthe PreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailontheBNSF corridor.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnologythan lightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrailcorridors, andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridorsincontrast tolightrail.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridor andisconsistentwithRTDplans.

Page 320 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 985 Jesse Ryan IsupportrapidtransitandCommuterBustransitalongI25NorthCorridoron ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail theshortterm.Inthelongterm,asquicklyasfeasible,Isupportcommuter fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe railalongtheI25corridor.IfthiswereanoptionbetweenFortCollinsand NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing Denver,(evenBoulderandColoradoSprings)Iwouldrarelytakeacaralong toDenver. thecorridor.Istronglysupporttransportationwhichwoulddecreasecarbon emissions. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Superhighspeedrail(>125mph)andhighspeedrail(79–125 mph)alongexistingfreightrailcorridors,anewrailalignment, and/oralongexistinghighwaycorridorswasconsideredduring thealternativesdevelopmentprocess.Thesealternativeswere determinedtonotbereasonableoptionsbecausetheydonot meettheprojectpurposeandneed,asdefinedinChapter1,of theFinalEISduetolimitedstationsandgreaterstationspacing necessarytosustainspeed.Overall,itwasdeterminedthat theseoptionswouldnotestablishthedesiredconnectivityto manynortherncommunities.Commuterrailwasfoundtobe themosteffectivesolutionforthiscorridor.

TheRockyMountainRailAuthority (http://rockymountainrail.org/)recentlycompletedafeasibility studyofhighspeedrailintheI25frontrangeandI70 mountaincorridors.Therailserviceconsideredbythisstudy servesadifferentpurposeandneedthantheNorthI25EIS. ThecommuterrailproposedinPackageAorthePreferred Alternativedoesnotprecludeotherpotentialrailservices. ThroughoutthedevelopmentofthePreferredAlternative,the EISteamhasbeenincoordinationwiththeRMRA. 986 Doug Ryan IhavereviewedtheNorthI25EnvironmentalImpactStatement,andoffer 1]Commentnoted. thefollowingrecommendations: Page 321 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

1.SupportPackageAprovidingabalanceofmultimodalimprovements 2]IncontrasttoPackageA,thecommuterrailinthePreferred includinghighwaylaneadditions,commuterrailonthewest,commuterbus AlternativeissingletrackedbetweentheSouthTransitCenter on,theeast,andbusfeederconnectionsasthepreferredalternative. andthedowntowntransitcenterinFortCollins,achievingcost 2.ModifytheproposalforcommuterrailinPackageAbyterminatingthe savingsandlessenvironmentalimpactsasyousuggest.Thereis northendofthelineattheMasonCorridorsouthterminus. strongcommunitysupportforextendingthecommuterrailline Myreasonsformakingtheserecommendationsareasfollows: todowntownFortCollins.TheBRTofPackageBdoesterminate •Whilesomedifferencesexist,theimpactsrelatedtoairquality,water attheSouthTransitCenterinFortCollins. resources,wetlands,wildlife,vegetation,floodplains,visualquality,historic preservation,hazardousmaterials,parks&recreation,farmlands,energy, NotethePreferredAlternativehasimpactsinthesamerange publicsafetyandconstructionaresimilarforbothPackageAandB. asPackageAandPackageB. •Thelanduseimplicationsforthetwooptionsareverydifferent.PackageA supportsamoresustainabledevelopmentpatternresultinginreduced SimilartoPackageA,thePreferredAlternativereducesmore sprawlandlessautodependentdevelopment. trafficonparallelarterialsrelativetoPackageB'seffect. •Whilemorecostlyinitially,commuterrailprovidesabetteropportunityto recouptherequiredinvestmentduetothepotentialfortransitoriented Travelersaccessrailstationsviawalking,bicycling,bus,and developmenttoresultinexpandedbusinessrevenues,increasedproperty auto,andtheanalysisconfirmsthatincitycentersthewalk, values,redevelopmentopportunities,public/privatedevelopmentprojects bicycle,andbusaccessformsahigherpercentagecomparedto andahighertaxbase. thesituationwhenstationsarelocatedalongtheI25corridor. •Becauseitwouldbelocatedwithindevelopedcommunities,commuterrail Forthisreason,alongwithusageestimates,theparking resultsintheneedforlessparkandridetripsthanforabusrapidtransitline requirementsarehigherforPackageBBRTcomparedto locatedalongI25.Parkandrideuseinvolvesshortautotripswithcold PackageAorthePreferredAlternative.Asnotedabove,the enginestartswhichmakeupthemostpollutingpartofthedrivingcycle. TransitOrientedDevelopmentfosteredbythePackageAand •PackageAprovidesmorerelieftoparallelarterialsthanPackageB, PreferredAlternativecommuterrailstationsincitycenters resultingingreatermobilityandreducedroadmaintenanceneeds. doessupportawalkableenvironment,withitsassociated •Byprovidingtransitoptionswithinurbancenters,commuterrailpromotes publicandcommunitybenefits. publichealthbenefitsthroughimprovedlocalairquality,increase walking/bikingassociatedwithtransituse,increasedpedestriansafetyand supportforneighborhooddesignthatpromotesactiveliving. •TerminatingthecommuterraillineatthesouthendoftheMasonCorridor eliminatestheneedforsomesingletrackservicenorthofCSUandprovides animportantregionallinkaswellascostsavingsforthecommuterrail system. 987 Laura Scherbarth NotonlyaretheythinkingofmovingmyjobtoDenver(withoutrailserviceI Commentnoted. wouldhavetoquitmyjob),butIhaveasthma/bronchitisandhavingless carsontheroadtoreducethebrowncloudwouldhelpmebreathbetter.

Page 322 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

988 Tessa Scheurman Ipreferarail,butkeepitoffI25! ThecommuterrailidentifiedforPackageAandthePreferred AlternativeservesthefrontrangeusingtheBNSFcorridor. CommuterrailalongI25wasscreenedoutasitprovidesless accesstopopulationcentersthantheBNSFcorridor. 989 Marie Schow Pleasedon’tbuildalightrailonI25!Idon’twantan8lanehighway. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 990 Eliza Schruebel Istronglyurgethatourlimitedfinancialresourcestobeusedto1,create Commentnoted. commuterrailfromFortCollinstoDenver2,runbusdownI25and3,create regionalbusservice.Thecommuterrailistheleastexpensiveandwould InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, benefitthemosthumanbeingslivingintheNorthernColoradoarea.This pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway wouldalsobenefittheenvironmentbyimprovingairqualityandcreatingless Improvements. congestionwithcarsonroadsthanks! Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Regardingthecostofrailversushighway,onapermilebasis commutermileimprovementsarelessexpensivethanhighway improvement.Highwayimprovementsincludedinthe PreferredAlternative(generalpurposelanes,tolledexpress lanes,frontageroads,crossstreets,etc.)areexpectedtocost approximately$1.4billionfor555newlanemiles.Thisequates toabout$2.5millionperlanemileorabout$23millionper Page 323 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

mile.Commuterrailimprovementsareexpectedtocost approximately$649millionorabout$14millionpermile.

Onaperusertripbasishighwayimprovementsarecheaper thanrailimprovements.Chapter6.FinancialAnalysisprovides informationonthecostperuserbymodeoftravel.This analysisshowsthatthecostperuserforcommuterrailis highest(over$70perusertrip)andthecostperuserof highwayimprovements(includethecosttoownandoperate yourownprivateautomobile)islowest(lessthan$5peruser trip). 991 Andrea Schweitzer Isupportcommuterrailservice,itissimpler,lessexpensive,andformyself Commentnoted. wouldbehandytouse.IliveinFortCollinsandregularlygotodowntown Boulder,neartheirmainbusterminal,forwork.Iwouldlovetohavepublic transportationbetweenFortCollins,Longmont,BoulderandDenver.Ifthere werebetterpublictransportationtoDenverIwouldenjoygoingtomore culturaleventsthere. 992 Catherine Scott IsupportPackageAbecauseitprovides: Commentnoted. •Improvedairqualityanddecreasedrelianceonhydrocarbonbasedenergy andforeignanddomesticoil. •Improvedsafetyandquickeraccessforemergencyresponsevehicles. •Intercityconnectionswhichsupportsdowntownrevitalizationandinfill developmentalongHwy287. •Lowcosttransportationtoresidentsoftheregioncannotdriveduetoage, incomeordesiretoconservefundsortheenvironment. •Decreasedcongestiononroadsforthosewhocontinuetodrive. •Continuedmobilityevenwithprojected43percentincreaseinpopulation and36percentincreaseinemploymentby2020innorthI25FrontRange corridor. Ibelieveverystronglyinthevalueofpublictransportationhavinggrownup ontheeastcoast.Iuseditregularlyuntilmovingwest.Oncethe infrastructureisinplace,andpeopleseethatitisconvenienttheywilluseit. 993 Lisa SeedTrujillo TellCDOTthatwewantabuslinetoDenvernowandacommuterrail Commentnoted. throughFortCollins,Loveland&LongmonttoDenverinthelongterm. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Page 324 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 994 Faith Serlieb ItispasttimethatNorthernColoradoplanforpopulationgrowthwitha Eachofthepackagesunderconsiderationisamultimodal sustainabletransportationplan.Iaminfullsupportofacommuterrailusing combinationofhighwayandtransitimprovements.PackageA existingeconomicandsocialresourcesalongUS287ratherthanbuildmore andthePreferredAlternativeeachproposecommuterrailon roadsoraddinglanestoI25whichwillonlyincreasecongestion,pollution, theBNSFcorridor,andPackageBproposesaBRTsystemonI andsprawl.Hopefullyplansforacommuterrailwillutilizenewtechnology 25.AdditionallanesonI25arearesultofthelanduseplanned forrenewableenergy. intheregionandtheanticipatedtravelpatternsin2035.Based onthisdataI25willneedtobewidenedsouthofSH14to accommodateanticipatedtraveldemand,whichcouldnotbe accommodatedbytransitimprovementsalone.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Forpurposesofplanning,dieselmultipleunit(DMU)was assumedasthetechnologyforcommuterrail.Indeedthe technologyisevolvingrapidlyforcommuterrailvehicles,and commuterrailvehicletypesandfueloptionswillbereassessed andidentifiedpriortoimplementationofcommuterrailforthe NorthI25corridor. 995 Beth Sharp IbelievethathavinganalternativetransportationsystemfromFortCollinsto Commentnoted. Denverwouldnotonlybeaconveniencetotheresidentsbutalsostrengthen thetiesbetweencitiesontheFrontRange.Givingpeopleasafelowimpact optiontoandfromourcapitalcityisanolosechoice.Notonlywouldthisbe anassettomeandmypeersbuttopeoplefromallwalksoflifeinFort Collins. 996 Ed Sherna PleasesupporttheproposedcommuterrailfromFortCollinstoDenver.It’s Commentnoted. theleastexpensiveoptionandjustmakesthemostsense. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Page 325 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.

Regardingthecostofrailversushighway,onapermilebasis commutermileimprovementsarelessexpensivethanhighway improvement.Highwayimprovementsincludedinthe PreferredAlternative(generalpurposelanes,tolledexpress lanes,frontageroads,crossstreets,etc.)areexpectedtocost approximately$1.4billionfor555newlanemiles.Thisequates toabout$2.5millionperlanemileorabout$23millionper mile.Commuterrailimprovementsareexpectedtocost approximately$649millionorabout$14millionpermile.

Onaperusertripbasishighwayimprovementsarecheaper thanrailimprovements.Chapter6.FinancialAnalysisprovides informationonthecostperuserbymodeoftravel.This analysisshowsthatthecostperuserforcommuterrailis highest(over$70perusertrip)andthecostperuserof highwayimprovements(includethecosttoownandoperate yourownprivateautomobile)islowest(lessthan$5peruser trip). 997 Ralf Socher Asconceptuallyappealingasacommuterrailsystemis,Idonotseeitas ThePreferredAlternativeisamultimodalsolutionwithbus pragmaticapproachtothenorthI25transportationcorridor.Thepublic, andrailimprovementsaswellashighwayimprovements. governmentofficials,andpoliticiansareoftenswoonedbythewonderful ideaofanenvironmentallyconsciousandefficientpublictransportsystem Ridershipprojectionsarebasedonacalibratedtraveldemand promisedbycommuterrail,butonceimplemented,theconvenienceof forecastingmodel.Asyousuggest,projectionsindicatethatthe personalmotortransportmostoftenremainsthechoiceindividuals.Awell presenceofcommuterrailwillnotsubstantiallyimprove documentedexampleofthisphenomenaoccurredwiththeBayAreaRapid highwayoperationsForthisreasonPackageA,PackageBand Transit(BART)inpublicvotingtheprojectreceivedoverwhelmingsupport, thePreferredAlternativeeachincludehighwayimprovements becauseindividualsanticipatedthatusageofBARTbyotherswouldclearthe inordertorespondtothemobility,safetyandaging freewaysforthemtoconvenientlyspeedtospeedtoworkintheircar.The infrastructureneedsoftheprojectpurposeandneedrelative realityisthattheoutlyingareasofBARTexperiencelowridershipandthe toI25,inadditiontoaddingnewtransitservicesuchasrail freewaysremainoverlycongested.EveninthehighdensityoftheBayArea transit.CommuterrailisincludedinPackageAandthe commuterrailhashadlimitedsuccess.IntheurbansprawloftheFront PreferredAlternativetoaddresstheneedtoexpandmodal Rangeitisevenlesspractical. optionsfortravelersintheregion,asstatedinChapter1ofthe Page 326 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Moreover,Iamdumbfoundedbytheproposaltolocateaportionofthe FinalEIS. commuterraillinealongCountyRoad7.Allotherportionsoftheproposed raillinerunalongexistingmultilanehighwaysandraillines.CR7isatwo AppendixFoftheAlternativeDevelopmentandScreening lanecountyroadwithlimitedrightofwayandsignificantresidential Report(FHUandJacobs,2011)incorporatedbyreferencein developmentinverycloseproximity.TheexistingEIScontainsseveral thisEISdocumentsathoroughreviewofdifferentalignments inconsistenciestowhichIhavesoughtanswers.Atpublichearingsin2006 toconnectthetwoFasTrackscorridors(NorthMetroand andagainin2008Irequestedexplanationstosomeoftheseissues,butthe NorthwestRail).Somealignmentspresentedtoomuchoutof EISrepresentativeswereunabletoprovideinformationtosupportthedraft directiontravel,otherspresentedaccessconflictswiththeI25 proposal. frontageroadandothersimpactedenvironmentalresources Cost includingwetlandsandparksorhistoricproperties.This I'vebeentoldthatitismoreeconomicaltorunthelinealongCR7thanalong evaluationidentifiedthatthealignmentonSH119andCR7as theI25median,becauseofthecosttobringtherailintoandoutofthe thepreferredalignmentbecauseitwouldresultinlessoutof medianvs.asinglecrossing.However,whenquestionedaboutthecostto directiontravel,noconflictwithI25frontageroadaccessand buildthesestructuresaswellasallthecontrolledcrossingatthedozenorso minimalimpacttosensitiveresources.Becausethealignment countyroadsandHWY52thatintersecttheproposedrailline,andthenoise alongSH119andCR7istheshortestinlengthandbecauseit barriersthroughalltheresidentialareas,Iwastoldthatthosecostswerenot hasfewerutilityconflicts,itislikelytobelowerincostthan available.Howthencanitbedeterminedwhatthemoreeconomicoptionis? otheralignmentoptionsevaluated. Noise&Vibration Whenpresentedwiththequestionofimpactingresidentswithnoise ArailtransitnoiseandvibrationstudywasincludedintheFinal pollutionandvibration,representativesrespondedthatanequivalentareais EIS(seeSection3.6).Additionalinformationforthisstudycan impactedwhethertherailislocatedalongCR7ortheinterstate.Thisisa befoundintheRailTransitNoiseandVibrationTechnical whollyunsatisfactoryanswer.Theareainproximitytothefreewayisalready ReportforNorthI25FinalEIS(HarrisMillerMiller&Hanson, impacted,andtheadditionofacommuterrailwillbemarginal;whereas,a 2011).Thefederalrequirementsmandatedforthistypeof raillinealongthetwolanecountyroadwillhaveahorrendousimpactto studywerefollowedandthecorridoralongWeldCountyRoad potentiallythousandsofindividuals.Imagineadiesellocomotiverumbling 7wasincluded.Thestudyfoundthatwithoutmitigation,there throughyourneighborhoodevery3060minfrom4amto1:30am,blowing wouldbemanynoiseorvibrationimpactsfromcommuterrail. itswhistleevery½mileasitintersectscrossroads.Inadditiontothelackofa However,extensivemitigationisrecommendedforcommuter reasonableanswer,theEISgrosslyunderstatestheimpact.TheEISdepicts railtoeliminatetheimpacts.Mostnotably,railroadquietzones onesinglesmallzonealongCR7thatwouldexperienceanegativenoise arethepreferredtrainhornmitigationidentifiedintheEISfor impactandrequiresoundbarriers,anditstates theentirecorridor,whichwouldeliminatetrainhornssounding thatonly167residenceswouldbeimpacted.Injustthreesubdivisionsalong atthecrossings.Pleasenotethatimplementationofquiet CR7RinnValley,WildFlower,andWyndamHillthereareeasily300 zoneswillrequiretheconsentandleadershipoftheaffected residenceincloseproximitytotheproposedrailline,aswellasdozensmore localgovernments.Alsonotethatthecommuterrailwouldbe individualresidencesthatborderCR7.Thereisalmostnoportionofthis usingtrainenginesmuchsmallerthanfreightlocomotives. routewhereresidentswouldnotbeimpactedbythenoiseandvibrationofa Withtherecommendedmitigationactionsinplace,thestudy commuterrailline. foundthattherewouldbenoremainingnoiseorvibration Page 327 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Eagle&WildlifeHabitat impactsfromcommuterrail.Therefore,thealternativesthat TheEISplandepictsseveraleagleneststhatprecludedanumberofrailline includecommuterrail(PackageAandthePreferred options.Oddlythough,thebaldeaglepairthatnestinthevicinityofCR7 Alternative)werefoundtohavesimilaroverallnoiseand werenotconsidered.Again,whenquestionedonthisinconsistency,EIS vibrationimpactsasthealternativesthatdidnotinclude representativeswereunabletoprovideadirectanswerstatingthatan commuterrail(PackageBandtheNoActionAlternative).For independentconsultingfirmhadprovidedthatdata. allthreebuildpackages,theremainingnoiseimpacts(after Offsettingacommuterrailline1milewestofthefreewayalongCR7 mitigation)arealongI25andaretheresultofhighwaynoise. essentiallydoublestheareaofenvironmentalimpactinthissector.Thisis notconsistentwiththestudy'sconceptofLeastEnvironmentallyDamaging ComparedtoarailalignmentalongI25,therailalignment PracticalImpact(LEDPA).Whereaslocatingthelinealongthe125median alongtheBNSFalignmentwouldhave9acresfewerwetland haslittletonoadditionalenvironmentalimpacttoanareathatisalready impacts,3fewerparkimpacts,1fewerhistoricproperty impactedby6lanesoffreewaytraffic. impact,24fewerstreamcrossings(withassociatedimpactsto riparianhabitatandwaterquality),785acresfewerimpactsto primeanduniquefarmland.TheBNSFalignmentalsohas muchgreatermobilitybenefitstolowincomeandminority populations,althoughalongwiththatisalsothepotentialfor moreadverseimpactstothosesamepopulations.

BaldEaglenestsmorethan½milefromtherailcorridoror otherprojectcomponentareconsideredoutsidetheareaof potentialimpact.TheDraftEISidentifiesanest,referredtoas theDelCaminoBoulderCreeknestnearCR7;howeveritis locatedmorethe½milefromthecorridorandinanactive gravelpit.BaldEaglenestlocationshavebeenupdatedand verifiedintheFinalEIS.

Substantialanalysiswasconductedoncommuterrailalongthe I25medianvs.alongtheBurlingtonNorthern.Thealignment alongtheBurlingtonNorthernwaschosenbecauseitbetter servednumerouspopulationandemploymentcenters,had feweraquaticresourcesimpacts(approximately9acresfewer wetlandimpacts),wasmoreresponsivetothecommunity planstoenhancetheircommunitycenters,wasalongan existingrailroadcorridoranditwaslessexpensive.

Page 328 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

998 Gregory Speer IamwritingtolendmysupportforOptionA.Ihavelongdreamedofhaving ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovidetransitimprovements commuterrailservicealongtheFrontRange.Ifeelthatrailservicewillhavea onmultiplecorridors,includingcommuterrailalongtheBNSF muchhigherutilizationthanbusserviceforanumberofreasons.Thefact corridor.Inaddition,toprovidegreateraccesstotransitforall thatrailwillconnectcitycentersismuchmoreconvenientanddesirablethan communities,commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor,express havingtodrivetoaParkandRideoutalongI25.Thisismuchmore busalongtheI25corridor,andfeederbusservicebetweenthe consistentwiththedefinitetrendtowardsmorepedestriancommunities mainlinesandoutlyingcommunitiesareincludedinthe wherepeopledesiretoliveintownclosetowork,shopping,andtransit. PreferredAlternative. Also,aninescapablefactisthatbustravelhasadecidedlynegativestigma whereasrailisviewedbythepublicpositivelywiththispositiveviewsteadily Yourobservationsofcommuterrail’sinfluenceonland increasing.IknowforafactthatpersonallyIwoulduserailoftenbutwould developmentpatternsisgenerallyconsistentwiththefindings rarely,ifever,useabusservicealongI25forthesereasons. ofanexpertpanelconvenedtoevaluatethealternatives AnothermajorbenefitofOptionAwouldbethepositiveeconomicimpactof regardinginducedgrowth.TheeffectofPackageA,PackageB, thepresenceoftherailtransitstationsinthecitycenters.Thereisnodoubt andthePreferredAlternativeongrowthpatternsisdescribed thattheywouldstimulateeconomicactivityanddevelopmentnearthe inSection4.2.7:Sincethehighwayimprovementsaregenerally stations.Anotherexampleofmarkedlypositiveeconomicimpacthasbeen similarbetweenthepackages,asimilaramountofgrowthnear thedramaticincreaseinpropertyvaluesneartherailstationsinDenver.Iam I25isanticipatedforanyofthepackages.Howeverthe notawareofasituationwherebusservicehashadasimilareffect. commuterrailinPackageAandthePreferredAlternative OptionAwouldclearlybemoreenergyefficientthanOptionB.Thisinandof wouldintensifythedensityofdevelopmentsnearstationsin itselfwarrantsadoptionofOptionA. thecitycenters.Whilethetransportationsystemcaninfluence IfeelthatOptionBwoulddolittletoslowthegrowthofvehiculartraffic landusepatterns,developmentisregulatedattheleveloflocal alongI25whereasIfeelthatOptionAwould.IalsofeelthatOptionBwould government. onlyservetoencourageurbansprawlwhereasOptionAwouldhavethe oppositeeffect. PackageBactuallyattractstheleastamountoftraffictoI25, IviewOptionBasnothingmorethanaperpetuationofouranachronistic comparedtoPackageAandthePreferredAlternative,as statusquo.Itwouldjustbeagildeddinosaurinatimewhenweso describedinSection4.2.Thisisduetothedifferentlane desperatelyneedafresh,enlightened,approachtotransit.OptionAisthat configurationsofferedbythethreedifferentpackages.Dueto enlightenedapproachanditislongoverdue.Thankyouforconsideringmy lesstrafficonI25,totalenergyuseforPackageB(360,371 comments. BTU)islessthanthatofPackageA(361,900BTU)orthe PreferredAlternative(362,222BTU).Whilecommuterrail offersanenergyefficienttransportationmode,itdoesnot overcomethetrafficdifferencesamongthealternatives..

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation Page 329 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 999 Joe Stevens Inmyopinionitispastthetimewhenthisshouldbeanoption.Iamvery Commentnoted. interestedtoseelightrailandothermoreefficientformsoftransportation availablenow! ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 1000 Tiffany Stites I’mwritingtorequestthatyoustronglyconsideracommuterrailthrough Commentnoted. FortCollins,LovelandandLongmonttoDenverinsteadofexpansionofI25. Asacommuter2550%ofmytimeIwouldbeecstatictobeabletoridethe ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail railasopposedtodriving. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver. 1001 Roy Storey PleasenodevelopmentonI25.Preferuseofexistingtracks. Commentnoted.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingland useandtransportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneral Response#0–RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing Page 330 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

toDenver. 1002 M Streator WewouldlikecommuterrailthroughFortCollins,LovelandandLongmontto Commentnoted. DenverwithNoexpansionordevelopmentofI25Thankyoufortakingtime toreadmycommentandconcerns. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 1003 Geri Stutheit IstronglysupportoptionA.Ibelievetheadditionofmasstransitwilldo Commentnoted. muchtoconnectourcommunities.Itwouldgiveresidentsandworkersasafe economicalmeansoftravel.ThankyouforyoursupportofoptionA!P.S.I’ll betyoudon’tgetmayletterswrittenonthiskindofpaper!Ourcomputeris down. 1004 Jeanie Sutter IwantacommuterrailthatrunsthroughthedowntownareasofNorthern Commentnoted. ColoradonotanexpansionofI25.Itisthemostsustainable,environmentally consciousandaffordableoption.Developershavetheirowninterestsand ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail arenotconsiderateoffarmland,theenvironmentandourexistingeconomy. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe Thankyouforyourconsideration. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 1005 Derrick Taff Isupportarailsystemintown(centrallylocated) Commentnoted.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver. 1006 Ronald Torri Pleasedon’tdeveloponI25useexistingrailforDenvercommute. Commentnoted.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Page 331 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 1007 Jill Vesty IliveinOldTownFortCollinsandamwritingtoexpressmysupportfor Commentnoted. PackageAoftheNI25DEISproject. IbelievethatPackageAwillbebeneficialtoourareaforthefollowing 1)NotethatRTDisbuildingatransitFasTrackssystemforthe reasons: metropolitanareaofDenver;thebuildpackagesofthisEIS 1)Coloradohasoneofthefastestgrowingpopulationsinthecountry;we includenorthernregionaltransitservicesconnectingtothe needtodosomethingtodecreasetrafficonI25andmeetgrowingtravel FasTrackssystem. needs.Denverisoneoftheonlylargecitiesinthiscountrywithoutan establishedregionaltransitsystem.Thusthe"NoAction"alternativeshould 2)YourobservationsabouttheeconomicimpactofPackageA notbeconsidered. maybecorrect;howeverPackageBalsoprovidesavarietyof 2)AlthoughtheinitialinvestmentofimplementingPackageAwouldbevery transportationimprovements.ThePreferredAlternativewould high,intheendPackageAwillbegoodfortheeconomyinthisareaasitwill havesimilareconomicimpactsaseitherPackageAorB. makenorthernColoradoamoredesirableandsafeplaceinwhichtolive.In addition,itwillhopefullynegateneedforfutureexpansionsofI25.The 3)Yes,ingeneralrailserviceattractsmorepatronsthanbus upcomingObamaadministrationhasexpressedinterestinprovidingstates service.NotethatPackageAandthePreferredAlternative withfundingforinfrastructureprojectsthatwouldstimulatetheeconomy servesFortCollinsattheSouthTransitCenter,CSU,andthe andpromoteacleanerenvironmentasthisonewould. DowntownTransitCenteralongtheBNSFcorridor.PackageB 3)WhilePackageBprovidesforpublictransportationthroughtheuseof servesthecitywithBRTservicetotheFortCollinsSouthTransit buses,trainserviceismoredesirablethanbusserviceforavarietyof Center.Toprovidegreateraccesstotransitforallcommunities, reasons:a)thebusservicewillnoteasilyaccessOldTownFortCollins.The commuterbusalongtheUS85corridor,expressbusalongthe wellbeingofOldTownisapriorityfortheCityofFortCollinsandit's I25corridor,andfeederbusservicebetweenthemainlines citizens.Busesleavingfromthesouthendoftownwillbelessconvenientto andoutlyingcommunitiesareincludedinthePreferred thosetravelingfromthenorthernhalfoftown;b)trainsarenotsubjectto Alternative. trafficdelaysandarethusfasterandmorereliablethanbuses;c)trainuse willhelpdecreasecarbonemissions;d)thefrequencyandsizeoftrainscan 4)Allthreebuildpackageswouldreducecongestionin2035 easilybeadjustedbyDOTinresponsetochangingcommutervolumesand northofE470,comparedtotheNoActionAlternative. needs;e)wealreadyhavearailcorridortoworkwithwhichwillhelp PackageBactuallyresultsinlessoverallVMTcomparedto facilitateconstructionofthisproject;andf)trainsarelikelytoseemore PackageAandthePreferredAlternative,duetotheslightlyless ridershipthanbusesbecausetrainsareperceivedasbeingmore attractivenessofitsTELandgeneralpurposelaneconfiguration comfortable,aestheticallypleasing,andefficientbythepublic. onI25comparedtotheotherbuildpackages. 4)PackageBwouldaddacarpoollanetoI25,howeverthisisunlikelyto Page 332 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

resultinasignificantdecreaseintrafficvolumeascarpoolingissimplytoo difficultforbusy,overextended,geographicallydispersedAmericans.The additionalalluselanesproposedbyPackageAaremorelikelytodecrease trafficdensitytosomeextent.MyprimaryreasonforsupportingPackageA, however,isthatIsuspectthattrainservicewillbemorepopularthanbus service.Highridershipofthispublictransportationoptionwillsignificantly decreasetrafficonI25,resultinginfeweraccidents,decreasednoiseandair pollution,andreducedcommuterstress. Thankyouforreadingmycomments.I'mlookingforwardtoimprovedpublic transportationinthisregion. 1008 John Volckes IamdisappointedthatalightrailsystemdoesnotexistbetweenFortCollins, ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail Loveland,LongmontandDenver. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 1009 April Wackerman WeneedtoaddressthecongestionissuesonI25doingnothingnowwill Commentnoted. negativelyaffectourcommunitiesinthelongterm.Iaminfullsupportofa buslinetoDenverandacommuterrailthroughFortCollins,Lovelandand InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, LongmonttoDenver.Pleasetakeactionstomakethishappen. pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues.

Page 333 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

1010 Denise Walters PleaserunlightrailallthewaytoDenver/DIA.Nottheinterstate!Nomore ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail moneyforI25!!Weneedlightrail. fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements. 1011 Sean Waters Itwouldbeagreatbenefittomyselfandmanyofmyfriendsthatcommute Commentnoted. toDenvertohaveamoresustainableandaffordablewaytotravel.Abusline wouldsurelybeutilized,asthissavesonwearonourownvehiclesand Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation transportationisexpensive.Inthelongtermpleaseconsideracommuter steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost railwaythroughFortCollinsLovelandandLongmont!!ItwouldbeaGodsend Issues. intoughtimes! 1012 Prestonand Webband WeneedalightrailorpublictransitsystemconnectingtheNorthern Commentnoted. Ashley Burrucks Coloradocommunities.Thiswouldbothhelptheenvironmentandreduce congestionandtaxdollarsspentonI25. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Page 334 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

Improvements. 1013 Lawrence Webber PublicregionaltransportationalongthefrontrangefromWellingtonto Commentnoted. Denverisverynecessary.Increasingexpansionofroads,laneswillnotease ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail theproblem.Acommuterrailusingexistingtracksortherightofwaywould fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe bebetterthanexpansionofI25. NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.

InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 1014 Zachariah Weeks Iknowmyfamilyandfriendsaswellasmyselfwouldvalueatrainorbusto Commentnoted. traveltoDenver.Gasisgettingcheapernow,butnotforever.Anefficient andbikefriendlysystemwouldbenicebutatrainorbusinandofitself SimilartoPackageA,thePreferredAlternativeincludes wouldbenefitthefrontrangeinsomanyways. commuterrailalongtheUS287corridorandbusonUS85.The PreferredAlternativealsoincludesexpansionofI25andan expressbuscomponentsimilartotheBRTinPackageB althoughwithlowerservicelevels.Toservebicyclists,sidewalk connectivityisproposedbetweenthetransitstationsandthe closestroad. 1015 Anne Wera AsacommutertoGreely,IwouldlovetofindanalternativetodrivingdownI ForcommutingfromGreeley,PackageAofferscommuterbus 25.Alternativetransportationwouldsaveongaspricesaswellascutdown serviceonUS85todowntownDenver.PackageBincludesBRT onairpollution.Butmostimportantlyitwouldcutdownonthegrowing servicefromGreeleyonUS34toTELlanesonI25.The congestionthataccumulatesonI25.Pleaseconsiderthealternatives. PreferredAlternative,asacombinationofPackageAandB, providestheGreeleycommuterbothcommuterbusserviceon US85,aswellasexpressbusserviceusingUS34andI25to downtownDenver. 1016 Mia White IfyouexpandI25itwillonlyallowmoreexhaustfromcarsandpollutethe Commentnoted. air,itwillonlyhelpwithcommunityforashorttime.Buildingacommuter railwillnotonlyhelpdecreasethetoxinsfromsomanycarsbutitwill InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, Page 335 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

provideamorereliableformoftransportationforpeopletohavethesteady pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway jobthatFortCollins,LongmontandLovelandcouldnotprovide.Overallit’sa Improvements. win/winsolution. 1017 Anthony Wilhelm OfferingacommuterrailfromFortCollinstoDenvermakesmoresensethan Commentnoted. spendingmillionofdollarsonexpandingI25to3lanes.Theraillinewould providemanycommutersasafertravelbetweenworkandhome,especially InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, duringperiodsofbadweather,snow,sleetstorms,Thisseemstobethebest pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway betforthenowandthefuture. Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 1018 Stephen Willard Pleasedowhateveryoucantoreduceroads,wideningofroads,auto Commentnoted. mileageandcarbonreduction.Thankyou. 1019 Christine Wire MyhusbandcommutestoDenver23timesperweek,wewantabuslineto Commentnoted. DenvernoworcommuterrailthroughFortCollinstoDenverasatoppriority. Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost Issues. 1020 Jack Wolfe Iwouldliketotakethisopportunitytoexpressmyopiniononmypreferred Commentnoted. optionfromthosesetforthintheOctober,2008DraftEIS.Istronglysupport OptionA,thecombined SimilartoPackageA,thePreferredAlternativeincludes rail/bus/autooption. commuterrailalongtheUS287corridorandbusonUS85.The Wearefacingafutureofhigherfuelcostsandprobablerestrictionson PreferredAlternativealsoincludesexpansionofI25andan transportationrelatedairemissions,andIbelieveOptionAwillprovidethe expressbuscomponentsimilartotheBRTinPackageB bestopportunitiesforNorthernColoradoinsuchafuture.Itwillstrengthen althoughwithlowerservicelevels. existingcommunities,bothalongtheUS287corridorandalongtheUS85 Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand corridor,ratherthanencouragesprawlinthelessdevelopedareasalongI transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 25.IfalloftheinfrastructuredevelopmentiscenteredonI25,theexisting –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. communitieswillbedrainedofvitalityasnewdevelopmentmovestoI25. OptionAcanprovideadirectlinkbetweenthestate'stwomajorresearch centersatUCBoulderandCSU–FortCollins.Itwouldalsoprovideadirect linkandenhancementtoRTD'seffortstobringpassengerrailtransportation tothenorthernDenverMetroArea.GovernorRitterhasinvestedin Page 336 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

promotingaNewEnergyEconomyasthefutureforColorado.OptionA opensthedoortoaNewTransportationFutureforColorado.OptionBwould helpkeepthatdoorshut. Forallofthesereasons,IurgeyoutoadopttheOptionAplan.Thankyoufor theopportunitytocomment. 1021 Paul Wozniak Iwouldratherhavepeopleenjoyingthestopsalongatrackthatfollowed Commentnoted. 287.RiderscouldseethequaintbeautyofFortCollins,Loveland,Berthoud andLongmont.I25nearLovelandisalreadyturningintogenericsprawl.287 Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand wouldsustainDowntownareasthatarewhatIamproudof. transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 1022 Sarah Wozniak Iwouldratherhavethislocatedon287todetermoreurbansprawlalongI Commentnoted. 25.Itwillalsobemoreconvenient. InresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimprovementstoI25, pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0–NeedforHighway Improvements.

Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. 1023 Nancy York CommuterrailisthemostsustainablechoicefortransportationbetweenFort SimilartoPackageA,thePreferredAlternativeincludes Collins,Loveland,Berthoud,Longmont,andDenver.Useslessfossilfuelto commuterrailalongtheUS287corridorandbusonUS85.The movethemostpeopleandthings;goingthroughthevariouscommunity PreferredAlternativealsoincludesexpansionofI25andan centerswillfueldowntownseconomicstabilityanddevelopment; expressbuscomponentsimilartotheBRTinPackageB Developmentpatternswillbeinfillandcloseandnonsprawldevelopmentas althoughwithlowerservicelevels. opposedtoI25focusedtransportation;Sociallyandproductivelymorework andrelaxationwillbeavailableoncommuterrail;Railconnectionsare Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardinglanduseand possiblethroughoutnorthernColoradoregioninthefuture;Public transportationimprovements,pleaseseeGeneralResponse#0 transportationservesallincomegroupsandvisitors;Airpollutionisa –RelationshiptoLandUsePlanning. concernregardingfossilfuels. 1024 Toni Zimmerman GetalightrailforGodsake!Looktothefuturenotthepast. ThePreferredAlternativeandPackageAincludecommuterrail fromFortCollins,alongtheBNSFcorridorwithnewtracktothe NorthMetroendoflineinThornton,withservicecontinuing toDenver.Notethatcommuterrailisadifferenttechnology thanlightrail.Commuterrailcanoperateinfreightrail Page 337 Final EIS Public Comments and Responses August 2011 WrittenComments

ID FirstName LastName PublicComment Response

corridors,andcanachievefasterspeedsoverlongercorridors incontrasttolightrail.Lightrailwasconsideredforthis corridor,butwasdeterminednottobethebestrailtransit choice.Commuterrailhasbeenidentifiedforthiscorridorand isconsistentwithRTDplans. 1025 Dennis Zoss AnyandallmeasurestoreducecongestioninandaroundFortCollinsare Commentnoted. muchneededandneedednow.Anydelayswillonlyincreasedevelopment costs.Anyoneopposingthesemeasuresareshortsightedandsurelyenjoy Inresponsetoyourcommentsregardingimplementation lesscongestiononourroadsandthecleanerairtobreathethatcomeswith steps,pleaserefertoGeneralComment#0–FundingandCost this. Issues.

Page 338 This Page Left Intentionally Blank.