RECORD OF DECISION

Gold Line Corridor Project

Denver, Arvada, Wheat Ridge, Adams County, Jefferson County, Colorado

November 2009

Table of Contents Section Page Decision ...... 5 Basis for Decision ...... 5 Background ...... 6 Alternatives Considered ...... 6 No Action Alternative ...... 7 Baseline Alternative ...... 7 Preferred Alternative ...... 8 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative ...... 11 Public Opportunity to Comment...... 12 Comments and Responses During the NEPA Process ...... 13 Determinations and Findings ...... 15 Changes from the Final Environmental Impact Statement ...... 18 Finding ...... 22

Figure Figure 1: Preferred Alternative

Tables Table 1: Station Characteristics Table 2: Preferred Alternative Service Frequency and Headways Table 3: Property Impacts that have been updated or added since the FEIS Table 4: Property Impacts that have been removed from the FEIS

Appendices A. FTA, RTD and SHPO Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement B. Impacts and Mitigation of the Preferred Alternative

- 2 -

Acronym List

Btu British thermal unit CMP Construction Mitigation Plan CO carbon monoxide CPTED Crime Prevention through Environmental Design CRMF Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility CWA Clean Water Act DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DMU diesel multiple unit DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments DUS Denver Union Station EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMU Electric Multiple Unit FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HASP Health and Safety Plan HMMP Hazardous Materials Management Plan LRT light rail transit MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOW maintenance-of-way MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSE mechanically stabilized earth NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOX nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PM10 particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter or smaller pnR park-n-Ride ROD Record of Decision

- 3 -

ROW right-of-way RTD Regional Transportation District RTP Regional Transportation Plan SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SPCC Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan SU&DP sewer use and drainage permits SWMP Stormwater Management Plan USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound

- 4 -

Decision The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), pursuant to 23 CFR 771 and 774 and 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 has determined that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have been met for the Gold Line Corridor project proposed by the Regional Transportation District (RTD). This FTA decision applies to the Preferred Alternative, which is described and evaluated in the Gold Line Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared by the RTD and the FTA and signed on August 21, 2009. The FTA has considered the information contained in the public record, including the Gold Line Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the FEIS, regulatory and resource agency coordination, public hearing and public meeting comments, and agency review comments on the environmental documents. This Record of Decision (ROD) summarizes FTA’s decisions regarding compliance with relevant environmental requirements, describes the mitigation measures to be included in the project, summarizes public outreach and agency coordination efforts, responds to substantive comments, and presents the Section 4(f) determination for the project. The Preferred Alternative consists of an 11.2-mile Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) commuter rail system operating between Denver Union Station (DUS) in downtown Denver and Ward Road in Wheat Ridge with seven stations. The Gold Line Preferred Alternative alignment will operate primarily on a double-track system (with the exception of one single track segment of approximately 1.5 miles in the western end of the corridor, designed to avoid significant impacts, as described in the Preferred Alternative section below) dedicated to commuter rail with no track being shared with freight rail operations. The Preferred Alternative from DUS to the CRMF, shares the alignment with all of the FasTracks Commuter Rail corridors (East, North Metro, and Northwest Rail) for vehicle service at the CRMF. Passenger service for the Gold Line and Northwest Rail share the alignment from DUS to Pecos Street. West of Pecos Street to Ward Road, the Preferred Alternative alignment separates from the Northwest Rail project and travels on its own alignment separate from the freight railroad to Ward Road Because it is required as a supporting component of the Preferred Alternative, the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) is also included in this project. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to support the Gold Line and East Corridor DEIS documents was prepared for the CRMF and is incorporated herein by reference (FTA, 2009). Content and comments from that document are incorporated into this ROD. Neither the FEIS nor this ROD constitutes an FTA commitment to provide financial assistance for the construction of the project. In this instance, RTD is seeking funding under FTA’s Major Capital Investments (―New Starts‖) program. FTA will decide whether to commit New Starts funds to the project in accordance with applicable Federal law including, but not limited to, the New Starts evaluation procedures codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 5309.

Basis for Decision The environmental record for the Gold Line project includes the 2008 Gold Line DEIS, the 2009 CRMF SEA, and the 2009 Gold Line FEIS, comments received on these documents and responses to those comments. The FEIS includes a review of the purpose and need for the project, goals and objectives, consideration of alternatives, environmental impacts and measures to minimize harm.

- 5 -

Background Planning studies conducted for the Denver metropolitan area have shown that population and employment is anticipated to increase approximately 54 percent by the year 2030 (according to the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan [RTP]). Automobile and bus travel times are anticipated to increase by approximately 35 percent in the same period. In response to this anticipated growth and to improve mobility options throughout the Denver metropolitan area, the region has explored several transportation mode solutions including bus, rail, and HOV lanes to help relieve expected congestion, address air quality issues, and offer additional transportation options to citizens within the region. In November 2004, voters in metropolitan Denver’s RTD approved the FasTracks initiative, which is intended to expand and improve public transit service to metropolitan Denver communities over a 12-year period. The FasTracks comprehensive plan calls for the construction and operation of rail lines as well as improved bus service and park-n-Rides (pnR) throughout the region. The Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the project in the central western area of the Denver metropolitan region that is part of the RTD FasTracks Plan. The FEIS examined a range of alternatives, their respective environmental consequences, and mitigation measures to provide fixed-guideway transit service in the Gold Line study area.

Alternatives Considered The Gold Line FEIS evaluated more than 20 alternatives and other iterations of those alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need for the corridor. Alternatives were developed and evaluated to address the travel markets in the Gold Line study area, to minimize environmental impacts, and in response to the input from the agency and public involvement process. As a result of the alternatives analysis process during the NEPA process, a Preferred Alternative was selected. The Preferred Alternative was found to be the environmentally preferred alternative. Avoidance and minimization measures that were taken to reduce the impacts of the Preferred Alternative have served to further reduce the environmental consequences associated with its construction and operation. During the initial phases of the NEPA process, the freight railroads (UP and BNSF) adopted policies that disallow sharing of their ROWs with technologies such as light rail transit (LRT), which do not comply with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards for crash-worthiness. As a result, the LRT alternative chosen by previous planning studies had to be dropped from further consideration. Instead, heavier commuter rail technologies (both electric and diesel powered) that could operate within the freight railroad ROW were evaluated. LRT was evaluated only on alignments that either parallel the freight rail ROW or are on city streets. Streetcar technology was also evaluated because it provided an alternative to LRT that is easier to construct, and with fewer impacts, in an urban environment. Several conceptual-level alignments for the EMU, diesel multiple unit (DMU), LRT, and streetcar were developed to determine the best routes for each technology from DUS to Ward Road. These technologies and alignments were then evaluated through a 5-level screening process following FTA, NEPA, and SAFETEA-LU requirements. Based on FTA’s ―Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning”, the alternatives progressed through the five screening levels; the number of alternatives decreased

- 6 -

while being subjected to an increasing level of detailed analysis, including engineering, environmental, and community impact criteria. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative was also evaluated in the DEIS and FEIS and included several roadway and transit projects from the Denver Regional Council of Government’s (DRCOG) fiscally constrained 2030 RTP. The No Action Alternative roadway network in the region (including roadways within the Gold Line study area) was assumed to be the roadway projects included in the DRCOG 2030 RTP. These included: Reconfiguration of the I-70/SH 58 interchange Reconstruction of the I-70/Kipling interchange Addition of new lanes on Wadsworth Boulevard between 46th Avenue and 36th Avenue. Transit improvements include bus service changes and committed bus service enhancements that are planned to occur in the next 1 to 5 years, as well as committed bus service enhancements that will occur between 2006 and 2030. It also assumes that no additional transit facilities would be constructed in the Gold Line study area and that the Ward Road and Olde Town pnR exist in the same locations as today and would not be expanded. Baseline Alternative A Baseline Alternative was also developed to represent the ―best that can be done‖ without implementing a major capital investment such as rail transit. The Baseline Alternative was included for financial and mobility comparisons in the FEIS (in Chapter 4, Transportation Systems and in Chapter 5, Evaluation of Alternatives). Because the Baseline Alternative did not meet the Purpose and Need for the project it was not evaluated for environmental impacts in the DEIS or FEIS.

- 7 -

Preferred Alternative

Alignment The Preferred Alternative (EMU-BNSF/UP) will begin at DUS, share the alignment with the Northwest rail project from DUS to Pecos Street, and terminate at Ward Road in Wheat Ridge (Figure 1 below).

FIGURE 1: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Beginning at DUS, the alignment will operate on a double-track system dedicated to commuter rail. The first station north of DUS is the 41st Avenue East Station located at 41st Avenue and Fox Streets in Denver. The next station will be constructed in Adams County at Pecos Street. West of the Pecos Station, the Preferred Alternative will separate from the Northwest Rail project and travel on its own alignment for the remaining 7.7 miles to Ward Road. Between the Pecos Station and Ward Road, the following five stations will be constructed: the Federal Station in Adams County, the

- 8 -

Sheridan, Olde Town, and Arvada Ridge Stations in the City of Arvada, and the Ward Road Station located in the City of Wheat Ridge. To avoid impacts in areas of constrained ROW, the alignment will have a section of single track beginning at Ralston Road and returning to double track west of Olde Town. The single-track section is approximately 1.5 miles long.

Traction Power Electric power for the EMU trains will be provided by one substation powered from the existing local electrical grid, located immediately west of the existing Xcel Argo substation near West 43rd Avenue and Inca Street in Denver (this is required for operations of all of the commuter rail corridors traveling to the CRMF). There may also be a paralleling substation located in the Sheridan Station area.

End of Line Facilities Two additional tracks are provided for vehicle storage at the western end of the Gold Line. Up to six trains may be stored on this track overnight to begin the morning service.

Transit Stations Seven transit stations will be constructed along the Gold Line corridor. The characteristics of those transit stations are shown in Table 1. The Gold Line FEIS evaluated 7.5 minute headways in the peak period, therefore the impacts disclosed in the FEIS represented the maximum impacts from an environmental perspective and mitigations are proposed accordingly in the FEIS and in this ROD. The FEIS also identified that peak headways may be reduced to 15 minutes. That reduction in peak train frequencies would decrease parking demand, and other environmental impacts, in the horizon year of 2030. An updated, FTA approved, model was used to evaluate the effects of the 15 minute peak headways after the release of the FEIS. The model was updated to include a new regional transit survey recently completed (showing transit patron travel patterns), revised model inputs (including new land use assumptions) and overall model improvements. Because of these model changes care must be taken in directly comparing the results of the 7.5 and 15 minute peak headway scenarios. For example, although it may seem somewhat counterintuitive, on opening day (2015) there is a demand for 50 additional parking spaces for the 15 minute peak headway scenario over the 7.5 minute peak headway scenario. However, the total overall parking demand for the horizon year of 2030 is significantly less in the 15 minute peak headway scenario than in the 7.5 minute peak headway scenario. Approximately 2,250 to 2,300 parking spaces will be provided on opening day, with capacity for an additional 590 to 1,880 spaces by the horizon year 2030 (depending on the peak headways assumed). Total parking required for the Gold Line project (2030) would be 2,890 spaces (assuming 15 minute peak headways) up to 4,130 spaces (assuming 7.5 minute peak headways). Table 1 below shows the parking results for both 7.5 minute peak headway and 15 minute peak headway scenarios.

- 9 -

TABLE 1: TRANSIT STATION CHARACTERISTICS

Parking Spaces

Spaces Added by Total Parking Spaces Opening Day 2015 2030 by 2030 (7.5 minute peak (7.5 minute peak (7.5 minute peak Pedestrian headways/15 minute headways/15 minute headways/15 minute Stations Description Structure peak headways) peak headways) peak headways) 41st Located on one private Yes 500/500 500/270 1,000/770 Avenue East industrial property; a four-level parking structure is proposed in 2030 Pecos Located east of Pecos Yes 300/300 225/0 525/300 Street, south of I-76 and north of the proposed alignment Federal Located just east of No 300/280 275/90 575/370 Federal Boulevard and north of the proposed alignment Sheridan Located east of No 300/330 100/0 400/330 Sheridan Boulevard and north of the proposed alignment Olde Town Located east of Vance No 5001/400 100/0 600/400 Street Arvada Ridge Located in the Yes 150/200 180/80 330/280 southwest quadrant of the intersection of the proposed alignment and Kipling Street Ward Road Located north of the No 200/290 500/150 700/440 proposed alignment and east of Ward Road Total 2,250/2,300 1,880/590 4,130/2,890 Source: Gold Line Team, 2008/2009 1 Includes 200 existing parking spaces at the Olde Town Arvada pnR

Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility The EMU vehicles for all the FasTracks commuter rail projects will be serviced at a central CRMF, located immediately north of 48th Avenue on what is referred to as the Fox North Site. The CRMF will include a maintenance shop, an EMU rail storage yard, DMU rail storage yard, employee facilities, administrative offices, employee parking facilities, a maintenance-of-way (MOW) building, and a lay-down yard. The facility will service the following fleets: Gold Line—12 (15 minute peak headways) to 22 (7.5 minute headways) EMU’s Northwest Rail—22 DMUs East Corridor—30 EMUs North Metro Corridor—22 DMUs or EMUs

- 10 -

Train movements will occur throughout the day with 229 movements scheduled for between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 87 movements between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The CRMF environmental analysis (based on these 229 movements) includes the maximum number of vehicles as above (i.e. 22 for the Gold Line project). Train movements within the CRMF will occur at night. The operation of the CRMF will be ongoing 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Maintenance activities need to occur during times when trains are not in revenue service. Night movements to and from the CRMF shop will be conducted in the same manner as daytime movements.

Rail Operations Plan The Preferred Alternative will operate between 4:00 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. The trains will operate 365 days a year on either a weekday or a weekend/holiday schedule. The frequency of service for the Gold Line Preferred Alternative is summarized in Table 2 below. TABLE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SERVICE FREQUENCIES AND HEADWAYS Hours of Operation Service Frequency Headway Morning and Evening Peak Period Service – Weekdays (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.) Eight/Four trains per hour 7.5 minutes/15 minutes

Off-peak service – Weekdays (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) Four trains per hour 15 minutes Early morning (4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and Late Evening Service (6:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) Two trains per hour 30 minutes

Weekend/Holidays (8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.) Four trains per hour 15 minutes Weekend/Holidays (4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) Two trains per hour 30 minutes Source: RTD, 2008/2009

The operations plan will be optimized as the design progresses such that the project minimizes operational costs while maximizing ridership. The most likely change to the operations plan for the Preferred Alternative would be the reduction of train service frequencies and headways from 8 trains per hour to 4 trains per hour and from 7.5 minutes to 15 minutes in the peak period as previously noted. Reduced train frequencies would reduce traffic, parking, and noise impacts in the horizon year of 2030. Therefore, the train frequencies of 7.5 minutes during the peak, and 15 minutes in the off peak, assumed in the FEIS and the proposed mitigation measures in the FEIS and this ROD represents the ―worst case‖ from an environmental impact perspective. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative The Regional Transportation District will design and incorporate into the project all mitigation measures included in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative and those measures identified during final design. FTA will require in any future funding agreement on the project and as a condition of any future grant or Letter of No Prejudice for the project, that all committed mitigation be implemented in accordance with the FEIS and ROD. FTA will require that RTD periodically submit written reports on its progress in implementing the mitigation commitments. FTA will monitor this progress through quarterly review of final engineering and design, land acquisition for the project, and construction of the project. The measures to minimize harm are fully described in the FEIS.

- 11 -

Public Opportunity to Comment Public opportunities to review the Gold Line project have included meetings and workshops for all Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) milestones including:  Scoping Meeting – including: Purpose and Need, Range of Alternatives, Study Area, Initial Evaluation Criteria, Potential Environmental Issues, and Milestone Schedule  Conceptual Screening – including: Methodologies, Screening Criteria, Alternative Descriptions, Cost-Effectiveness Measures, Potential Environmental Impacts, and Public and Agency Comments  Detailed Evaluation – including: Detailed Evaluation Criteria, Descriptions of Alternatives, Cost-Effectiveness Measures, Potential Environmental Impacts, and Public and Agency Comments  Selection of the Preferred Alternative –including: Cost-Effectiveness Measures, Environmental Impacts, and Public and Agency Comments  Preliminary Results of the DEIS –including: Purpose and Need, Alternatives Evaluated, Environmental Consequences, Transportation Impacts, and Public and Agency Comments  Preferred Alternative Refinement – including: Improvements to the Preferred Alternative including alignment and station design options  DEIS Hearings –-including: Open House, Presentation of DEIS Results, and Public Hearings  FEIS Hearings – including: Open House, Presentation of FEIS Results, and Public Hearings Public involvement has included 16 public workshops, 55 listening sessions on specific topics, 23 issue focus teams, and public hearings for the DEIS and the FEIS. A project website was maintained that was viewed more than 70,000 times, and more than 34,000 newsletters and scoping booklets were sent to members of the public, agencies, and others. The RTD Board of Directors adopted the Gold Line Preferred Alternative in July of 2007. The RTD Board of Directors then approved the release of the DEIS in June of 2008 and the FEIS in July of 2009. The FTA and RTD released the Gold Line DEIS on July 18, 2008 for a 45-day comment period ending on September 1, 2008. Public hearings for the DEIS were held on August 6 and August 7, 2008. During the public comment period for the DEIS, 163 comments were received and were responded to in the FEIS. The FTA and RTD released the Gold Line FEIS on August 21, 2009 for a 30-day review period ending on September 21, 2009. Public hearings for the FEIS were held on September 9 and 17, 2009. During that timeframe, a total of 40 individuals and agencies submitted approximately 217 comments in writing or orally at the public hearing.

- 12 -

Comments and Responses during the NEPA Process

DEIS Comments During the DEIS comment period from July 18, 2008 to September 2, 2008, 80 organizations and individuals submitted 163 comments on the DEIS. These comments were generally related to the design of stations, operations, bicycle and pedestrian access, costs and funding, aesthetics, environmental issues, property acquisition, praise for the public involvement process, noise and vibration impacts, and transit technology. All of these comments were addressed in Volume II of the FEIS. CRMF SEA Comments An additional 154 comments were submitted on the SEA for the CRMF. Most of these comments addressed concerns regarding the potential loss of jobs at the Owens Corning Denver Roofing and Asphalt Plant located on the proposed CRMF site. These comments were mitigated through a reconfiguration of the site that offset the need to acquire the Owens Corning plant. FEIS Comments During the comment period on the FEIS from August 21, 2009 to September 21, 2009, 217 comments were received. Of these, 12 were received verbally at the two Public Hearings, with the remaining 205 being submitted in writing. At the Public Hearings, nine comments were from the public and three from private businesses. Eight of the comments praised the EIS process and one addressed concerns about funding. The business comments related to property acquisition. Of the written comments received, 16 were from the public, six from regulatory agencies, and three from private businesses. The majority of the written comments received were from the cities of Denver, Wheat Ridge, and Arvada, who posted 16, 146, and 14 comments, respectively. Adams County submitted one comment. Most of the comments from the local municipalities pertained to design elements of the project that will be addressed in final design. All public and agency comments have been responded to individually and can be found on the project website at www.rtdgoldline.com. The comments received on the FEIS are summarized below. The common themes of the FEIS comments included: Quiet Zones as noise mitigation. A number of comments were submitted that were supportive of the use of quiet zones as noise mitigation as proposed for this project. Some of these comments expressed a desire to see the quiet zones implemented as soon as possible in the development of the project. o Response: RTD will pass on to the selected contractor the agency and community desire to implement the Quiet Zone as early as is feasible in the project development process. RTD will also continue to work with local

- 13 -

governments in the application process for the Quiet Zone and is committed to providing the grade crossing improvements necessary to qualify for the Quiet Zone as indicated in the mitigation measures for noise impacts from this project. Visual and Aesthetics. Some comments appreciated the fencing options that were developed as sensitive to the surrounding land uses. Some comments expressed a desire for changes to station area aesthetics and/or fencing types, and a desire to screen electric substations. o Response: Comments were made on the Gold Line DEIS about concerns regarding project aesthetics both related to station areas and to fencing. As a result, between the DEIS and FEIS, the Gold Line team held a series of agency and public workshops to address these issues. The results of those workshops can be found in the FEIS; pages 2-45 and 2-46 describes the station architectural style process and results and pages 2-60 to 2-62 describes the alignment fencing selection process. RTD has committed to fencing options, station aesthetics and screening the electric substation in the mitigation table in the FEIS and in this ROD (Appendix B in the Visual and Aesthetic mitigation section) that were the results of the public outreach efforts. Alternatives Considered. There were a few comments expressing the opinion that a diesel train would be preferable to an electric train mostly based on cost. There were two comments from the same commenter expressing the desire for a bus over a rail alternative. There were two comments (from the potentially impacted business) indicating that the 41st Avenue East Station should be moved and there were several comments supporting the 41st Avenue East Station location indicating that the station should be built as early as possible in the project development process. There was one comment expressing support for the Preferred Alternative. o Response regarding diesel versus electric vehicles: RTD did an extensive evaluation of the costs of diesel versus electric commuter rail vehicles. The results of that evaluation were; while the up- front capital costs for electric vehicles and electrification are more than diesel, the operational and life cycle costs showed a savings for electric vehicles. The Gold Line project was shown to ―pay back‖ the original capital cost for electric vehicles in a relatively short amount of time. Additionally, diesel vehicles have greater noise impacts than electric vehicles (due to engine noise which they are accelerating) and had less public and agency support overall. o Response regarding the process for selecting rail: The Gold Line team evaluated a number of modal options in the EIS and in previous planning studies. Bus alternatives were eliminated due to the environmental impacts related to the alternative and a lack of public and agency support. Throughout the EIS process, there has been considerable support for a rail alternative and little/no support for a bus alternative. o Response to the comment to move the 41st Avenue station to avoid impacts to a property owner: The Gold Line team evaluated a number of station alternatives over the 3 year process in the 38th Avenue area. The criteria for the evaluation of these stations included: spatial and geometric considerations, expandability,

- 14 -

ease of access for bicycles, pedestrians, buses and vehicles, compatibility with existing and future land use plans, acquisitions required for implementation, proximity to major activity centers and minimization of environmental impacts. There were a number of station selection public meetings with opportunities to comment. The 41st/Fox station was selected with significant agency and public support. Land Acquisition, Displacements and Relocation of Existing Uses. There were three property owner comments expressing concern about the potential need for their properties to implement the project. o Response to the comments about property acquisitions: A major goal of the Gold Line environmental process was to minimize environmental impacts, including property acquisitions. This resulted in no full residential acquisitions required and 16 business acquisitions required. RTD will follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This will include relocation assistance and the provision of just compensation for properties required to implement the Gold Line (Appendix B mitigation measures under Land Acquisition, Displacements and Relocations of Existing Uses). Community Enhancements. There were local government comments which expressed the desire for additional sidewalks, improved drainage, local roadway improvements, additional parking at stations, and the like. o Response to local government requests for community enhancements: The Gold Line team will continue to coordinate with local governments to provide the best project possible considering real financial constraints. RTD will provide the local government design comments to the bidders on the project for their consideration as well. Positive statements about the EIS and public involvement process. o Response: Comment noted.

Determinations and Findings Section 106 Compliance FTA has determined, in coordination with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the Preferred Alternative will result in an adverse effect to the Denver West Side Line (5DV3512.3); the Denver Utah Pacific Railroad, Chicago Burlington Quincy Siding & Spur (Waterworks Sales Co, J.M. Warner Co, & Richardson Lumber Spur) (5AM1888 and 5DV6243); and the Allen-Rand Ditch (5JF4454.1). Mitigation measures have been identified and are described in a Memorandum of Agreement among FTA, RTD, and SHPO dated July of 2009 (Appendix A). Section 4(f) Determination FTA determined through the Section 4(f) analysis that there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, as defined in 23 CFR 774.17, to the use of the Denver West Side Line (5DV3512.3); the Denver Utah Pacific Railroad, Chicago Burlington Quincy Siding & Spur (Waterworks Sales Co, J.M. Warner Co, & Richardson Lumber Spur) (5AM1888 and 5DV6243);

- 15 -

and the Allen-Rand Ditch (5JF4454.1). FTA also determined that the project incorporates all possible planning to minimize harm, as defined in 23 CFR 774.17 that results from the use of those resources. In addition, FTA has determined that the use of the Jim Baker Reservoir, including any measures to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) committed to will have a de minimis impact on the property. Adams County, the official with jurisdiction, concurred that the impacts to Jim Baker Reservoir meet the de minimis requirements. In addition, the City and County of Denver, Adams County, and the City of Arvada concurred with the proposed trail detours during construction activities as identified in the mitigation measures for Parklands, Open Space and Recreational Resources in Appendix B of this ROD. Conformity with Air Quality Plans On the basis of the determinations made in compliance with relevant provisions of federal law, FTA finds that the Gold Line project satisfies the requirements of NEPA, the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended. The project is identified in the conforming Long Range Transportation Plan and in the conforming Transportation Improvement Program for the Denver metropolitan region. Floodplains 100-year floodplains associated with the South Platte River, Clear Creek, and Ralston Creek would be affected by the implementation of the project. Bridge construction would require the placement of piers within the 100-year floodplain of all three water-courses. Bridge span lengths were widened to avoid placement within the normal channel flow of the South Platte River at an additional cost to the project to minimize impacts to the riparian system and flood elevations. Nonetheless, two piers remain within the 100-year floodplain. Modeling of the new bridge suggests a maximum rise of 100-year flood elevation of 0.19 foot just upstream of the bridge. The bridge spans at Clear Creek were designed to mirror the spans of the existing UPRR Bridge immediately upstream and to avoid impacts to wetlands. Modeling of the new bridge suggests a maximum rise of 100-year flood elevation of 0.58 foot, just upstream of the existing bridge. At Ralston Creek, a new seven-span bridge with new pier locations mirroring those of the existing BNSF Railway Company Bridge would be installed resulting in a modeled rise of the 100-year elevation of 0.15 foot. Alternatives to the recommended bridge design at Ralston Creek were considered but found infeasible as the use of longer spans required an increase of the structural depth of the bridge deck, and/or raising the bridge. Raising the commuter rail bridge resulted in the need to demolish the existing Ralston Road Bridge (which passes over the commuter rail alignment) and is not cost effective. If the bridge is not raised and the deck depth is increased to accommodate longer spans, there would be insufficient clearance under the bridge for the existing pedestrian/bicycle path paralleling Ralston Creek resulting in a 4(f) impact. Additionally, the bottom cord of the bridge would be submerged by the 100-year floodwaters resulting in a greater impact to flood elevations than the proposed design. Wetlands and Other Water Features The Preferred Alternative will result in impacts to 0.15 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.19 acres of other water features. A Nationwide Permit request has been approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the contractor will comply with all requirements of the Nationwide Permit (wetlands will be replaced per USACE and United States

- 16 -

Environmental Protection Agency requirements for jurisdictional wetlands). Additionally RTD has committed to 1:1 mitigation for non- jurisdictional wetlands as noted in the mitigation table in Appendix B.

- 17 -

Changes from the Final Environmental Impact Statement The following changes have occurred since the FEIS was released: Property Acquisitions. Due to additional survey information, the property acquisitions required for the Preferred Alternative have decreased slightly. Pecos Station Option A from the FEIS (only required if Adams County did not complete the Pecos Grade Separation project) is no longer under consideration since Adams County is currently preparing for construction of the Pecos Grade Separation. The design of the main Pecos Station option, included in the Preferred Alternative described in the FEIS and this ROD, is consistent with the implementation of the grade separation. Two mitigation measures were refined due to agency and stakeholder comments. Peak hour headways are likely to be reduced from 7.5 minutes to 15 minutes. This potential change was disclosed in the FEIS. This change would result in a decrease in impacts previously reported. In addition to these changes, minor corrections to typographical errors in the FEIS can be found in the response to comments on the project website. Land Acquisition, Displacement, and Relocation of Existing Uses Based on additional survey information received since the release of the FEIS, modifications to property acquisitions were identified. These changes slightly decrease the total acres of private property to be acquired from 128.2 acres to 127.5 acres. In addition, these changes decrease the number of partial residential impacts from 13 to eight. Table 3 summarizes new property impacts that were identified or revised impact acreages from the survey data. New or modified impacts, noted in this ROD, will not result in any additional business relocations or any residential relocations. TABLE 3: PROPERTY IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN UPDATED OR ADDED SINCE THE FEIS Parcel ID and Property Property Acres Percent Business Owner Type Acquired Impact Relocations Comments Gold Line Alignment and Stations 0227300092000 Impacts to parcel 0227300092000 City and County were included in the municipal total 14 in the FEIS, but the City and County of Denver Park Industrial 1.18 0 Avenue West (Partial) of Denver requested that impacts to Maintenance this parcel be documented Facility individually. 215300070000 Owens Corning representatives 16 requested that impacts be Owens-Corning Industrial 0.08 0 Fiberglas (Partial) recalculated with additional survey Corporation information. 182515204006 Owens Corning representatives 16 requested that impacts be Owens-Corning Industrial 1.92 0 Fiberglas (Partial) recalculated with additional survey Corporation information.

- 18 -

Parcel ID and Property Property Acres Percent Business Owner Type Acquired Impact Relocations Comments 182510300003 Impacts were modified as a result of Koppers Industrial 0.23 5 0 additional survey information. Industries Inc. 182510300004 Impacts were documented as a Koppers Industrial <0.01 <1 0 result of additional survey Industries Inc. information. 0182515205008 Impacts were documented as a <1 Industrial 0.01 0 result of additional survey Mountain States (Partial) Packaging information. 0182509400026 Impacts were documented as a <1 result of additional survey Newman Polly Industrial <0.01 0 c/o Robert (Partial) information. Pierce

182509104012 Impacts to 182509104012 increased 100 as a result of revised parcel records Industrial 6.61 0 EP Investment (Full) which documented that parcel LLC 182509104007 no longer exists. 3912399003 Impacts were documented as a 9 Commercial 0.04 0 result of additional survey Lykou Family (Partial) LLC information. Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility 215300070000 Owens Corning representatives 12 requested that impacts be Owens-Corning Industrial 0.06 0 Fiberglas (Partial) recalculated with additional survey Corporation information. 182515204006 Owens Corning representatives 10 requested that impacts be Owens-Corning Industrial 1.19 0 Fiberglas (Partial) recalculated with additional survey Corporation information. Source: Gold Line Team, 2009 The parcels identified in Table 4 below were documented as impacted in the FEIS, but based on additional survey information will not be permanently impacted. TABLE 4: PROPERTY IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE FEIS Parcel ID and Property Property Acres Percent Business Owner Type Acquired Impact Relocations Comments Based on additional survey 182509400053 information this area is owned by 2 Adams County. Therefore the Broderick Other 1.04 0 Investment (Partial) total acres of all municipal Company impacts will increase from 13.92 to 14.96 acres.

- 19 -

Parcel ID and Property Property Acres Percent Business Owner Type Acquired Impact Relocations Comments Impacts to parcel 182509104007 are removed from the impacts 182509104007 and were added to parcel 100 182509104012 as noted in Table Industrial 4.35 0 EP Investment (Full) 3 above, based on revised parcel LLC records for the Pecos station which indicate that parcel 182509104007 no longer exists 182508300013 Commercial 0.06 4 0 Based on additional survey Lynetta King (Partial) information permanent impacts to this parcel will be avoided. Based on additional survey 3912300071 3 Industrial 0.02 0 information permanent impacts to (Partial) Gilbert Dunn this parcel will be avoided. 3912300072 Based on additional survey 10 Commercial 0.08 0 information permanent impacts to Family (Partial) Precision LLC this parcel will be avoided. 3912300075 Based on additional survey 2 Commercial 0.02 0 information permanent impacts to Lectra Products (Partial) Co this parcel will be avoided. Based on additional survey 3915212014 15 Residential 0.03 0 information permanent impacts to (Partial) Geoffrey Bruce this parcel will be avoided. 3916406005 Based on additional survey 8 information permanent impacts to Arvada Ridge Commercial 0.11 0 Market Place (Partial) this parcel will be avoided. LLC 3916406013 Based on additional survey <1 information permanent impacts to Arvada Ridge Commercial <0.01 0 Market Place (Partial) this parcel will be avoided. LLC 3916406006 Based on additional survey <1 information permanent impacts to Arvada Ridge Commercial <0.01 0 Market Place (Partial) this parcel will be avoided. LLC 3916406014 Based on additional survey 9 information permanent impacts to Arvada Ridge Other 0.07 0 Markel Place (Partial) this parcel will be avoided. LLC 3917403013 Residential 0.03 11 0 Based on additional survey Spencer Clark (Partial) information permanent impacts to this parcel will be avoided. 3917403001 Residential 0.03 8 0 Based on additional survey Gary Gosik (Partial) information permanent impacts to this parcel will be avoided. 3917403014 Residential 0.02 6 0 Based on additional survey The Martin (Partial) information permanent impacts to Family Trust this parcel will be avoided.

- 20 -

Parcel ID and Property Property Acres Percent Business Owner Type Acquired Impact Relocations Comments 3917403012 Residential 0.01 3 0 Based on additional survey Ronald Yelick (Partial) information permanent impacts to this parcel will be avoided. Source: Gold Line Team, 2009

In addition, parcel 0227801017000 (Combined Fishman Properties) was documented as a partial acquisition in Table 3.3-2 and as a full acquisition in Table 3.3-3 of the FEIS. Impacts to this property will result in a full acquisition as was documented in Table 3.3-3 of the FEIS.

Refined Mitigation Measures Based on Comments Based on comments from stakeholders, two mitigation measures were modified from the FEIS. These two changes are summarized below and are included in Appendix B. The provisions of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) are applicable year-round; most migratory bird nesting activity in eastern Colorado occurs during the period between April 1 and August 31 (in the FEIS the nesting period was documented as between April 1 and August 15). The intersection at Ward Road and 50th Place will be signalized when a traffic signal is warranted (in the FEIS the signal was recommended if Ward Road was improved to six lanes).

- 21 -

Appendix B

Impacts and Mitigation of the Preferred Alternative

GOLD LINE RECORD OF DECISION

Impacts and Mitigation of the Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Environmental Resources Social Impacts and Community Facilities Direct Impacts No mitigation required. No direct impacts to neighborhoods or community facilities. Population changes would be consistent with local and regional plans, which encourage TOD near the proposed transit stations. Benefit of an improved transit system and decreased congestion. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Probable shift of some population to the transit station areas due to TOD. Temporary Construction Impacts Working with the communities, RTD will prepare a Construction Mitigation Plan (CMP) that During the 36 to 48 month construction schedule, specifies public communications, and construction means and methods to reduce or mitigate approximately 95 acres would be exposed, about half in the the inconveniences of construction such as noise, dust, visual blight, construction traffic, and railroad ROW and half for stations. preservation of access to homes, businesses, and community facilities. Residences most affected by the inconveniences of RTD will coordinate with the impacted neighborhoods prior to and during construction activities. construction (noise, dust, construction traffic) would be See mitigation in this table for Visual and Aesthetic Qualities. within 300 feet of the ROW. A total of 354 single-family and See mitigation in this table for Air Quality. 12 multi-family properties are located in this area. The majority of the impacts would be in Arvada, between Lamar See mitigation in this table for Noise and Vibration. Street and Kipling Street. See mitigation in this table for Transportation Systems. The construction of the 20 required at-grade crossings would result in temporary impacts to residents living in the vicinity of the at-grade crossing.

B-1 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required The Preferred Alternative would encourage compact urban development because “in-fill” development would result adjacent to transit stations, reducing urban sprawl in the outskirts of the Gold Line study area. Neighborhoods would be revitalized as a result of the project action, increasing the use of community facilities and population densities around stations. The Preferred Alternative would help to shape the direction of future growth and strengthen neighborhoods. CRMF No mitigation required. The construction of the CRMF would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to neighborhoods, community facilities, or population. The construction of the CRMF site would result in a temporary increase in construction traffic and localized dust. Because the site is located within an industrial area and the nearest residential area is located approximately a half-mile away, these impacts would be minimal to residential areas. Environmental Justice Direct Impacts No mitigation required. No disproportionate impacts as compared to the general population for all environmental resources. Benefit of access to the new transit system and the entire RTD network, and increased mobility for 2,084 low-income households, 5,547 minority populations, and 493 zero-auto households. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Increased property values and taxes around stations, which could result in minority and low-income persons moving to more affordable neighborhoods. General benefit of economic stimulus from TOD.

B-2 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Temporary Construction Impacts No mitigation required. No disproportionate construction impacts as compared to the general population for all environmental resources. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The Preferred Alternative would provide alternative transportation options throughout the Gold Line study area. In the Denver metropolitan region, 25 percent of the population will be over age 60 in 2030 (DRCOG, 2005a). The Preferred Alternative would improve the mobility of minority and traditional transit users in the Gold Line study area and access to DUS and the rest of the RTD system. Stations would be located near major job sites, which would provide better and more convenient access to minority, low- income and traditional transit users (RTD, 2007b). CRMF No mitigation required The CRMF would not result in any disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income communities. Land Use Direct Impacts Provision of phased parking and allowing modification of parking facilities after 2015, if All stations for the Preferred Alternative are compatible with warranted. implemented land use plans in Denver, Adams County, Monitoring parking demand after 2015 and adjusting supply (as necessary). Arvada, and Wheat Ridge. The Preferred Alternative is compatible with existing local transportation plans. Concerns that proposed surface parking at the transit stations would require land that could be better used for TOD. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Planned increase in urban density within 0.5 mile of stations as a result of TOD, increasing employment and real estate values, and slightly reducing urban sprawl. The transformation from low density to higher density is likely to increase employment and real estate values and, to some extent, reduce urban sprawl.

B-3 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Temporary Construction Impacts No mitigation required. No impacts. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. With the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, future development is anticipated to be more concentrated at planned TODs along the proposed alignment, resulting is slightly less sprawl in the Gold Line study area. Acreage not developed would be available until 2030 for other uses, such as wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge. Similar effects are expected for the region as the East, Northwest Rail, North Metro, I-225, and other FasTracks transit projects and their respective TODs are implemented. These trends have been verified by RTD through the Transit Oriented Status Report completed in 2007 (RTD, 2007d). In this report, RTD compared the estimates for TOD at the stations for the Southwest, Southeast, and Central Platte Valley included in environmental documents associated with each project. All of these environmental documents predicted increased development around the proposed stations. RTD’s findings are that these predictions were met or in most cases exceeded (RTD, 2007b). CRMF No mitigation required. The CRMF would be consistent with City and County of Denver and Adams County zoning and adopted land use and transportation plans. Farmlands Direct, Indirect, and Temporary Construction Impacts No mitigation required. No impacts because there is no farmland within 0.5 mile of the Preferred Alternative, including both the alignment and stations. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in increased densities around the seven transit stations, possibly delaying the development of existing farmland in the fringes of the Gold Line study area.

B-4 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation CRMF No mitigation required. No impacts because there is no farmland located within the study area. Economic Considerations Direct Impacts See mitigation in this table for Land Acquisitions, Displacements, and Relocations of Existing Economic stimuli of improved access to communities in the Facilities. study area especially compared to communities without rail transit. Loss of annual property tax: $722,000 to $732,000 Acquisition of businesses: 16 businesses, estimated possible relocation of 317 jobs. Benefit of approximately 100 jobs associated with operations and maintenance of the new transit system. It is estimated that the new operational jobs would create another 153 indirect jobs. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Benefit of indirect jobs as a result of future TOD. Benefit of high-density, mixed-use development as a result of TOD. Increased property values around stations as a result of TOD. Temporary Construction Impacts Create CMPs and work with local communities and businesses. Temporary construction impacts including noise, dust, visual Provide clear signage and direction for alternate access. degradation, and traffic congestion. Coordinate with local groups, business districts, and jurisdictions using a variety of media (for Short-term possible impeded access to 31 businesses in Olde example radio, flyers, advertisements, and Web site), where appropriate. Town, potentially resulting in loss of business due to Provide temporary access during normal business hours, where possible. construction. Construction through the Olde Town area will Ensure contractors obtain all necessary local permits. take between 6 and 8 weeks to install the alignment and an additional 8 weeks to construct the Olde Town Station. Develop traffic maintenance plans to maintain access and circulation. These impacts are compounded against the current (2007) See mitigation in this table for Visual and Aesthetic Qualities. Wadsworth Bypass project currently occurring adjacent to See mitigation in this table for Air Quality. Olde Town. See mitigation in this table for Noise and Vibration. Benefit of 4,290 total jobs, or 1,075 to 1,425 jobs per year See mitigation in this table for Transportation Systems. (48 or 36-month month construction schedule). Each dollar spent on a FasTracks projects results in two

B-5 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation dollars to the local economy due to multiplier effects. Additionally, each construction job is estimated to create 2.4 indirect jobs for the duration of construction. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The Preferred Alternative would improve the traffic conditions and reduce congestion, thereby slightly decreasing the cost of congestion on individuals and businesses. FasTracks is expected to save individuals $210 annually in 2030, as compared to the cost of congestion without FasTracks (RTD, 2007b). This would increase the livability of the area, thereby increasing its attractiveness for businesses and employees. The improved transit service would result in a wider draw area for candidate employees, providing employers with a more diverse pool of candidates. Construction of FasTracks would result in additional employment and economic activity. For every dollar spent on construction capital costs, more than $2 of additional economic activity would be generated in the Denver region. In addition, every dollar spent on capital costs would translate directly into $0.72 in new wages and salary for jobs outside the construction field. FasTracks would also create long-term operations, maintenance, and general administration jobs. Based upon the current employment figures for RTD light rail operations, it is estimated that FasTracks would create employment for approximately 1,100 workers. The long-term employment benefits will also have a multiplier effect on the regional economy, resulting in an additional 1,533 jobs for every 1,000 jobs created (employment multiplier of 1.53) by FasTracks operations. Thus, the number of new permanent jobs created during FasTracks operations is approximately 2,500. (RTD, 2007b). The estimated average number of jobs directly related to construction of the FasTracks system would be 2,171 jobs per year, representing about $217 million per year in wages and benefits per year, assuming 7-year construction

B-6 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation duration. The 2,171 direct employment jobs per year would generate approximately 5,000 additional indirect jobs (economic construction job multiplier of 2.42) per year in the Denver region for all industries not directly involved with construction of the FasTracks system. In total, the construction effort would employ over 7,000 people per year including direct and indirect jobs (RTD, 2007b). CRMF Mitigation for the CRMF will be the same as those measures identified for the temporary construction impacts above. Approximately 300 jobs would be created by the CRMF. An additional 459 jobs would be created as a result of these long-term employment benefits with the operation of the CRMF (employment multiplier of 1.53). Conversely, additional jobs could be lost if second tier companies do not relocate within the Denver metro area. Loss of annual property tax: $7,000. No business acquisitions. Other businesses along Fox Street and 48th Avenue would be temporarily impacted by construction-related vehicle traffic, and adjacent businesses could experience temporary disruptions as a result of construction related noise and dust. The construction of the CRMF at the Fox North Site would provide a benefit by generating a total of 990 construction jobs, or approximately 495 construction jobs per year for 2 years. These temporary construction jobs are estimated to create additional indirect employment of over 2,300 jobs for the two year construction period. Land Acquisitions, Displacements and Relocations of Existing Uses Direct Impacts Acquisition: The acquisition of real property interests will comply fully with the Uniform The Preferred Alternative would result in the following Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended impacts: (Uniform Act) and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Uniform Act - Acquisition of businesses: 16 businesses applies to all acquisitions of real property or displacements of people resulting from federal or federally assisted programs or projects. All impacted owners will be provided notification of the - No full residential acquisitions and eight partial acquiring agency’s intent to acquire an interest in their property, including a written offer letter

B-7 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation residential acquisitions of just compensation specifically describing those property interests. - Acquisition of private property: 127.50 to 128.08 acres Relocation Analysis: RTD will prepare a relocation analysis to enable relocation activities to be (mostly for stations) planned in such a manner that the problems associated with the displacement of businesses - Acquisition of railroad property: 26.91 acres are recognized and solutions are developed to minimize the adverse impacts of displacement. - Acquisition of municipal owned ROW: 14.96 acres The Relocation Study will estimate the number, type, and size of businesses and non-profit organizations to be displaced and the approximate number of employees that may be affected; and consider any special advisory services that may be necessary from RTD and other cooperating agencies. Relocation Assistance Advisory Services: Relocation assistance will include determining the relocation needs and preferences of each business to be displaced and explaining the relocation payments and other assistance for which the business owner is eligible; providing current and continuing information on the availability, purchase prices, and rental costs of comparable replacement commercial properties, and other programs administered by the Small Business Administration and other federal, state, and local programs offering assistance to the displaced businesses. Payments: The relocation payments provided to displaced businesses are determined by federal eligibility guidelines. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Property acquisitions would indirectly result in job losses. See mitigation in this table for Economic Considerations. Temporary Construction Impacts No mitigation required. Temporary construction easements are included in the direct impacts calculated for the Preferred Alternative. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. Private property acquisition required for the Preferred Alternative (up to 128.08 acres) would be additive to the property required for three roadway projects and the Northwest Rail project committed under the No Action Alternative, plus the additional land needed for new public infrastructure to serve the 2030 population in the Gold Line study area, estimated at approximately 700 acres. This compares to the 20,000+/- acres that would be required for public infrastructure to accommodate the 2030 population estimated for the Denver metropolitan area.

B-8 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation CRMF Acquisition: The acquisition of real property interests will comply fully with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended The CRMF would result in the acquisition of approximately (Uniform Act) and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Uniform Act 3.33 acres of property and would not result in the relocation applies to all acquisitions of real property or displacements of people resulting from federal or of any businesses. federally assisted programs or projects. All impacted owners will be provided notification of the acquiring agency’s intent to acquire an interest in their property, including a written offer letter of just compensation specifically describing those property interests. Cultural Resources Direct Impacts A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been completed between FTA and the SHPO (July 2009) and is included in Appendix A. The Preferred Alternative would result in the following impacts: Where known archaeological sites are present, ground-disturbing activities will be avoided, where possible. RTD may complete archaeological monitoring during construction activities. In - Adverse Effect to two historic properties: the Denver the event that cultural deposits are discovered during construction, work would cease in the West Side Line (5DV3512.3) as a result of the 41st area of discovery and the SHPO would be notified. The designated representative would Avenue East Station and the Allan-Rand Ditch evaluate any such discovery, and in consultation with SHPO, complete appropriate mitigation (5JF4454.1) as a result of the trackway. measures, if necessary, before construction activities resume. - Potential impacts to archaeological resources Indirect Impacts See mitigation in this table for Visual and Aesthetic Qualities. The project would result in indirect noise and visual impacts to five historic resources. However, the incremental increase See mitigation in this table for, Noise and Vibration. in the noise level would not be considered an Adverse See mitigation in this table for Air Quality. Effect to the individual historic properties, nor to the project's historic districts as a whole. The districts have See mitigation in this table for Transportation Systems been associated with the rail line since the early 20th century, thus the setting, association, and feeling of the historic properties along the rail line would not be adversely affected by proposed noise levels. Temporary Construction Impacts See mitigation in this table for Visual and Aesthetic Resources. Historic properties within the APE could be subject to See mitigation in this table for Air Quality. temporary impacts due to the noise, air quality, visual, and See mitigation in this table for, Noise and Vibration. traffic-diverting effects of construction. These impacts would result in No Adverse Effect to the historic resources. See mitigation in this table for Transportation Systems.

B-9 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. Archeological Resources: There would be no known cumulative impacts to NRHP-eligible archaeological resources from the Preferred Alternative. Historic Resources: There would be no cumulative impacts to historic properties from the Preferred Alternative. Many of the neighborhoods in the project area developed due to their proximity to the railroad and the availability of public transportation and commercial goods. Considering the railroad corridor has existed in these historic neighborhoods for more than a century, there should be no cumulative impacts from the addition of commuter rail. Cumulative impacts could become a factor from potential transportation-oriented development that may cluster around the station areas in the future. CRMF A MOA has been completed between FTA and the SHPO (July 2009) and is included in Archeological Resource: No direct, indirect, or temporary Appendix A. construction impacts from the implementation of the CRMF. Where known archaeological sites are present, ground-disturbing activities will be avoided, Historic Resources: Adverse effect to the Denver Utah where possible. RTD may complete archaeological monitoring during construction activities. In Pacific Railroad, Chicago Burlington Quincy Siding & Spur the event that cultural deposits are discovered during construction, work would cease in the (Waterworks Sales Co, J.M. Warner Co, & Richardson area of discovery and the SHPO would be notified. The designated representative would lumber Spur) (5AM1888.5 and 5DV6243.7). evaluate any such discovery, and in consultation with SHPO, complete appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary, before construction activities resume.

B-10 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Visual and Aesthetic Resources Direct Impacts Station aesthetics will be coordinated with local agencies and the public during final design. Project features that present the potential for visual change Station designs must be approved by the appropriate design review committee by each local include: jurisdiction. Final designs for stations will follow and build from the Preliminary Engineering design. - Structures The architecture of new transit structures will match existing designs where two structures are - Numerous retaining walls located throughout the length parallel, where appropriate. of the alignment Architectural catenary poles in Olde Town, Arvada. - Up to four pedestrian bridges Station canopies will be based on the topologies selected at the station IFT meetings held during - Seven transit stations and pnR facilities the FEIS: - 11.2 miles of overhead catenary – 41st Avenue East Station: Industrial Loft Modern – Pecos Station: Industrial Loft Modern - 11.2 miles of trackway – Federal Station: Town Center Contemporary - Electric substation – Sheridan Station: Neighborhood Craftsman - Fencing along the alignment – Olde Town Station: Main Street Historic – Arvada Ridge Station: Neighborhood Craftsman - Crash walls where the alignment is less than 50 feet – Ward Road Station: Town Center Contemporary from the UP alignment between I-76 and the Federal Station and between the Sheridan Station and Sheridan Fencing types, excluding station areas, will be provided, including: boulevard – Denver Section . Post and cable on emergency walkways on the South Platte River and 38th Avenue No adverse impacts in the Denver, Adams, and Wheat Ridge Bridges and adjacent to the 41st Avenue East Station Sections due to the industrial and rail-oriented character of . Chain link through other areas the alignment. – Adams Section Anticipated sensitivities in the Arvada Section from Lamar . Guardrail along I-76, where necessary Street to Kipling Street. . Post and cable on emergency walkways on the Clear Creek Bridge, along the cantilever walkway between Clear Creek and Tennyson Street and adjacent to the Pecos and Federal Stations . Chain link through other areas – Arvada . Post and cable on emergency walkways on the Ralston Creek Bridge, between Lamar Street and Carr Street and adjacent to the Sheridan Boulevard and Arvada Ridge Stations . Chain link through other areas – Wheat Ridge . Post and cable adjacent to the Ward Road Station . Chain link through other areas

B-11 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Railings/fencing at station areas will be designed consistent with the station canopy typologies as identified above. The electric substation will be screened. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Planned increase in urban density as a result of TOD planning including taller buildings, and a higher level of urban design. Temporary Construction Impacts Construction material staging areas will be fenced and screened. Temporary visual degradation due to the presence of After project construction, the ground surfaces outside of the trackway will be restored to the equipment, staging areas, machinery, vehicles, original condition, and any vegetation that had been removed during the construction process construction materials, construction workers, and will be replaced with like-kind vegetation, where feasible. Vegetation will not be replaced in the excavated material piles. immediate trackway. Temporary construction would create the biggest impact when adjacent to the open space areas where vegetation would be disturbed and take time to reestablish. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The Gold Line study area has gone from being partially developed in the 1950s to almost entirely developed today. Over this period, the visual quality of the area has changed from rural and industrial to urban and industrial. The cumulative impacts to the visual quality of the Gold Line study area resulting from the construction of bridges, walls, tracks, the catenary system, and platforms are comparatively low when compared to the infrastructure improvements needed to support existing and future populations. Most of these built elements are located within the existing BNSF Railway Company/UP ROW, have minimal to low impacts to the surrounding area, and result in only a small component of potential overall visual change for the Gold Line study area. The greatest potential impact to the Gold Line’s future visual quality would be determined by what type of growth occurs at and around the stations. Currently, the majority of land surrounding the proposed stations is industrial, vacant,

B-12 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation or open space with low densities. Land use plans, which are adopted by individual cities, would determine if and how these areas transform to higher densities and how that development is allowed to occur. Ultimately, the development and build out of TOD stations, which is guided by local policy, would have the greatest cumulative effect on the future visual quality of the corridor. Regionally, the visual affect of FasTracks would be to add 119 miles of rail and supporting stations, the majority of which are anticipated to encourage TOD and the potentially higher architectural standards that accompany this type of development. Assuming that the remaining FasTracks projects require approximately 10 acres per mile for trackway and stations, approximately 1,190 acres would be converted to transit uses and the associated visual change. By comparison, accommodating increased 2030 populations would require more than 100,000 acres of new development, assuming a density of 10 persons per acre. CRMF No mitigation required. The CRMF would replace existing industrial land uses with a new industrial land use, resulting in no change to the existing visual character of the site. Appropriate fencing and buffering would be designed consistent with local jurisdictions’ development standards. With development of the CRMF, the immediate view and edge along Fox Street would likely improve over the existing conditions. The CRMF would not result in indirect or construction impacts. Parklands, Open Space, and Recreational Resources Direct Impacts RTD will be responsible for maintaining the retaining wall. Acquisition of 0.11 acre of a natural landscaped area at Jim Baker Reservoir. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. No indirect impacts.

B-13 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Temporary Construction Impacts Provide temporary parking on the west side of Tennyson Street during grading activities. Re-grading of the access road to Jim Baker Reservoir. Provide adequate trail detours and advanced notice and signing prior to beginning construction, if possible. Detour of the South Platte River, Clear Creek and Ralston Creek Trails. Create CMPs and coordinate with local communities. Temporary construction impacts to McIlvoy Park (access, South Platte River Trail noise, visual, and traffic congestion). - Temporary trail detour during pier construction and girder placement. - West on Arkins Court, Left on Denargo Street, which turns into Delgany Street and then into Wewatta Street, right on 19th Street, right on Chestnut Place, left on West 20th Avenue, right on Little Raven Street to the trail entrance at the City of Cuernavaca Park - Detour for users of the bridge over the South Platte River (behind the City and County of Denver Park Avenue Municipal Services Complex): Trail users will use the sidewalk of Park Avenue, designated as a D-7 bike route, to the intersection of Park Avenue and Denargo Street (also called Delgany Street or Wewatta Street) where they can follow the previously mentioned detour back to the South Platte River Trail. - Temporary safety structure during construction of the bridge deck. Clear Creek Trail: - Temporary trail detour during pier construction and girder placement - Detour west on a temporary trail located to the South of Lake Sangraco, south on Lowell Boulevard to the Lowell Boulevard Trailhead at 55th Avenue and Lowell Boulevard - Temporary safety structure during the construction of the bridge deck Ralston Creek Trail: - Detour north on West 56th Avenue to the West 58th Avenue sidewalk Create CMP and work with local communities. Provide clear signage and directions for alternate access points. Coordinate with local groups, neighborhoods, communities, and jurisdictions using a variety of media (for example, radio, flyers, advertisements, and Web site), where appropriate. Provide temporary park access during normal business hours, where feasible, if needed. See mitigation in this table for Visual and Aesthetic Qualities. See mitigation in this table for Noise and Vibration.

B-14 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation See mitigation in this table for Transportation Systems. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The implementation of the Preferred Alternative would provide a stimulus for the development of land within 0.5 mile of stations, creating higher density mixed-use developments. This would result in a population shift toward the TOD areas. It can be anticipated that additional parkland and recreation areas would be provided as part of these TODs. CRMF No mitigation required. The CRMF would not result in direct, indirect, or temporary construction impacts to park or recreation resources. Air Quality Direct Impacts No mitigation required. Slight decrease in the regional vehicle emissions (carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxide (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or smaller [PM10]). The Preferred Alternative is listed in the most recently approved 2030 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. No CO hot-spot violations. Parking facility CO levels below National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For the Gold Line project the Preferred Alternative would, by itself, produce slightly more CO2 compared to the No Action Alternative. However, the increase associated with the Preferred Alternative is negligible and would be off-set by traffic reduction, and associated lower CO2 emissions, resulting from the FasTracks system ridership as a whole.

B-15 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Temporary Construction Impacts For winter construction, the contractor shall install engine pre-heater devices to eliminate unnecessary idling. Fugitive dust (PM10) emissions of 100 pounds per day based on the assumption of a maximum disturbed area of 10 The contractor shall be prohibited from tampering with equipment to increase horsepower or to acres per day. defeat emissions control device effectiveness. Construction vehicles and equipment used by the contractor shall be properly tuned and maintained. Construction vehicles and equipment, used by the contractor, shall be equipped with the minimum practical engine size for the intended job requirement. All construction equipment used by the contractor will be equipped to burn ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. The contractor shall use water or wetting agents to manage dust. The contractor shall use wind barriers and wind screens to minimize the spreading of dust in areas where large amounts of materials are stored. The contractor shall use a wheel wash station and/or large-diameter cobble apron at egress/ingress areas to minimize dirt being tracked onto public streets. The contractor shall use vacuum powered street sweepers to control dirt tracked onto streets. The contractor shall cover all dump trucks leaving the site. The contractor shall cover or wet temporary excavated materials. The contractor shall use a binding agent for long-term excavated materials. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation is required. The cumulative impact of FasTracks is projected to result in a modest improvement in regional air quality due to reductions in vehicle miles traveled and more compact urbanization due to TOD.

B-16 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation CRMF Mitigation for the CRMF will be the same as those measures identified earlier in this table for the The rail operations associated with the CRMF are included in Air Quality temporary construction impacts. the FasTracks Plan, which is included in the 2012 Transportation Improvement Plan and the Metro Vision Plan.

Emissions of criteria pollutants (PM10, VOCs, NOx, and CO) would be below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The project meets the conformity hot spot requirements in 40 CFR §93.116 and §93.123 for PM10. The MSAT emission levels for the CRMF are similar to the No Action Alternative for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 study areas.

Fugitive dust (PM10) emissions of 100 pounds per day based on the assumption of a maximum disturbed area of 10 acres per day. Energy Direct Impacts No mitigation required. Energy impacts are not a discriminator between the No Action and Preferred Alternatives. 166,733,285 million British thermal unit (Btus) in 2015, increase of 110,560 million Btus or 0.0007 percent as compared to the No Action Alternative in the region. 207,858,217 million Btus in 2030, increase of 89,623 million Btus or 0.0004 percent as compared to the No Action Alternative in the region. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Energy use associated with TOD potentially less than the No Action Alternative because of smaller residences, decreased dependence on automobiles, and increase in transit use. Temporary Construction Impacts Design efforts to reduce energy consumption and overall VMT including: Energy usage of 1,132,998 million Btus with the Preferred - Creating multiple access points for parking lots, where possible.

B-17 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Alternative. - Carefully designing “kiss-n-Ride” drop-offs to maximize efficiency and minimize number of vehicles idling. - Positioning stations to be more easily accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists. - Park-and-Ride improvements to decrease energy consumption consistent with RTD’s sustainability policy. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. Possible TOD associated with the Preferred Alternative may result in smaller average home sizes and more efficient use of public infrastructure, both of which would reverse the past trends of energy consumption increasing faster than population. Although the Preferred Alternative would result in a negligible increase in energy, the entire FasTracks Plan would result in an overall energy reduction (RTD, 2007b). CRMF BMPs will be incorporated into the project to reduce energy usage during site construction. The non-revenue movements to and from the Fox North Site RTD will investigate the use of energy efficient design and Leadership in Energy and would results in a per day energy usage of approximately Environmental Design certification for the CRMF; this is consistent with the goals of the RTD 10,174,698 Btus in 2015 and 12,217,039 Btus in 2030. adopted Sustainability Policy. The operation of the buildings at the CRMF would result in the use of approximately 36,925,942 Btus per day. The construction of the tracks associated with the CRMF would result in the use of approximately 157,185 million Btus. Energy would also be required to construct the buildings associated with the new facility. The CRMF would have no indirect energy impacts. Noise Direct Impacts Quiet Zones will be implemented prior to operation. (Quiet Zones near the proposed grade No noise impacts assuming the implementation of a Quiet crossings from Lowell Boulevard to Tabor Street [Adams County to Wheat Ridge] will mitigate Zone. all noise impacts except at one museum.) With no Quiet Zone: RTD will assist local jurisdictions with their applications to the railroads and the FRA. Applications for Quiet Zones must be submitted by the local jurisdictions. - Severe Noise Impacts – Adams County, Arvada, and Wheat Ridge: Should Quiet Zones not be implemented prior to operations, alternate methods of noise mitigation, such as wayside horns and sound insulation, will be used. (Wayside horns at all

B-18 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation - 356 residences grade crossings from Lamar Street in Arvada to Tabor Street in Wheat Ridge will mitigate all - One park noise impacts except at 58 residences, one institutional facility, one school and one museum.) - Two schools - One institutional building - One museum - Moderate Noise Impacts – Adams County, Arvada, and Wheat Ridge: - 529 residences Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. No indirect impacts. Temporary Construction Impacts All mitigation measures will be implemented at start of construction. Noise related to construction activities. Minimize nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods. Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive sites. Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers. Re-route construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance to residents. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. There would be no cumulative noise impacts for the Preferred Alternative. CRMF No mitigation required. No direct or indirect noise impacts. Noise related to construction activities. Vibration Direct Impacts No mitigation is required. No direct impacts. Indirect Impacts No mitigation is required. No indirect impacts. Temporary Construction Impacts Use alternative construction methods to minimize the use of impact and vibratory equipment (pile Temporary vibration related to construction activities. drivers and compactors). Re-routing construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance

B-19 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation to residents. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation is required. No cumulative vibration impacts are projected for the Preferred Alternative. CRMF Mitigation for the CRMF will be the same as those measures identified for the temporary No direct or indirect noise impacts. construction impacts above. RTD will minimize nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods and offer hotel vouchers to address potential impacts (if nighttime construction Temporary vibration related to construction activities. is necessary and results in impacts). Biological Resources Direct Impacts The catenary system will incorporate appropriate requirements to protect animal and bird Minimal loss of vegetation and wildlife habitats at stream species. crossings (approximately 1.5 acre). No additional habitat fragmentation due to wider tracks, retaining walls, security fencing, and bridge design. Benefit of additional shading for fish and aquatic habitats due to new bridges. Potential impacts to animals and bird species from the catenary system.

Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Planned increase in urban density as due to TOD would result in fewer wildlife habitats around the undeveloped stations in the study area: Pecos and Federal. Temporary Construction Impacts Grading plans will be prepared to minimize removal of riparian vegetation. Loss of vegetation. During construction, vehicle operation will be limited to the designated construction area and the Spread of noxious weeds. limits of the construction area will be fenced where they are adjacent to sensitive habitats including riparian areas, wetlands, and upland trees and shrubs. Impacts to aquatic habitats. Areas of temporary disturbance will be seeded with an appropriate mixture of native grasses and Potential damage or loss of migratory bird nests forbs; shrubs will be planted where appropriate. Restoration of disturbed riparian habitat will include planting of native trees and shrubs, as well as seeding and regrading. Native grasses, forbs, and shrubs will also be seeded in riparian

B-20 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation areas. Raptor nest surveys will be conducted annually during construction at an appropriate season (generally May 1 through June 1) to determine presence of active raptor nests. If an active nest is located, season buffers will be established and coordinated with CDOW to prevent disturbance to nesting birds during construction. Impacts to wildlife habitat will comply with Colorado Senate Bill 40 (33-5-101-107, Colorado Revised Statue 1973 as amended), where applicable. An integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan will be developed. This plan will be implemented during construction and will include identification of noxious weeds in the area, weed management goals and objectives, and prevention and control methods. Preventive measures include the following: - Contractor vehicles will be inspected before they are used for construction to ensure that they are free of soil and debris capable of transporting noxious weed seeds or roots. - Noxious weeds observed in and near the construction area at the start of construction will be treated with herbicides or physically removed to prevent seeds blowing into disturbed areas during construction. Any noxious weeds identified during construction will be identified and treated. - Potential areas of topsoil salvage will be assessed for presence and abundance of noxious weeds prior to salvage. Topsoil from heavily infested areas will either be treated by spraying, taking offsite, or being buried during construction. - Areas of temporary disturbance will be reclaimed in phases throughout project construction and seeded using permanent native seed mixtures. If areas are complete and permanent seeding cannot occur due to the time of year, mulch and mulch tackifier will be used for temporary erosion control until seeding can occur. - Only certified weed-free mulch and hay bales will be used in the project. - Weed control will use the principles of integrated pest management to treat target weed species by using a combination of two or more management techniques (biological, chemical, mechanical, and cultural). Weed control methods will be selected based on the management goal for the species, the nature of the existing environment, and methods recommended by Colorado weed experts. The presence of important wildlife habitat or threatened and endangered species will be considered. BMPs will be used to control erosion and sedimentation during construction and to protect water quality in streams. BMPs may include berms, brush barriers, check dams, erosion control blankets, filter strips, sandbag barriers, sediment basins, sheet mulching, silt fences, straw-bale

B-21 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation barriers, surface roughening, and/or diversion channels. A spill prevention and emergency response plan will be prepared and used during construction for storage, handling, and use of chemicals, fuel, and similar products, if required. See mitigation in this table for Water Resources. Under the MBTA, construction activities in grassland, wetland, stream, and woodland habitats, and those that occur on bridges that would otherwise result in the take of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests, should be avoided. The provisions of MBTA are applicable year-round; most migratory bird nesting activity in eastern Colorado occurs during the period between April 1 and August 31. However, some migratory birds are known to nest outside of the primary nesting season. Raptors can be expected to nest in woodlands from February 1 through July 15. The USFWS recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a field survey of the affected habitats and structures to determine the absence or presence of nesting migratory birds prior to construction. Surveys should be conducted during the nesting season. Where possible, nesting can be prevented until construction is complete. The results of field surveys for nesting birds, along with information regarding the qualifications of the biologist(s) performing the surveys, should be maintained on file for potential review by the USFWS until such time as construction on the proposed project has been completed. The USFWS Colorado Field Office should be contacted immediately for further guidance if a field survey identifies the existence of one or more active bird nests that cannot be avoided by the planned construction activities. Adherence to these guidelines will help avoid the unnecessary take of migratory birds and the possible need for law enforcement action. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. Vacant land that now serves as generally marginal wildlife habitat would continue to be developed as the population increases by the year 2030. However, the TOD stimulated by the Preferred Alternative would slightly modify this trend because some percentage of the new development would occur at higher densities. This would have a modest positive effect on wildlife as some vacant land would not be developed during the planning period. CRMF No mitigation is required. The CRMF would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to biological resources.

B-22 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Spread of noxious weeds. Mineral Resources, Geology, and Soils Direct, Indirect and Temporary Construction Impacts Engineering of slope cuts for stability, shoring of slope cuts and shallow excavations, retaining Geotechnical conditions, such as cut, fill and landslide slope walls, and dewatering systems where appropriate. stability, erosion, structure foundation construction and Engineering techniques such as drainage systems to direct surface water and runoff, slope integrity, potential for differential settlement, seismic risk, design, covering slope during construction, use of engineered fill, and prompt and appropriate collapsible, shrinking/swelling soils, corrosive soils, in revegetation. selected areas along the alignment will require engineering Mitigation of expansive bedrock, soil, and surficial materials with deep foundations into bedrock designs to avoid possible damage to foundations. below perennial water table; specialized piers and footings; over-excavation with moisture None of these issues would prohibit implementation of these treatment and compaction of backfill; engineered or imported fill; subsurface drainage projects. systems; and surface water diversions. Mitigation of collapsible soils with shoring of excavations; retaining walls; drainage systems; excavation and/or engineered or imported fill; compaction, pre-construction flooding and/or loading; and use of geogrids or geotextiles. Mitigation of corrosive soils with coated and resistant steel and concrete; drainage systems. Mitigation of shallow groundwater with engineered fills and dewatering systems. Coordinating proposed alignment requirements with existing and altered topographies. Engineering techniques and design to conform to anticipated probable maximum seismic events. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to result in any cumulative impacts beyond what has been described above under Direct Impacts. CRMF Use of best engineering practices that have been developed for construction in the Front Range Geotechnical conditions on the site would be appropriately and Denver metropolitan area. These include (where needed): removal of unsatisfactory addressed through the project’s engineering design. Once substrate; appropriately engineered fill; compaction, pre-loading, or pre-flooding; corrosive- operational, the CRMF would result in no direct, indirect or resistant structural materials; deep foundations, specialized piers, and footings; engineered construction impacts to mineral resources, geology, and excavations and slopes; shoring of excavations; prompt and appropriate revegetation; surface soils. water diversions; and subsurface drainage and dewatering systems. Design to conform with anticipated probable maximum seismic event. Water Resources/Water Quality Direct Impacts 41st Avenue East, Federal, Sheridan, Olde Town, and Ward Road Stations: construction of onsite detention for water quality in accordance with municipal and state regulations and

B-23 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Up to 57 acres of new impervious surfaces, largely from design the parking areas to minimize directly connected impervious areas. parking facilities, would result with the implementation of Pecos and Arvada Ridge Stations: use of shared detention ponds constructed by adjoining the Preferred Alternative. However, Driscoll modeling developments in accordance with municipal and state regulations and parking areas designed indicates that there would be no water quality impacts as a to minimize directly connected impervious areas. result of urban runoff from the new parking facilities. Adhere to and implement designs in compliance with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Acquisition of monitoring and supply wells permit elements. Obtain sewer use and drainage permits (SU&DP’s) for all permanent connections. Necessary replacement of existing storm drainage facilities, at a minimum, will provide services equivalent to the existing facilities. Operational monitoring and supply wells will be protected or replaced in the same or similar location depending on the site conditions. Non-operational monitoring and supply wells will be abandoned in accordance with state requirements. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. There would be no indirect impacts to water quality due to current stormwater controls. Temporary Construction Impacts Temporary BMPs for construction, including re-establishment of native vegetation. Destruction of riparian vegetation Dewatering water will be discharged into the storm sewer in accordance with the Groundwater Dewatering of groundwater or contaminated groundwater Discharge Permit (see mitigation in this table for Hazardous Materials). Possible temporary erosion and sediment control issues Clear Creek: Use cofferdam in the creek to separate the excavation from the stream flows. related to earthwork, clearing, and grading of approximately Ralston Creek: Use caisson construction to control turbidity levels. 95 acres. Spill, Prevention, Control, Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), if required. Possible temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts to BMPs including, if necessary, flow attenuation devices and/or sediment basins. Clear Creek and Ralston Creek as the result of bridge construction. Onsite detentions in accordance with local requirements (see mitigation in this table for Floodplains).This may benefit some areas that currently have no stormwater controls. Erosion is controlled by BMPs. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, including a stormwater management plan (SWMP) and a stormwater construction permit, will be followed in accordance with all local and state regulations. Stormwater BMPs in accordance with the standards of the local jurisdictions or with UDFCD if the local jurisdiction does not have applicable standards. Project-specific temporary and permanent water quality plans.

B-24 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Project-specific stormwater management plans. Obtain sewer use and drainage permits (SU&DP’s) for all temporary connections. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. Currently, there are approximately 8,300 acres of impervious surfaces in the study area. As the population increases in 2030, the amount of impervious area would increase by approximately 1,435 acres, assuming an average density of 10 people per acre and 40 percent impervious surfaces (FHWA, 2007). This would bring the total amount of impervious surfaces to 9,735 acres (Gold Line Team, 2007). The amount of landscaped areas would increase by about the same amount (40 percent of the total new developed area). The Preferred Alternative would result in 57 additional acres of impervious surfaces, much less than one percent of the impervious surfaces in 2030 in the study area. Regionally, the implementation of all of the FasTracks projects would have a small effect on the amount of new impervious surfaces. Given existing stormwater controls, water quality is not anticipated to degrade over existing conditions and may improve with adherence to more rigorous water quality controls with or without the FasTracks projects (RTD, 2007b). The implementation of the Preferred Alternative and the other FasTracks projects would be expected to increase the development density around proposed stations, reducing the amount of urban sprawl. As a result, slightly less land would be developed than under the No Action Alternative, possibly preserving more natural pervious surfaces, resulting in a qualitative benefit to water quality.

B-25 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation CRMF Mitigation from above and onsite detention in accordance with local requirements. The total impervious area of the study area would remain relatively unchanged. Water quality improvements including the permanent water quality detention basin would likely improve the overall water quality being released from the site via the detention basin; however, the actual water quality draining into the detention basin would be likely to remain the same. Temporary construction impacts would occur during the demolition of the existing buildings and tracks in the study area, as well as the construction of the CRMF. With BMPs and erosion control devices properly in place, the water quality would not change during demolition or construction processes. Wetlands and Other Waters Direct Impacts All mitigation measures will be implemented prior to construction. Impact to 0.74 acres of wetlands, of which 0.15 acre is Wetland replacement per USACE and USEPA requirements for jurisdictional wetlands. jurisdictional. Purchase a credit form a wetland mitigation bank for non-jurisdictional wetlands. Impact to 0.21 acre of other water features, of which 0.19 is RTD will mitigate 1:1 for all impacts to Jurisdictional and Non-jurisdictional wetlands. jurisdictional. A Nationwide Permit request has been approved by USACE. The contractor will comply with all requirements of the Nationwide Permit. Indirect Impacts BMPs will be implemented. Potential sedimentation, erosion and noxious weed invasion to When practicable, construction in waterways will be during low-flow or dry periods. wetlands, other water features and established riparian Flowing water will be diverted around active construction areas. buffers. See mitigation in this table for Biological Resources. Temporary Construction Impacts All mitigation measures implemented by start of construction. A 1,400 foot section of Kershaw Ditch, a jurisdictional other Temporarily impacted wetlands will be restored to their preconstruction conditions. water feature, would also be affected by construction Prior to construction, orange temporary fencing and sediment control measures will be placed to activities. protect existing wetlands that are located outside the planned area of disturbance. Temporary construction impacts at Ralston Creek of 0.25 acre Wetland areas designated as areas of temporary disturbance that will be used for construction of wetlands, of which 0.25 acre is jurisdictional. access will be covered with geotextile, straw, and soil prior to use.

B-26 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation BMPs will be implemented during all phases of construction to reduce impacts from sedimentation and erosion, including the use of berms, brush barriers, check dams, erosion control blankets, filter strips, sandbag barriers, sediment basins, silt fences, straw-bale barriers, surface roughening, and diversion channels. When practicable, construction in waterways will be during low-flow or dry periods. Flowing water will be diverted around active construction areas. No fill material will be stored in wetlands or other water features. No unpermitted discharges will be allowed. There will be no equipment staging, storage of materials, use of chemicals (such as soil stabilizers, dust inhibitors, and fertilizers), or equipment refueling within 50 feet of wetlands or other water features. Any new or modified bridges will be designed to minimize direct discharge of stormwater runoff into wetlands. Construction equipment moving between watersheds will be washed prior to commencing work within a new area to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. This BMP complies with the Colorado Regional Conditions of the Nationwide Program. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The more compact land use possible through TOD would result in fewer acres developed to accommodate the 2030 population in both the Gold Line study area and the larger Denver metropolitan area. However, if municipalities rigorously require developers to protect wetlands, the impacts to wetlands would be minimized under either the No Action Alternative or Preferred Alternative scenarios. CRMF No mitigation required. There would be no direct, indirect, or temporary construction impacts to wetlands or other water features as a result of the CRMF.

B-27 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Floodplains/Drainage/Hydrology Direct Impacts Onsite detention in accordance with UDFCD and local jurisdictions, and BMPs. Additional impervious surfaces associated with the stations, Obtain a Floodplain Use Permit. alignment, and substations. South Platte River 100-year floodplain: - Two new bridge piers would have a slight impact on the 100-year flood elevation of 0.19 foot, which is below the FEMA criteria. Clear Creek 100-year floodplain: - New embankment west of I-76 slightly modifies the water surface elevation - Two new piers would have a slight impact on the 100- year flood elevation of 0.58 feet, which is below the FEMA criteria - A small portion of the Federal Station is located within in the 100-year floodplain, but it would not modify surface elevations Ralston Creek 100-year floodplain: - Six new piers would have a slight impact on the 100- year flood elevation of 0.15 feet, which is below the FEMA criteria Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Planned increase in urban density due to TOD will result in additional impervious surfaces, which would be controlled by existing onsite detention ordinances. Temporary Construction Impacts UDFCD and local jurisdictional requirements. Construction would occur within the floodplains of the South Platte River, Clear Creek and Ralston Creek. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The Preferred Alternative would result in increased “in-fill” development and the revitalization of neighborhoods,

B-28 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation causing slightly less of an increase in impervious surfaces than the No Action Alternative, which is anticipated to cause more sprawled development. As population increases by 2030, the amount of impervious area in the Gold Line study area would increase by approximately 1,435 acres1, bringing the total amount of impervious surfaces to 9,735 acres (Gold Line Team, 2007). The Preferred Alternative would result in an additional 57 acres of impervious surfaces or less than 1 percent of the impervious surfaces in 2030. By comparison, the total FasTracks Plan is estimated to increase impervious surfaces by about 280 acres (RTD, 2007b). This is cumulative to the amount of impervious surface required to accommodate the 2030 population, which may be as much as 40,000 acres (assuming that 40 percent of the 100,000 acres of new urbanized land is impervious). Impacts associated with additional impervious surfaces would be managed to predevelopment conditions using jurisdictional detention requirements, which have proven to be effective in minimizing the effects of urban runoff (RTD, 2007b). CRMF Onsite detention in accordance with local jurisdictions and BMPs. The CRMF would result in no direct, indirect, or temporary construction impacts. Hazardous Materials Direct Impacts Evaluate ballast and railroad ties to be removed and disposed of with the proper waste Possible impacts are all associated with construction, as classification. Disposal must be appropriate for the resulting classification. discussed below. Complete site–specific Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) with subsurface Acquisition of property would require additional site investigation (soil and groundwater) for sites that may have been contaminated or affect final characterization to determine the presence of hazardous design, as documented by the Phase I ESA, where appropriate. wastes. Prepare a Hazardous and Contaminated Substances Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a No operational impacts on hazardous waste sites are Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) to address contaminated soil and anticipated. groundwater.

B-29 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Determine engineering controls to minimize quantity of contaminated materials. Conduct an individual site-specific Phase I ESA of properties before acquisition. Prepare an Asbestos Assessment Plan and conduct asbestos surveys for any building planned for acquisition or demolition. Prepare a Lead-Based Paint Assessment Plan and conduct lead-based paint assessments for all structures that would be disturbed or demolished. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. No impacts. Temporary Construction Impacts Implement construction BMPs in accordance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. BMPs Construction could encounter hazardous wastes at the may include secondary containment areas for refueling construction equipment, berms or following sites: ponds to control runoff, and a monitoring program to test stormwater for contaminants prior to discharge from the construction site. - Alignment: fourteen sites (plus hazardous waste sites associated with the railroad) Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for construction workers who may be exposed to hazardous materials, including preparation of Health and - Stations: seven sites Safety and Emergency Response Plans, air monitoring (if necessary), and provision of - Electric Substation: one site personal protective equipment. RTD will follow CDOT specification 250 during subsurface excavation in areas on CDOT ROW with known Recognizable Environmental Conditions discovered during the Phase I ESA process. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The construction of the Preferred Alternative would encounter hazardous materials. These materials would be removed from the site and properly disposed. The construction of all other infrastructure required to accommodate the 2030 population, including all the remaining FasTracks projects, would result in the exposure and remediation of unknown quantities of hazardous waste. Therefore, these materials would no longer represent a potential threat to human health and the environment. The operational effects of future projects on hazardous waste generation are well controlled by state and federal regulation, thereby avoiding the impacts of the past CRMF Mitigation for the CRMF will be the same as those measures identified for the direct and

B-30 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation It is likely that during the construction of the CRMF hazardous temporary construction impacts above. materials would be encountered due to historical and current industrial land uses that may have used, handled, or disposed of hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials encountered during construction would be remediated The operation of the CRMF would involve the use of many regulated hazardous materials. RTD’s operations are required to adhere to many regulations requiring the safe use and disposal of such materials. Public Safety and Security Direct Impact No mitigation required beyond the adherence to RTD’s station design standards for safety and The operation of the Preferred Alternative would not increase security. or decrease crime in the study area. RTD will convene a Fire and Life Safety Committee that will assist in preparing in an emergency Police, fire, and emergency services may be slightly affected plan and coordinate response to emergency situations. by increased response times during peak hours due to increased congestion at the 20 at-grade crossings required for the Preferred Alternative. Because RTD would provide a high degree of safety improvements at each grade crossing, including gates and signal improvements, the potential for collisions with emergency vehicles is small. However, it is possible that some additional congestion at these locations would be experienced by emergency vehicles since the gates would cycle every 3.75 minutes during the morning and evening peak periods. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. No indirect impacts. Temporary Construction Impacts No mitigation is required because RTD will follow standard operating procedures to minimize Lane closure and detours with the Preferred Alternative. traffic disturbances. Potential impact on emergency response times during Traffic detour plans will be provided to address the two week closure of local streets during at- construction of the 20 required at-grade crossings. grade crossing construction. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. Future safety and security statistics by neighborhood would

B-31 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation remain comparable to existing trends with the implementation of the Preferred Alternative. CRMF Development of the CRMF will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and codes to ensure The CRMF would not increase or decrease crime or represent the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. a safety hazard to surrounding neighborhoods. During construction, the work site will remain fenced and secured to restrict access by Emergency response times would not be affected by train trespassers. movements to and from the CRMF because track leading The RTD design, construction, and operations standards for new transit systems will be into the CRMF would be constructed under 48th Avenue, implemented. Design will integrate established guidelines for fencing and barriers; emergency where grade separation currently exists. access and egress; surveillance; and crime prevention through environmental design The CRMF would not result in indirect impacts to safety and (CPTED). security. RTD will work with local police, fire, and transportation agencies during project design to ensure reliable emergency access is maintained and develop alternate plans or routes to avoid delays in emergency response times. Utilities Direct Impacts Modify design to avoid/minimize conflicts. All impacts of the Preferred Alternative would occur during Encase or protect in place. construction: Early and regular coordination with utility owners. - 45 major utility realignments for construction of the Adjust valve(s)/manhole(s)/fire hydrant(s)/pedestal(s)/inlet(s). trackway Minimize disruption of service with wet tie-in. - 38 major utility realignments for construction of the Leave in place except where inlets conflict with proposed curb and gutter modifications. stations Extend pipe. Adjust inlet(s). Add encasements or protective cover over utilities. Design new utilities to meet criteria, codes and requirements of the local jurisdictions. Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. As development densities increase around the TODs, some utility expansion may be required. Temporary Construction Impacts See direct impacts. All construction impacts to utilities are direct impacts. Cumulative Impacts No mitigation required. The construction of the Preferred Alternative or the other

B-32 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation FasTracks project elements would have a slight positive impact on utility investment due to increased population density around the proposed transit stations, resulting on a lower per capita cost for utilities. CRMF Mitigation from above and RTD will schedule disruption of service for low use period (where The CRMF would potentially require relocation or modification possible). of two water mains, five storm sewers, five sanitary sewers, one buried gas line, and multiple fiber optic telecommunication and electric lines. No indirect utility impacts would result from implementation of the CRMF. Most utility impacts can be considered temporary construction impacts. Transportation Systems All mitigation measures will be implemented as noted by 2015 or 2030 Station Mitigation Direct Impacts 41st Avenue East, 41st Avenue/ Fox Street: The Preferred Alternative will provide a transit option that - Add northbound left turn lane (2015) would result in improved travel times. The travel time for - Add eastbound thru/left and right turn lanes (2015) the Preferred Alternative is 19 minutes from DUS to Ward 42nd Avenue/ Fox Street: Road, while the projected auto travel time would be - Add eastbound thru/left and right turn lanes (2015) 27 minutes in 2030. Pecos Pecos Street/62nd Avenue: The Preferred Alternative would provide service to 16,800 to - Implement separate westbound left and right turn lanes. Construct 20,100 riders (average weekday) in 2030. free westbound right turn lanes into the northbound lane addition The Preferred Alternative would reduce corridor VMT by (2015) approximately 18,221 miles per day over the No Action - Provide more stacking distance at the intersection of the station Alternative in 2030. driveway and 62nd Avenue (2015) - Signalize interchange by 2030 The Preferred Alternative would reduce daily VHT by 1,891 hours in the region and would reduce VHT in the corridor Federal Federal Boulevard/60th Avenue: by 1,145 hours in 2030. - Add separate westbound left and right turn lanes (2015) - Signalize (2030)

B-33 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation The Preferred Alternative would add traffic signals at up to Sheridan Sheridan Boulevard/60th Avenue: four locations and the addition of turn lanes at adjacent - Construct a westbound left-turn lane (convert existing shared thru/left station area intersections. to a thru only lane (2015) The Preferred Alternative would require rail crossing - Add a channelized northbound right-turn lane (2015) improvements at up to 20 at-grade crossings. These - Emergency only access would be provided to the station from improvements would facilitate the potential implementation Zenobia Street of Quiet Zones in areas of the corridor where there are Olde Town 56th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard: noise impacts and improve safety at all locations. One Signalize intersection (2015) crossing is proposed to be closed. Add a northbound left turn lane, and southbound right turn The Preferred Alternative would have no effects on freight decal lane (2015). operations or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Add eastbound left turn lane with eastbound through/right lane (2015) Arvada Ridge - Stop control at Lee Street/Ridge Road intersection (2015). Since this intersection is close to the rail crossing, coordination with the gated crossing design will be necessary. (Note: this crossing is temporarily closed. A formal PUC hearing to reopen this crossing was held on January 8, 2009 and the request was not granted. It is assumed this decision would be appealed. Mitigation is only required if the PUC approves the request to open the crossing.) Ward Road Ward Road/50th Place: - Signalize the intersection when a traffic signal is warranted (Coordinate with CDOT) - Construct separate westbound left and right turn lanes (2015) - Provide connection to 52nd Avenue from the station parking area on opening day to allow access to a signalized intersection on Ward Road (2015) Indirect Impacts No mitigation required. Preferred Alternative would encourage TODs and slightly reduce future VMT. Temporary Construction Impacts CMPs. Increased construction traffic would occur with the Preferred Methods of handling traffic to be identified that could limit times of construction traffic on major Alternative. routes.

B-34 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Improvements to grade crossings required for safety. Existing Rail Crossing Street Mitigation (All 2015) Treatment I-25 Grade Separated Grade Separated BNSF Railway None At Grade – dual gates Company Yard West 38th Avenue Grade Separated Grade Separated I-70 Grade Separated Grade Separated West 48th Avenue Grade Separated Grade Separated West 48th Avenue None Fenced with signal Frontage Pecos Street At-Grade – gates Grade Separated Pecos Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – dual gates I-76 Grade Separated Grade Separated West 60th Avenue New Crossing At-Grade – dual gates Federal Boulevard Grade Separated Grade Separated Lowell Boulevard At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Tennyson Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Sheridan Boulevard Grade Separated Grade Separated West 58th Avenue Grade Separated Grade Separated Lamar Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Reed Street At-Grade – passive Closure Saulsbury Street At-Grade – passive At-Grade – quad gates Wadsworth Boulevard Grade Separated Grade Separated Vance Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Olde Wadsworth At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Boulevard Zephyr Street and At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Allison Street Balsam Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Carr Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Garrison Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates Independence Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates

B-35 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Kipling Street Grade Separated Grade Separated Lee Street and State At-Grade – lights Home Road (Note: this crossing is temporarily closed. A formal PUC hearing to reopen this crossing was held on January 8, 2009 and the request If approved, At-Grade – quad gates was not granted. It is assumed this decision would be appealed. Mitigation is only required if the PUC approves the request to open the crossing.) Miller Street At-Grade – passive At-Grade – quad gates Parfet Street At-Grade – passive At-Grade – quad gates Robb Street At-Grade – passive At-Grade – quad gates Tabor Street At-Grade – gates At-Grade – quad gates CRMF Mitigation is only required for the impacts to the 48th Avenue/Fox Street intersection. Re-striping The Preferred Alternative would assist in providing the 48th Avenue east of Fox Street would mitigate these impacts and bring the southbound left commuter rail service component of the FasTracks turn LOS back to acceptable levels and improve conditions compared to the No Action program by providing the facilities necessary and required Alternative. by the FRA to operate and maintain commuter rail service in the Denver Metro area.

The Preferred Alternative would result in a small increase in traffic flow into and out of the Fox North Site. The proposed CRMF is assumed to have 300 employees, which would generate about 900 trips per day. With implementation of the proposed CRMF, approximately 700 daily trips related to existing private business operations would be displaced. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would result in an additional 203 trips per day into and out of the Fox North

B-36 OCTOBER 2009

Preferred Alternative Impacts Mitigation Site. Truck traffic to the North Fox Site would be reduced as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Existing businesses that generate truck traffic would be replaced by the CRMF traffic (primarily employee traffic) that does not typically include heavy truck traffic. One intersection evaluated for the Preferred Alternative is expected to operate beyond an acceptable a.m. peak-hour urban intersection at LOS F for the southbound left turn. The 48th Avenue/Fox Street (unsignalized) intersection is expected to be impacted by the Preferred Alternative for study years 2015 and 2030. The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to provide enhancements for roadway capacity or add any traffic signals in the study area. The Preferred Alternative would have no effect on existing or future rail freight movements, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or services. Section 4(f) Use of the Denver West Side Line (5DV3512.3), the Denver There are no prudent and feasible alternatives to the use of these resources and all possible Utah Pacific Railroad, Chicago Burlington Quincy Siding & planning has been completed to avoid/minimize impacts. A MOA has been completed Spur (Waterworks Sales Co, J.M. Warner Co, & between FTA and the SHPO which includes mitigations for adverse effects to cultural Richardson lumber Spur) (5AM1888.5 and 5DV6243.7) and resources and is included in Appendix A. the Allan-Rand Ditch (5JF4454.1). De minimis impact on the Jim Baker Reservoir. Temporary parking will be provided on the west side of Tennyson Street. RTD will be responsible for maintaining the retaining wall.

B-37 OCTOBER 2009

Responses to Agency and Public Comments for the Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement October of 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 1 Vince Baldassano The Gold Line was accepted into the FTA’s Public Private 6173 Xavier Street Partnership Pilot Program (P5) during the EIS process. It has Arvada, CO 80003 been assumed for some time that the Gold Line would compete for federal funding since it has been identified as one of the most cost Vince Baldassano, Arvada, Colorado. Okay, you know what effective corridors in the FasTrack’s program. FTA requires those bothers me about this whole thing? You gloss over this PPO agencies that receive federal funding to compete nationally, and like it's going to be approved, and it's not. You don't know that. federal funding is almost always received later (after the EIS You can't guarantee that. According to the whole thing, RTD process) in project development. financing was going to come before we got approval. Now you’re putting it in the back end, and you're talking about how RTD must compete for the federal funds but does not need to go difficult it is going to be to compete with these other enterprises to a public vote to award the P5 contract or to receive the private to get this money. funds. In addition, it's been reported that the PPO partnership has to go Many transit projects require multiple sources of funding to to the vote of the public to be approved under statutory law, so complete these projects. RTD needs the federal funds, private now we're talking about something that -- is it being assumed? funds, and local match to build the Gold Line. We're talking about all these great things that are going to happen, but you gloss it over and say, "Oh, look at the final approval and then we'll vote on the PPO and then we'll hire enough people," but there's a big ditch here that nobody wants to seem to address, and yet PPO wasn't discussed before all these issues that RTD -- it came in quite a few years later -- and now RTD is voting that you have to get an approval from the voters. What happened to these judicial eagles that were working for RTD? Couldn't they review that proposal before that? Didn't they know that? So don't gloss it over, because people are not

1 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response going to be putting up with any more blowing about the voting back and forth, and the final question is -- and I've got to ask it -- can you build this without the PPO funding? If you do not win this competition, can you build the line? And that you've got to answer yes or no, and how difficult it is, and what are your options if you don't get approved? Thank you. 2 Bob Baston RTD completed a life cycle cost analysis for electric versus diesel 8000 Grandview Ave systems that resulted in the finding that the up-front capital costs Arvada, CO 80002 for electric systems paid for themselves over a shorter period of time due to the lower and more stable cost of electric power I'm Bob Baston, B-a-s-t-o-n. I'm a native of Arvada, 79 years' versus fuel. worth, and the railroad and our FasTrack is no further away from my back door than that wall. We have the Burlington Northern, Diesel trains also produce a greater number of noise impacts due which is a noisy train, granted. My whole deal was -- and I'm still to the noise of acceleration and deceleration in station areas. The a little concerned -- is the cost of the electrical. horn noise from diesel versus electric vehicles is the same. From some of the first meetings that I attended -- and I've There was also much more agency and public support for the attended them all except one. I was out of state for the last one - electric technology. - its $1.3 million per mile to put that electric wire in the sky. Its 11 miles out to Ward Road. Just rough math will take you -- that's probably $50,000,000, and a diesel unit probably costs 1,200,000 apiece. I don't know how much the electrical units cost, the EMUs, but as I recollect, they were somewhere quite a bit more expensive. In other words, we could buy one diesel unit and put ten times 1.2 or $3,000,000 off of the top of the budget. Now, this electric train is fine if you live in Switzerland, hydroelectric power, if you live in Washington, the hydroelectric power, if you live on the East Coast, atomic energy. We haven't got it yet. These people around here say, "Not in my backyard, you don't," but we're going to get it in our backyard whether we like it or not. They're putting the natural gas in to

2 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response burn and make the electricity, so why don't we just burn the natural gas or diesel? They've got some diesel units now that you can't even hear them when they're sitting at the curb. These are trucks. We've come a long ways. Thank you. 3 Geoff Bruce Thank you. 6703 Grandview Ave Arvada, CO 80002 I think you did a great job. I don't need to say anything else. Thank you. 4 Shelley Cook Thank you for your support and involvement in the project. City of Arvada The Gold Line team understands the importance of the Quiet Zone 5708 Zephyr St. mitigation for the communities that we will serve. It is noted that Arvada, CO 80002 you would appreciate the consideration of the concessionaire Hi there, I'm Shelley Cook. I'm a resident of Arvada, and I'm teams to implement these as early as is possible. here to express my full support for the Gold Line EIS findings, and I would also like to echo what Jane Schnabel so eloquently expressed about how the project has been handled from the start, and in addition to the project team being highly skillful, sensitive, responsive, professional always, I want to express my appreciation for the City's involvement and close attention and proactivity, and then, finally, I agree Don Ulrich and with Liz Telford about the impact of the public involvement. I do think that has had a very beneficial effect on the project. I wanted to add one point also echoing Jane Schnabel, and this is from my experience in talking to people as a candidate. I am hearing over and over how important are the quiet zones and the prospect of installation of those quiet zones sooner rather than later, so I just wanted to tell you I'm hearing that by the scores, so, anyway, thanks for all that you have done, and I'll leave it at that.

3 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 5 Georg Ek Thank you for your involvement and support of the project. 5670 Everett St. Arvada, CO 80002 The Gold Line team appreciates that while everyone’s ideas could not always be implemented, you as a stakeholder felt they were My name is George Ek, and I live here in Arvada and my house carefully considered. will be 50 years old this coming December. In any event, thank you for letting me be a part of this. I really want to express what RTD completed a life cycle cost analysis for electric versus diesel Jane just said too. I'm very pleased with the way in which this systems that resulted in the finding that the up-front capital costs has happened. for electric systems paid for themselves over a shorter period of time due to the lower and more stable cost of electric power I really feel that we've carried through what has been envisioned versus fuel. Electric trains are also quieter and had greater public 177 years ago. Alexis deTocqueville had an idea about America and agency support. when he came over here to examine our processes of prisons and the like from France, and his writings on democracy in America were probably the best books that have ever been written on democracy in America or democracy anywhere, and he was saying this, that the community of the commons is also as significant for how this country has begun and where it might go, and it occurs to me that he'd be proud too of how we've brought this community together and tried to deal with things in a sane and wholesome, kind, often thoughtful way with disagreements. I'm with the thought in mind too -- I'm not pleased with electrification. This is not Switzerland. It's not Sweden, and I very much agree with what one of my friends back here stated as to that position. It might be a trade-off with the money that's there for diesels, and there are a lot of things that have been done with diesel. I also look to three or four tracks in the center of downtown Arvada. Well, that hasn't happened. Well, a lot of ideas that we've had. Each of us have not gone necessarily the way we'd like to have had them. However, I think there's been a meeting of minds, a respect that is extraordinary. I'd like to thank Don and Liz and the staff that's worked there, all

4 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response of them. I wish I could name them all. I can't. Because it's been a pleasure to have had association with them and to argue about points from time to time. It's just been grand. There are frustrations Gosh, I'm frustrated. I don't know where it's going to go and what's going to happen, but, for example, I know that we're in a situation where we're going to possibly have one-third of our -- in this country blow out. Why? Because it won't rise to the public responsibility to make sure that we've got enough taxation to improve them. I hope that it doesn't come to an issue that we're going to abandon this great agreement we've got. Do you realize what we've done? Here, at least in the suburbs -- Denver is another story -- but at least in the suburbs we tried to get together and join in similarity with something that's in common and finding common places where we can get together. That's community and community action. I think it's significant too that what we have is -- do you realize this is the 130th anniversary since the first involvement of striking at Promontory? We could have done this as a lottery. I'm frustrated. This should have been done at the end of the last century, the whole damn thing. We would have had it over with and be riding it, but in Tinmath, in one day they laid 10 miles of track. We probably could have done some exciting things too, but I like the way we've gone as a community, and I'm proud to have been here with a community that's been decent, kind, thoughtful, and respectful of others.

5 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 6 Martha Harvey Thank you for your involvement in the project. P.O. Box 605 It is noted that you have concerns about the ongoing maintenance Arvada, CO 80001 at stations. Hi, my name is Martha Harvey. I'm a resident of Arvada. I've been attending these meetings also for about two years, not as long as a lot of them, but I am really impressed with everything that's gone on, like I said. Now, my concerns -- I'm disabled, and a lot of things have suggested that you guys have more than met. I've got a few more ideas. I actually talked to a guy when I was down on the Mineral route and one thing he suggested -- and I really looked around -- when you put these lines in at these stations, can you put a place for people to put their cigarette butts, things like that? It's appalling, or either they need to quit smoking. I'm not sure which, but, anyway, trash containers, things like that, and I was at the board meeting for RTD last week and I made a suggestion of you have Adopt A Trail, Adopt A Highway. Why not adopt a Light Rail station? I think that would be a cost saving, and more people out there will volunteer. If you just give them a chance, they'll volunteer to do anything, so like I said, I want to thank the community, RTD, and the public, and that's it.

7 Jane Schnabel Thank you for your involvement and support of the Gold Line over 7307 Grandview Ave. the past 10 years. Arvada, CO 80002 It is noted that you support the aesthetic mitigations for the historic Thank you. My name is Jane Schnabel, S-c-h-n-a-b-e-l, and I district and that you support the implementation of the Quiet Zones live in Arvada, Colorado, and I would also mention that I live as noise mitigation. It is also noted that you would appreciate the directly across from the tracks on Grandview Avenue. consideration of the concessionaire teams to implement these as I guess I would like to express a kudos, thank you, to the Gold early as is possible. Line team. Over the years that I've been working on the Gold

6 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Line -- I know Andy mentioned three years. Don and Liz mentioned ten years -- I've been around for ten years. I've been kind of a bug, fly in the ointment, whatever, over the ten years, starting with the major investment study back in 2000, 1999, 2000, whenever that was, and I have experienced nothing but professionalism, enthusiasm, inclusiveness, everything positive in working with the Gold Line team over these last ten years, so thank you to everybody. I've been trying to get through the FEIS, at least got through the Executive Summary, and working on some of the other parts, and just a few of the things that I'd like to mention is that I have been very pleased to see that most of the neighborhood -- and I live in Olde Town. I work closely in Olde Town. All of the concerns or most of the concerns have been addressed in this FEIS, such things as sensitive to social impacts. Don mentioned about the fencing. Thank you. Thank you to the City to know that we're going to get fencing that is not going to detract in the Historic District. The visual and aesthetic resources, that's been heavily mentioned. Throughout they mentioned the need to look at the areas like Kipling in Arvada, and this would have to be the historic districts, and so I'm very pleased to see that that's been mentioned, and then, finally, I would like to mention -- and Don talked about this too -- is the quiet zones. I live -- my house is right where they blow the horn for the Salisbury crossing, so I can really relate to the need for the quiet zones, and I'd like to urge that when the concessionaire, construction companies are selected, that they look at considering the implementation of the quiet zones at the beginning of the project, not waiting until the end of the project. It's very, very important that what's happening right now -- I know, at the beginning of the project, we aren't going to be

7 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response having the EMUs there, but it will certainly help with what the neighbors are facing right now with all the noise of the trains. Thank you.

8 Larry Schulz Thank you for your support and involvement in the Gold Line 4675 Swadley St. project. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Larry Schulz, resident of Wheat Ridge, city treasurer of Wheat Ridge, and board member of the Alliance, and I'll make it short and sweet. I think, if someone was to do a study of how these studies should be done, or wanted to make a movie of a successful EIS study and study of collaboration through all the various communities, this would be the model they should follow. I can't express enough respect for Liz and Don and everyone who's been involved in the study. Congratulations on a super project. You know, you dealt with unforeseen barriers, change in technology, issues with railroads, and somehow got through it all. You have a great product. It will be a great project, and, yes, we'll be keeping our eye on those proposals from the consortium for the financing and construction, but somehow I believe it will come through. Thanks once more.

9 Bob Wilson Thank you for your involvement and continued support of the Gold 11480 W. 66th Pl. Line project. Arvada, CO 80004 Your comments about the benefits and consequences of early Bob Wilson, resident of Arvada, and let me make two comments implementation of a Quiet Zone are noted. with two different hats on, first as the chair of the 12-member Arvada Gold Line Advisory Committee, 12 residents of Colorado appointed by the city council, the mayor, that we did have a discussion about horn noise, a detailed discussion, a presentation by Don and Liz, giving up their evening hours.

8 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Thank you again. Thank you. Jane Schnabel, George Ek are members, and we do -- the committee recommended that the train noise be mitigated as soon as possible, again, and we also discussed that there has been a big change on what the locomotive operators have to do since, what, 2005 or '06? They cannot do it at 2 or 3 in the morning. Another member of our committee, Kip Davis, is a railroad operator. He has to blow those whistles very loud, 106 DB at 3 in the morning, or he gets in trouble, they get fined, and he has to see the supervisor. Let me take off that hat. Let's talk as a resident, and, Jane, just from an engineering standpoint, as I mentioned to the RTD board, I'm afraid they're the last-cost impacts of doing the noise mitigation, the Quiet Zones early. I think it will be later in the project, even though we don't want to hear that, but just in terms of the balance of the costs versus the enjoyment, the pleasure, and the safety, of course, of the public, there's going to be that difficult trade-off that the managers at RTD and the board members must make. And the last comment, since we don't see there are any desserts left and talking to all the experts at the board, is it's quite a document. Congratulations. I've been reading the Executive Summary, all 101 pages or thereabouts. It's a very good document. There will be problems. We'll work them out, just like previous speakers have said, with the City, with its proactive approach, the many, many studies that have been done on Olde Town, the station planning meetings, everything, the trails, the access, many, many meetings. My wife, Susan, is very tolerant of me going to another transit

9 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response meeting, but, anyway, congratulations to the City, the City staff, RTD, RTD directors, good job. We'll get the job done, and 2015 or bust, right?

10 Your comment states that you were recently notified that your Fred Marvel property would be required for implementation of the Gold Line Brannan Sand and Gravel project. 4090 Galapego Denver, CO 80216 However, during the 3 year EIS process, RTD has contacted the My name is Fred Marvel, owner of Brannan Sand and Gravel business owners in the area throughout the process. The following Companies. We've been in business since 1906, 103 years, and is a record of the projects contacts with you: our property is on 4090 Gallapego, 41st and Fox, and we Mailings Sent to Brannan Sand and Gravel Acquisition/PIT 10 operate on asphalt right there, and just recently we were notified LLC at 2500 E. Brannan Way that our property was going to be taken by RTD. 8/8/06: Gold Line EIS Scoping booklet and mailing list We've built roads and we partnership with RTD a lot and it's sign-up card sent about a ten-acre site that we're on and it's an asphalt plant, and 2/08: Preferred Alternative Refinement letter sent to this I don't know if RTD knows -- has any idea what we've done address announcing the East Direct Design Option or there. We've invited RTD over to take a look at what we do, but EDDO potentially moving the alignment from the west of we're the only asphalt plant in the City and County of Denver the railroad alignment, or the middle of the railroad and with the exception of City and County of Denver's asphalt alignment, to the east of the railroad alignment. plant. 5/9/08: Sent Spring 2008 Gold Line Times newsletter Like I said, we've been there -- we mined it a hundred years indicating that there was a recommendation to further ago. We employ 500-plus people and it's just -- the relocation of evaluate the EDDO; announced selection of preferred our asphalt plant is almost virtually impossible because it takes station locations for Olde Town and Federal stations; a state air permit, federal, EPA, the whole thing, and once we promoted station design workshops; recapped EIS public were notified that, you know, there's potential of a relocation, involvement efforts; provided an update on railroad we've looked around Adams County. negotiations and the project schedule; included an updated map of the proposed Gold Line project We have another asphalt plant in Adams County, and there's 7/17/08: Sent DEIS Special Edition newsletter that just no way to get a state air permit, so with shutting down that indicated the date for the release of DEIS; promoted plant, we're looking at the possibility -- and I've talked with public hearings; overviewed the content of the DEIS; listed Owens Corning about this -- we could potentially lose 200 jobs locations where DEIS was available for review; provided of residents in the City and County of Denver, so we're here to information on how to submit DEIS comments; promoted say, you know, is there any other option? station design workshops; and included an

10 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response I hear a great speech by this gentleman up here. It was great. updated project map However, we have to really look at what it could do to the 11/3/08: Sent Gold Line Times newsletter that identified Denver economy and our personnel, our employees, our the proposed final alignment for the Preferred Alternative livelihoods, and our historic background. We've been at this site as the EDDO and included the recommendation of for over a hundred years and it's an active asphalt plant. preferred locations for the 38th/41st Avenue and Pecos We produce asphalt for the City and County of Denver, Adams stations; announced DEIS award for excellence in County, CDOT, Colorado Department of Transportation, and we environmental documentation from FTA; recapped don't want to tell -- we've tried to ease our employees, but activities during the DEIS comment period and outlined because they've heard in the last month, they've heard that, next steps for the Gold Line; provided update on gosh, we could be actually closing down this plant, and they're FasTracks budget; provided information on Gold Line coming to me and saying, "What's going on? Am I going to be safety measures and included an updated map of the out of a job?" proposed project 4/15/09: Sent CRMF Supplemental EA Newsletter that With the economy the way it is right now, they're scared to identified the date for the release of the SEA, overviewed death. We're seasonal. We work seven to eight months out of the information contained in the document, provided the year because of the construction season, so we're saying, information on how to review/comment on the EA and "Well, hang on here, you know. Hang on. Don't believe, you summarized the next steps for the project. know, everything you read in the paper," and just, please, let us discuss it with RTD and the board and see what else we can do. 8/21/09: Sent Gold Line Times FEIS edition newsletter (Announced release of the FEIS) Maybe there's an option, an alternative. We've heard that maybe they'll take half our land. We have, like I said, ten acres, and Mailings Sent to Brannan Sand and Gravel at 4045 Fox Street we've heard of options of taking half of it. It's not feasible. We 5/9/08: Sent Spring 2008 Gold Line Times newsletter that store aggregates on-site that we bring in every day. We're kind included a recommendation to further evaluate the EDDO; of a hand-to-mouth operation, but we do well over a hundred announced selection of preferred station locations for Olde million dollars a year and we employ 500 employees plus a Town and Federal; promoted station design workshops; year. I hate to lose those jobs, and I know our employees would recapped EIS public involvement efforts; provided an hate to lose their jobs. Thank you. update on railroad negotiations and the project schedule; and included an updated project map. 7/17/08: Sent DEIS Special Edition newsletter Included a release date of DEIS; promoted public hearings; overviewed the content of the DEIS; listed locations where DEIS was available for review; provided information on how to submit DEIS comments; promoted station design workshops and included an updated project map

11 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 11/3/08: Sent Gold Line Times newsletter (same information as mentioned above) 4/15/09: Sent CRMF Supplemental Environmental Assessment Newsletter (Announced release of SEA and provided information on how to review/comment on the document) 8/21/09: Sent Gold Line Times FEIS edition newsletter (same information as mentioned above)

Mailings and Emails sent to Greg Gerganoff ([email protected], 2500 E Brannan Way): 6/25/09: Sent CRMF Update to the stakeholder email list 6/25/09: The email bounced, so the email address was removed from the database 8/21/09: Sent Gold Line Times FEIS edition newsletter (same information as mentioned above) Emails sent to Rosie Gonzalez ([email protected], 4045 Fox Street): 1/9/08: Sent a stakeholder email (Announced launch of new Gold Line stations Web page) 1/30/08: Sent a stakeholder email (Announced potential refinements to the Preferred Alternative including the EDDO and March public workshops) 2/19/08: Sent a stakeholder email (Overviewed the Gold Line Team’s recommendations for Preferred Alternative Refinements or the recommendation for the EDDO) 2/20/08: Rosie Gonzalez opted out of future emails by unsubscribing from the database 5/9/08: Sent Spring 2008 Gold Line Times newsletter (same information as above) 7/17/08: Sent DEIS Special Edition newsletter (same information as above)

12 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 11/3/08: Sent Gold Line Times newsletter (same information as above) 8/21/09: Sent Gold Line Times FEIS edition newsletter (same information as mentioned above) Since the FEIS hearing, RTD has met with you to discuss your concerns. In that meeting you requested that RTD review alternative sites for the 41st Avenue Gold Line station. RTD will provide you with a memo that addresses your request to move this station. However, the 3 year EIS process did review a number of station options and the current option presented in the FEIS and ROD for the project has been the preferred option based on significant agency and citizen comments to date. Regarding any potential relocations, RTD complies with the Uniform Relocation Act, which provides assistance with the relocation process. See Section 3.2 of the FEIS regarding potential economic impacts of the project. Also, see Section 3.3 of the FEIS regarding relocation information. The site was evaluated during the EIS and was found not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this finding. 11 Theran Olsen Please see response to comment 25 above. Brannan Sand and Gravel See Section 3.2, Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Considerations 4090 Galapago St. of the FEIS for a discussion of impacts of the project. Denver, CO 80216 Site selection for the 41st Avenue East Station occurred through a My name is Theran Olsen. My office is at the site selected for 3 year process involving local businesses, governments, and the 41st and Fox, division manager, one of the owners as well of citizens. See Chapter 2.0, Alternatives Considered, for a Brannan Sand and Gravel. As Fred said, we're a Colorado- discussion of this process. Also see Table 6-2 in Chapter 6.0, owned company, family owned, 103 years. We've been there Public Comment and Agency Coordination of the FEIS for a listing forever. We employ a lot of people, and on top of what Fred of meetings held. said, as far as our 500 employees, we have numerous, numerous vendors and subcontractors that depend on our There were numerous issues with other sites evaluated, in

13 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response volume of business as well, you know. particular going north of the proposed 41st Avenue East Station We have haulers, equipment suppliers, and I'm sure Lee here, a site is infeasible from an engineering perspective because the consultant, can attest to the volume of business that we do from tracks are on a 35 foot high bridge and there is no tangent track, that plant. We're seasonal, but we basically run 24, seven. which is required for a station platform. We've got night work going, day work going, Monday through Sunday. It's our biggest location. It's our most vital location. Like Fred said, a lot of people depend on that, and I guess, you know, one of the things that puzzles me with that location is that two blocks to the north there's a vacant lot, and I'm pretty sure that will be less expensive and not on the site of our location and, with being vacant, won't impact jobs, so I guess that's all I've got to say. I mean, I think everybody in here probably knows Brannan. You see our trucks everywhere. We've got a distinct color. We're a good contractor. We're honest and we're good to our employees and we're good to our customers. Thank you.

12 John Renne Thank you for your support of the Gold Line and your investment The TOD Group in the Denver community. 1431 Eutepe St. New Orleans, LA 70130 My name is John Renne. I'm a resident of New Orleans, Louisiana. I'm a manager of a company called TOD Group. We recently purchased a 21-acre property near the Federal Boulevard train station, and I have been working closely with Adams County, the community groups nearby our property, and RTD to establish a vision plan which was adopted by the Adams County Planning Commission last week unanimously, and we're very excited about the Gold Line. We're very excited about RTD. I represent a group of investors from around the United States who have chosen to buy property here in Denver because of this investment, and the gist of my

14 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response comment is that I would like to encourage RTD to stay on schedule, keep doing things the way you're doing them. I think you're doing a great job, and I know there's some, certainly, budget concerns out there, but as a property owner who has invested money into Denver because of this particular project, I would like to strongly encourage RTD to do whatever it takes to move forward and construct this line on time and, you know, take advantage of those federal resources. Thank you.

15 OCTOBER 2009

TABLE 2 Response to Written Public Comments on the Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comment Number Comment Response 13 Tom Wambolt Appendices C, D, and F were sent to you on August 24, 2009. Colorado Property Rights Coalition These appendices were not posted on the website, but available 6035 Garrison St. on request due to the large file size of these documents. Arvada, CO 80004 Greetings: I would like to request a CD of the missing parts of the Final Environmental Impact Statement that was posted to the web. The missing parts are Appendixes C, D and F. Thank you.

14 Lynda Fine Jim Congrove has been removed from the mailing list. Jefferson County Commissioners Office 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80419 Please remove Jim Congrove from your mailing list. He is no longer a Jefferson County Commissioner. I've attached a mailing label.

15 Thomas Vasquez Muchas gracias (Thank you very much). 4561 Mariposa Way Denver, CO 80211 Denver CO, 2 9-09-month Aug. Les escribo mi respuesta de su enviro of Gold Line Times, y muchos gracias por pedir mi opinión sobre futuro progreso de Gold Line Times por lo tanto, para mi y para todo el mundo, que vive en el norte y este es beneficiadle, mientras tanto yo doy Lus Verde para esta construction Gold Line Times, de todas maneras este servicio es para las siguientes generaciones, para mi es dudoso, ya que tengo 65 anos edad, de todas maneras los felicito a toda persona que tienen estas magnificas ideas para el futuro train Gold Line que la hobra prosiga su marcha desde hahorita, no decir nunca no, si se puede, las siete

16 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response estaciones son muy brillantes, que alegría será para mi ver con mis hojas RTD, Gold Line Times se realice en tiempos venideros, no parar no decir nunca no, a esta construction futura, y gracias por su atención \ \ Thomas Vasquez \ \ Que se tome en cuenta las opiniones públicas de Denver

English Translation of Comment: I’m writing to respond about the Gold Line Times. Thank you very much for asking my opinion about the future progress of Gold Line. For all the people that live in the north it’s beneficial. I approve the construction of Gold Line and I know that future generation will use it more than I because I’m 65 years old. I’m impressed with the seven stations idea, I think it’s brilliant! And I’m really excited to see the progress of the project. Keep working on it, don’t stop this future construction. Thank you very much for asking my opinion. Thomas Vasquez Please consider public opinion of people from Denver

16 Lois Lindstrom Kennedy The Gold Line team appreciates your support and involvement in 6550 Yank Way Apt. 211 the project. Arvada, CO 80004 Friday, September 4, 2009 RTD Gold Line Dave Beckhouse FTA Region 8 c/o GBSM 600 17th Street No. 2020-S Denver, Colorado 80202 The Gold Line will the second most significant event in Arvada's history. The first was the coming of the Colorado Central Railroad which sparked the creation of the town of Arvada in 1870. Arvada is presently serving as a pass-through for many

17 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response commuters who drive from the north-west area through Arvada to reach their business destination. These Colorado citizens will hail and support the Gold Line. The Gold Line will be a link to Denver and Arvada area residents will welcome the fast, clean transportation to the center of Colorado's legal and business resources. The train will be one answer to the problems of global warming and Colorado's efforts to prepare for increased population in the coming years. It will be a giant step toward an efficiently functioning future. The Gold Line will be a big step toward the comprehensive rail service presently enjoyed by citizens in Europe and Japan. The Gold Line must be built now. Lois Lindstrom Kennedy 6550 Yank Way Apt. 211 Arvada, Colorado 80004 80004

17 Tom Graham Alternatives to rail were evaluated in previous planning studies Transit Analysis and Linking Transportation Planning and NEPA (FHWA/FTA 2005) 6080 Routt St. allows for the consideration of the recommendations from previous Arvada, CO 80004 studies. Additionally, the team asked for public input during the scoping process regarding alternatives to be considered and GOLD LINE FEIS COMMENTS received input regarding evaluating some different alignments, From the beginning of the planning and public input processes, which the team evaluated during the alternatives analysis. discussion of alternatives to rail have been discouraged and The 22 meetings you mentioned before the 2004 election were not opinions of knowledgeable transit advocates ignored. The 22 related to the public process for this EIS. FasTracks meetings conducted by RTD in communities before the '04 election were stacked with organized proponents and In Section 2.2.1.1 of the FEIS, the results of the alternatives Board members. Knowledgeable speakers were mostly cut short screening from the previous Major Investment Study are noted. and their statements ridiculed. Blatant misrepresentations in The results state that Bus/High Occupancy Vehicle and Highway behalf the 67% tax increase of were the rule. When these alternatives were removed from consideration due to the abuses are mentioned, officials say the lies no longer matter environmental impacts of these alternatives (impacts to parkland because the election is past and nothing can be done to correct and residential land uses including those owned by minority and low-income households along the I-70 corridor) and because

18 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response it. these alternatives were not supportive of local goals for a reliable travel option and not consistent with local land use goals. When at EIS hearings questions about performance and costs of proven alternatives such as BRT were made, the response In the same section of the FEIS noted above, it is stated that the was either "Bus was taken off the table at the outset." or "We'll Highway widening option was $122 million (1997) and the get back to you about that." There never was a follow-up to such Bus/High Occupancy Vehicle option was $261 million (1997) and questions, or explanation of the "bus off the table," except the while both of these alternatives were affordable and cost effective recent limp statement in the FEIS comments about the public they were eliminated for the reasons noted above. liking trains. The meeting that you reference related to train horn noise was Having attended all pre-election and most post election events, I conducted with the purpose being to discuss Quiet Zones with the can testify that there were no presentations of comparisons to public. This was announced as the agenda for the meeting, and rail of BRT capital and operating costs, replacement costs, there was great interest by the public such that devoting 1 hour overall cost effectiveness, ridership experiences and and 15 minutes to the topic seemed reasonable. expectations, route flexibility, etc., regardless of whether proposed for HOT, HOV, reserved express lanes, existing lanes. The meeting you reference related to the local share was a meeting hosted by Representative Sara Gagliardi at which Liz The sweeping aside, without serious discussion, of options was Telford, Gold Line Project Manager, responded to your question discouraging to me and my associates, most of whom are about local match. The response was that the local match has experienced transit planners, transit study managers, and always been assumed to be 2.5% starting with the financial plan engineers, some with RTD background. This was especially true developed for FasTracks before 2004. in view of RTD studies, DRCOG predictions, GAO reports, examples in other regions, findings of transportation research The Gold Line team has worked hard to provide open and honest institutes and our knowledge and experience, none supporting dialogue with the stakeholders. rail. Be advised that RTD published the Gold Line MIS showing the vastly less expensive alternates of new highway lanes and reserved bus and HOV lanes. The outcome was pre-determined,20no choices furnished, the campaign financed by pay-to-play contributors and nobody was going to get in the way. The DEIS states that highway widening and bus rapid transit (BRT) and HOV lanes were evaluated but not supported by the public. This is false. Public comments by knowledgeable

19 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response witnesses endorsed non-rail alternatives, although attempts were made to stifle their opinions. There has been an intentional concerted effort to divert from any consideration of a non-rail system, with minor exceptions. Stated missions of advisory committees, such as Arvada's Gold Line Advisory Committee, are "To support FasTracks," "Support Gold Line while federal money is available" … NEVER "to encourage effective transit." These goals are counter-productive to each other. Assemblies related to EIS requirements, as well as those hosted by State legislators and local candidates are carefully directed to discussion of minutiae, at the expense of important basics, such as mode and cost. For example, at one recent meeting, train horn noise was discussed for 1 hour and 15 minutes. Meetings are intentionally conducted in a manner to avoid important issues. FasTracks planning process jumped immediately into such topics as bicycle access, toilets and horns, skipping such topics as what mode is appropriate for the Denver Region, and whether it could be paid for. A number of peripheral meetings by other agencies addressed economic stimulation such as job creation, carefully avoiding facts about the damage to business of sales tax increases, the job loss effect of taking billions out of the economy, and the temporary nature of most rail construction jobs, or federal reports showing negligible development related to light rail. These certainly are EIS topics. After the eventual budget and revenue problems became evident, hearings consisted of descriptions of several alternatives… the overall system completed on time with additional taxes, the complete system built as revenues permitted, a partial system, etc. There was no viable alternative presented for the consideration of the public, such as a BRT

20 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response system that could be in service in a short time, carrying many more than FasTracks would, at a fraction of the capital and operating costs. And… going where commuters want to go! Although Fastracks was sold as a traffic reducer, and has been endorsed as an air quality improvement, neither are true. The talking point of advocates, mainly RTD staff, has been, "It never was about traffic, it's about choice." My observation and complaint is that no choice was given on the ballot, or in the campaign. Choices given to cover the budget and revenue fiascos are not choices at all; merely varying lengths of time for completion… for the same thing. N.B. Observers of the program believe, with evidence, that costs were intentionally low-balled, with the figure chosen for what could pass voter scrutiny, rather than actual costs. I believe that the Gold Line MIS presented to the public at City of Arvada hosted meetings originally was $281 million for a line to Golden. Then it was $316 million. It is recognized that the MIS isn't a guaranteed accurate, inflation free, construction cost estimate, but it should at least incidentally have some relationship to costs. Recent estimates were $439 million, $609 million and $590.5 million, for a line only to Ward Rd. Although my main point is about withholding of information about alternatives, there have been other low tactics. Examples related to local share of costs: At an RTD-conducted meeting (not in Arvada), I asked where the local share was coming from. A Board member and a Board candidate stated to the audience that there is no local share. At a meeting last month, I asked how the local share increased from 2% to \ 2-1/2% and the RTD representative stated to the audience that it always had been the latter. RTD Board members have been preaching to the public that alternatives to rail can't be considered because of a stigma against them, while "people like trains." Use of advertising

21 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response techniques in the campaign, currently under way in advance of a 2010 ballot for a 133% tax increase, puts this "stigma" idea into the minds of consumer/ taxpayers, regardless of the fact that rail is not appropriate for this type of a region. True, trains are more exciting than buses, however, we are trying to have efficient, affordable transit here. The=2 0FasTracks program diverts from planning for this. The mayors are complicit in committing constituents to billions in taxes, mostly without taking the trouble to learn about the subject. Municipal staff members are ordered to not speak with me or my associates, for fear that they will hear facts about superior alternate transit solutions. It leaves a bad taste. No choices, incompetence, lies. Time for a fresh start! Respectfully submitted, Tom Graham, M.S., M.Arch. Transit Analysis Concerned Commuters

18 Georg Ek Thank you for your involvement and support of the project. 5670 Everett St The Gold Line team appreciates that while everyone’s ideas could Arvada, CO 80002 not always be implemented, you as a stakeholder felt they were What a pleasure it has been to participate in this public activity, I carefully considered. am proud to have been a part of involvement with professionals at every level and with communities that were sincerely concerned to work together. How intersting it is that this activity continues the process that dates back 130 years. On that date with the golden spikes that united the Pacific and Atlantic by Rail. The Promintary Point in a sense the war between the States eded. Here we are again joining communities locally for a united approach to mulitmodal tranportation needs. May all who participated and those who haven't recognize how very significant this union of communities are. I really feel we owe much to a Frenchman who saw within us the ability to connect.

22 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Alexis deTocqueville I believe would have been proud. He wrote perhaps the finest book ever written on American democracy, Democracy in America. We in a very real sense have followed through and if he were to come back, I am sure he would write well of the Gold Line, the other corridors and the outstanding FasTrack effort. None of us can say that everything has gone exactly the way we would like it to go, whereas in May 1879, 10 miles of track was laid in one day. It is my frustration we did not complete this wonderful project before the end of the 20th century, not could we have. My hope is that others who have not been involved, recognize their citizenship ressponsigility throught taxation and other means for Gold Line to reach the standards recognized world wide.

19 Alicia Bruggeman During the EIS, RTD coordinated with local governments to 7245 South Havana Street identify appropriate fencing types for the corridor. Based on this Suite 300 coordination and the identified visually sensitive areas, post and Centennial, CO 80112 cable type fencing (not chain link) was selected for the Olde Town historic district. Hi, We live at 6507 Grandview Ave, Arvada, CO 80002 and we're RTD prefers to not use wooden fences due to the ongoing extremely concerned about the negative impact a chain link maintenance issues associated with them. fence will have on our property. We enjoy sitting on our front porch enjoying coffee and the quiet of our neighborhood. A chain link fence of any sort would hugely impact our charming and historic neighborhood. People that visit say how beautiful the home and neighborhood is and admire it. Many have commented on what a beautiful bridge has been build on Grandview extending over Wadsworth. Why would so much money be poured into making the bridge beautiful only to create an ugly fence detracting from the area's beauty? It makes no sense. Why not continue protecting the charm of the neighborhood by utilizing a nice wooden fence. This would look nice, protect others and tremendously help cut back the noise.

23 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response The chain link fence won't do any of that. Please reconsider. We love our home and our neighborhood. The "feel" of it all is why we purchased it over a year ago. Thank you, Alicia Bruggeman Human Resource Manager IKON Office Solutions, Inc. A RICOH COMPANY 7245 South Havana Street, Suite 300 Centennial, CO 80112 720-875-8709 [email protected]

20 Tom Graham Please see response to comment 17 6080 Routt St. Arvada, CO 80004 GOLD LINE FEIS COMMENTS From the beginning of the planning and public input processes, discussion of alternatives to rail have been discouraged and opinions of knowledgeable transit advocates ignored. The 22 FasTracks meetings conducted by RTD in communities before the '04 election were stacked with organized proponents and Board members. Knowledgeable speakers were mostly cut short and their statements ridiculed. Blatant misrepresentations in behalf of the 67% tax increase were the rule. When these abuses are mentioned, officials say the lies no longer matter because the election has passed and nothing can be done to correct it. When at EIS hearings questions about performance and costs of proven alternatives such as BRT (bus rapid transit) were made, the response was either, "Bus was taken off the table at the outset." or "We'll get back to you about that." There never was a follow-up to such questions, or explanation of the "bus off the table," except the recent limp statement in the FEIS

24 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response comments about the public liking trains. Having attended all the pre-election and most post-election events, I can testify that there were no presentations of comparisons to rail of BRT capital and operating costs, replacement costs, overall cost effectiveness, ridership experiences and expectations, route flexibility, etc., regardless of whether proposed for HOT, HOV, reserved express lanes or existing lanes. The sweeping aside, without serious discussion of options, was discouraging to me and my associates, most of whom are experienced transit planners, transit study managers, and engineers, some with RTD background. This was especially true in view of RTD studies, DRCOG predictions, GAO reports, examples in other regions, findings of transportation research institutes, and our knowledge and experience. None support rail. Be advised that RTD published the Gold Line MIS showing the vastly less expensive alternates of new highway lanes and reserved bus and HOV lanes. The outcome was pre- determined, with no choices furnished. The campaign was financed by pay-to-play contributors and nobody was going to get in the way. The DEIS states that highway widening and BRT and HOV lanes were evaluated but not supported by the public. This is false. Public comments by knowledgeable witnesses endorsed non-rail alternatives, although attempts were made to stifle their opinions. There has been an intentional concerted effort to divert from any consideration of a non-rail system, with minor exceptions. Stated missions of appointed committees, such as Arvada's Gold Line advisory committee, are "to support FasTracks," "support Gold Line while federal money is available" … Never "to encourage effective transit." These goals are counterproductive to transportation solutions. RTD presentations related to EIS requirements, as well as

25 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response meetings hosted by state legislators and local candidates, are carefully directed to discussion of minutiae, at the expense of important basics such as mode, cost, and effectiveness. For example, at one recent meeting train horn noise was discussed for one hour and fifteen minutes. Meetings are intentionally conducted in a manner to avoid important issues. FasTracks planning process jumped immediately into such items as bicycle access, toilets and horns, skipping such topics as what mode is appropriate for the Denver region and whether it could be financed. Attendees at Gold Line meetings were separated into small groups, each assigned to small elements of a sketch plan in order to avoid an overall plan consensus. A number of peripheral meetings by other agencies addressed economic stimulation such as job creation, carefully avoiding facts about the damage to business of sales tax increases, the job loss effect of taking billions out of the economy, the temporary nature of rail construction jobs and federal reports showing negligible development related to light rail. These certainly should be EIS topics. After the eventual budget and revenue problems became evident, hearings consisted of descriptions of several alternatives… the overall system completed on time with additional taxes, the complete system built as revenues permitted, or a partial system, etc. There was no viable alternative presented for consideration by the public, such as a BRT system that could be in service in a short time, carrying more than FasTracks would, at a fraction of the capital and operating costs. And….going where commuters want to go! Although FasTracks was sold as a traffic reducer, and has been endorsed as an air quality improvement, neither is true. The talking point of advocates and RTD staff has been, "it never was about traffic; it's about choice." My observation and complaint is that no choice was given on the ballot or in the campaign.

26 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Choices given to cover the budget and revenue fiascos are not choices at all; merely varying lengths of time for completion of the same thing. NB: Observers of the program believe, with evidence, that costs were intentionally low-balled, with the figure chosen for what could pass voter scrutiny, rather than actual costs. Along with this we were fed outrageous revenue figures. Publicity about items such as the many grade crossings, dead- ends and the $32 million Wadsworth grade separation has been avoided as much as possible. Indemnification of the BNSF and UP was neglected with the excuse that it wasn't a consideration before the Glendale, CA collision. This is a lie. It was discussed here decades ago. The Gold Line MIS presented to the public at the City of Arvada- hosted meetings originally was $281 million for a corridor to Golden. Then it was $316 million. It is recognized that the MIS isn't a guaranteed accurate and inflation-free construction cost estimate, but it should at least be incidentally related to costs. Recent estimates were $439 million, $609 million and $590 million, for a line only to Ward Road. What's a few hundred million among friends? Although my main point is about withholding of information about alternatives, there have been other low tactics. For example: Local shared costs: at an RTD-conducted meeting (not in Arvada), I asked where the local share was coming from. A Board member and a Board candidate stated to the audience that there is no local share. At a meeting last month I asked how the local share had increased from 2% to 2½%. The RTD rep falsely stated to the audience that it always had been the latter. RTD board members have been preaching to the public that alternatives to rail can't be considered because of a stigma against them, while "people like trains." Use of advertising

27 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response techniques in the campaign, currently underway in advance of a future ballot for a 133% tax increase, puts this "stigma" idea into the minds of consumers and taxpayers, regardless of the fact that rail is not appropriate for this type of a region. True, trains are more exciting than buses; however, we are trying to have efficient, affordable transit here, not entertainment. The FasTracks program diverts from this goal. The mayors are complicit in committing constituents to billions in taxes, mostly without taking the trouble to learn about the subject. Municipal staff members are ordered to not speak to me or my associates, for fear that they will hear facts about superior alternate transit solutions. It leaves a bad taste. No choices, incompetence, lies. Time for a fresh start! Respectfully submitted, Tom Graham, M.S., M.Arch. Transit Analysis

21 Doug Magee Thank you for your involvement in the Gold Line project. Your 7275 W. 62nd Ave. support for the results of the alternatives analysis leading to the Arvada, CO 80003 final definition of the preferred alternative is noted. I support the preferred alternative (Alternative 3, EMU: BNSF / UP) presented in the Gold Line Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released August 2009. I also support the Option B, East Direct option (EDDO) for the DUS to Pecos St. section, the various station designs and locations, and other key findings presented in the FEIS. I also support the selection of the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility at the Fox North Site as described that allows the Owens-Corning facility to continue operating at its current location. The reasons for my support of the preferred alternative and other FEIS findings are: 1. The technical evaluation process to assess potential

28 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response routes and the appropriate transportation technology was rigorous, well-managed and based upon definitive economic, ridership and technical facts. 2. The public involvement process for the EIS was timely, allowed adequate public input and information was readily available through multiple formats. 3. The consultant team's and RTD's attention to detail on items such as station design, noise abatement, mitigating environmental impacts and addressing ROW / property rights issues were exemplary. 4. Overall project management of the multi-year study was handled well by both RTD and the consultant team. It is my hope that the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration approves this transit project at the highest level of federal funding (possible New Starts monies) and provides funds from a Public-Private Partnership concept so that final design and construction can proceed as quickly as possible.

22 Pat Daley Thank you for your participation in the project. 3196 W. 62nd Ave. It is noted that you feel that early implementation of the Quiet Zone Denver, CO 80221 would foster positive public opinion. I went to this meeting and it was pretty much what I expected. The one thing I thought was missing was Adams County participation. Arvada was well represented and I was a little envious of that type of concern. The other thing that jumped out at me was the number of speakers (John Q Public) that wanted Quiet Zones sooner than later. I think that this will come with or with out the Gold line, but it would have a great impact on public opinion if you guys lead the fight for immediate implementation.

29 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Pat Daley 3196 west 62nd Ave. Denver 80221

23 Constantin Nickonov It is noted that you feel that the 41st Avenue East Station should SUNI be built and service should be provided to the station as part of the 4301 Wyandot St. first phase of the build out of the Eagle P3 project. Denver, CO 80211 With the location of the CRMF chosen to be north of I-70, the track (and catenary) between it and Union Station will have to be in place prior to the first commuter rails service (presumably the East Corridor to DIA) coming on line. It follows that the Gold Line should prioritize its own build out to open its eastern-most section (at a minimum, the 41st Ave. station) to service before the entire corridor is complete -- and in concert with the East Corridor. This would benefit RTD and its Eagle partner through fare collection, the City of Denver through earlier TOD in the area and the associated tax revenues, and residents through convenience. The associated costs would be minimal, as a single vehicle could be dedicated to the make round trips along the mini-line until the project fully opens.

24 John Renne RTD will continue to work with you and Adams County with the The TOD Group goal of integrating the station within the local land use plans to the 1431 Eutepe St. best of our ability. New Orleans, LA 70130 Thank you for your support of the FEIS. I am the Managing Director of a company that owns 6001 Federal Blvd., a 21-acre site near the Federal Blvd. Train Station along the Gold Line. I have been working closely with Adams County to plan a transit-oriented development on our property. Adams County has been supportive of our vision plan and recently adopted our plan known as the Clear Creek Transit Village Vision Plan as part of the Clear Creek Valley TOD Plan as an amendment to the Adams County Comprehensive Plan.

30 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response I am supportive of the Final EIS and hope to continue to work closely with Adams County, RTD, and the chosen concessionaire to coordinate the construction of the Federal Blvd. train station and best integrate into our transit oriented development to find ways to increase transit ridership.

25 Paige Merriman The station design was selected through a series of meetings with 5480 Lowell Blvd the public and local governments. Denver, CO 80221 The Quiet Zone will not be shortened. The extent of the Quiet The station design at Pecos Street, I hate the industrial design Zone was based on the noise impacts identified and analyzed in and would prefer either of the others. the DEIS and FEIS for the project. I really love the quiet zone, Lowell to Tabor. I strongly support this and would love you to extend it if possible. Please don't make it any smaller.

26 Jennifer Tibbetts The contractor for the construction of the Gold Line (and the Quiet Power Equipment Specialists, Inc. Zone improvements) has not yet been selected. 7709 Ralston Road The current assumption is the implementation of a Quiet Zone Arvada, CO 80002 (improvements at grade crossings that allow trains to not blow To whom it may concern, their horns) and this will not require the use of noise walls for mitigation. My name is Jennifer Tibbetts and I am president of a company with 8 employees in the city of Arvada, Power Equipment Specialists, Inc. We are located at 7709 Ralston Road and have been part of the business community in Arvada and Wheatridge since 1982. We represent a manufacturer of a quiet zone product specifically manufactured for transportation districts around the country to deal with transit noise pollution and mitigation of this problem. The product is called Acoustawall: http://www.skp- cs.com/pdf/AcoustaWall.pdf Acoustawall offers significant decibel reduction. The STC rating

31 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response is 37 at a cost of about $17 per square foot. Please call me or email me with the correct person to contact regarding the RTD Goldline project and quiet zone design and construction. Thank you very much, Jennifer Tibbetts Jennifer Tibbetts Power Equipment Specialists, Inc. 303-423-2741 x203 303-467-0714 fax www.pes-co.com

27 Keith Howard Thank you for your support and continued involvement in the Gold Sunnyside United Neighbors, Inc. Line project. 4303 Umatilla St. Based on current operations planning, it has been assumed that Denver, CO 80211 Northwest Rail trains would stop at both the Pecos and 41st Through nearly five years of paying attention to the FasTracks Avenue East stations in the outbound direction in the morning project (with special concentration on the Gold Line and the peak period and in the inbound direction in the evening peak CRMF) I've been impressed by the standard of work of the period for the project. consultant teams. I think that the project as defined by this FEIS It is noted that you feel that the 41st Avenue East Station should will meet the purpose and need defined by the voters. be built and service should be provided to the station as part of the The station that will serve my neighborhood directly is the first phase of the build out of the Eagle P3 project. 41st/Fox GL station. As the Gold Line track is shared with NW Rail and with access to the CRMF, it seems both reasonable and practical for most or all NW Rail trains to stop at 41st Ave. In the course of public meetings and workshops we have heard not quite a promise to this effect. I believe that serving the NW Rail line should be part of the 41st Ave. station mission. In the phasing of the design/build/operate/maintain PPP for the Eagle Project the start of service at 41st Ave. is not scheduled until the Gold Line is completed, sometime in 2016. But the track from DUS to the CRMF must be complete for the beginning of service on the East Corridor line. Thus, only the construction of

32 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response the 41st Ave. station itself would be required for Gold Line (or NW Rail) service to begin at 41st Ave. in 2013. I understand that there are funding and bureaucratic priority considerations, but it will certainly be silly for NW Denver folks to be waving at the passing trains for three years without service. The extra three years of revenue ought not to be lost to the FasTracks project. The 41st Ave. station includes a steel bridge crossing the railyards from the platform to Inca Street, on the west side. The 30% design for that bridge in the present FEIS shows that the serious technical constraints are not insuperable. I hope, however, that more aesthetic solutions will also be considered by the design/build firm, with suggestions from interested designers, residents, property owners and riders. Thanks to all for these years of productive work. Best, Keith Howard

27 Combined Fishman Properties The current alignment has been evaluated over the past 3 years 3456 W. 23rd Ave. and is the only feasible alignment in this area from an engineering Denver, CO 80211 perspective. Please see Changes from the Final Environmental Impact Statement section of the Gold Line Record of Decision Gold Line (ROD) for a clarification of the potential impacts to your property. David Beckhouse - FTA Region 8 c/o GBSM 600 17th St., #2020-S Denver, CO 80202 Via email and U.S. Mail Ladies & Gentlemen: Combined Fishman Properties, Inc. ("CFP") and related entities own property on the east side of Fox St. north of W. 29th Avenue. Your FEIS documents for the Gold Line indicate part of our property will be taken for this proposed rail line.

33 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response We object to this proposed taking for the following reasons: 1. An active commuter rail line immediately next to our property will impair our ability to develop a mixed-use project with residential and retail uses. 2. The taking area shown will leave us with a long unusable sliver of property at the north end, i.e. "uneconomic remnant". 3. Reducing our overall land area will reduce our ability to build enough units on the site to be justified economically. For these reasons, we encourage RTD to look carefully at alternative alignments. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss these issues in greater detail. Sincerely, Combined Fishman Properties

28 John P Kiljan The Economics of a Three-Story Parking Structure. RTD has 6185 Field Street committed to the construction of a parking structure at the Olde Arvada, CO 80004 Town Station in order to accommodate the City of Arvada’s land Dave Beckhouse, FTA use planning. c/o GBSM, Inc. The latest parking estimates assume 600 spaces at the Olde 600 17th Street 2020-S Town Station by 2030. Denver, CO 80202 Structured parking is approximately $17,000 per space. Assuming Dear Mr Beckhouse: that all 600 spaces are required by 2030, the approximately cost of These are my comments on the Final Environmental Impact the parking structure would be $10.2 million. Surface parking is Statement (EIS) issued by the Regional Transportation District always less costly than structured parking; however, real estate (RTD) for the Gold Line for its 30-day public comment period. economics must also be considered. RTD has not planned to These comments are on the four underlined subject headings charge for parking, with the exception of the new parking policy below. They relate to the Olde Town station site, its support that allows for a parking charge for out of district patrons. RTD has facilities and future access to Denver's airport from Arvada's not discussed a joint pay for parking structure with the City of Olde Town; and, they are supplemental to my earlier requests Arvada. for modification and comments made to the Draft EIS found in

34 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Volume II, pages 18, 19 and 66 through 74 of the Final EIS Pedestrian Access and Bridges. There is one pedestrian bridge budgeted for the Olde Town Station and the design of the station The Economics of a Three-Story Parking Structure area was completed in coordination with the City of Arvada and The construction of the three-story parking facility in Olde Town the public. Numerous public meetings were held to discuss is not justified on an economic basis in the Draft or Final EIS. circulation through the site. RTD's response to earlier Draft EIS comments, now found in Volume II, pages 66 and 67 of the Final EIS confirm that RTD The intention of the bridge is to convey transit patrons from an plans to spend $102,000 per space to add only 100 additional elevator shaft at the northwest corner of the park-n-Ride to the parking spaces to the Olde Town station's parking lot by the Vance Street crossing. The elevator is being provided to assist year 2030 in the Final EIS' plans. This is a poor economic patrons up the grade at Vance Street. Vance Street is a legal choice by almost any measure, and it is not justified by any crossing of the BNSF Railway Company track, so the pedestrian quantifiable or presumed TOD development needs identified in bridge does not have to extend across the track. This pedestrian the EIS. bridge as planned will have a minimal visual impact in the Olde Town area. A bridge over the tracks, from the elevator shaft to a I request that the Final EIS statement be modified to show that landing point north of the tracks, would have a much greater visual $10.2 parking structure expenditure called for in the Final EIS impact. Many comments have been made throughout the NEPA only be made if RTD and the City of Arvada can demonstrate to process to not obstruct the view from Grandview. Any vertical the satisfaction of the FTA that the building of this parking access would need to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) structure can show adequate tangible and quantifiable benefits compliant. to public at large. And, if this cannot be adequately shown, that any monies budgeted for the structure be expended on other The Doubling of the Time Needed to Reach DIA by Public Olde Town station improvement needs not currently in the Final Transportation. As stated in Volume II of the FEIS, response to EIS and that may only become apparent after the Gold Line's Comment No. 27, estimates for rail travel times are in 2030, so opening day. bus and auto access travel times to Denver International Airport (DIA) must also be considered in 2030 to have an equitable Pedestrian Access and Bridges comparison. The Draft and Final EIS have not justified omitting a pedestrian bridge over the rail lines or a pedestrian underpass under the The A-Line currently has a 35 to 40 minute trip to DIA. This can be tracks in Olde Town. The available engineering estimates are factored up by roughly 30 percent to account for congestion that the passage of pedestrians across the tracks at Olde increases between now and 2030. Assuming the current day travel Wadsworth and Vance Street in Olde Town will be blocked time of 40 min + 30 percent = about 52 minutes in 2030. The A- approximately one-third of the time during peak hours when Line runs approximately 15 trips per day (60 minute headways commuter rail cars will be arriving from alternate directions every with a 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. service span). This is a useful point for 3-1/4 minutes. This may create a hazard to pedestrians comparison of other aspects of service to the future Gold (particularly younger pedestrians) who may try to 'beat the train' Line/East Corridor Rail. and become trapped between the track gates and fencing or As stated in Volume II of the FEIS, the rail travel time from Olde

35 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response who may encounter passing freight trains on the adjacent track Town to DIA in 2030 would be Gold Line Travel Time: Olde Town along this part of the 'quiet zone.' to DUS at 13 minutes + transfer to East Corridor at 7.5 minutes + East Corridor Travel Time at 29 minutes = 50 min. The travel I request that the Final EIS be modified to show either a low- times are fairly comparable between the A-Line and commuter rail, visual-impact pedestrian overpass or a secure pedestrian but the rail service is more frequent and has higher reliability since underpass over/under the tracks in Olde Town at the station bus travel time can be affected by traffic incidents and weather. site. I see no need under ADA requirements to incur the cost of making either options handicap accessible since other (albeit Continued operation of the A Line would compete with the Gold slower) at-grade access will still be available. Line service, and would add additional operational costs. The Doubling of the Time Needed to Reach DIA by Public 56th Avenue and Bus Routing Plans. In lieu of the original Transportation mitigation measures listed in the DEIS (improvements to the The projected travel times to DIA from Olde Town Arvada shown intersections of: 55th Avenue and Olde Wadsworth; 55th Avenue in the response to public comments Volume II, pages 18 and 19 and Vance Street; and 55th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard), are in error. They underestimate the total vehicle-to-terminal RTD has pledged the cost for those mitigations to the 56th Avenue travel times from the Olde Town parking lot to the DIA terminal project, which the City of Arvada has indicated is a preferred in comparison to the existing and future A-Line. mitigation. I request that the Final EIS be revised to commit RTD and its The City of Arvada has moved forward with the preparation of concessionaires to provide adequate financial support to the design of 56th Avenue. existing A-Line until such time as the Gold Line / East Line The EIS process does not include revisions to the FEIS and will connection's vehicle-to-terminal and terminal-to-vehicle times conclude with the Record of Decision. can match or exceed those of the A-Line. 56th Avenue and Bus Routing Plans The routing of RTD buses feeding the Olde Town station remains unaddressed in the Draft EIS and the current Final EIS. Neither the City of Arvada nor any other public or private agency has committed to funding and constructing 56th Avenue as shown in the EIS. I request that the Final EIS be revised to show parking configurations and bus routing that will occur if 56th Avenue is not constructed by others as is currently shown in the Final EIS plans.

36 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Sincerely, John P Kiljan 6185 Field Street Arvada, CO 80004 303-423-9875 [email protected] 29 Georg Ek Thank you for your comment. 5670 Everett St Arvada, CO 80002 Monday September 21, 2009 What a wonderful document the Final Gold Line EIS is! All who took part deserve praise! It really has been a process that gave the opportunity for the People to express their concerns. More importantly, the concerns and suggestions were listened to and honestly weighed! Congratulations! Georg P.S. I can't believe that I went through the whole thing. Although there are portions that I shall return to learn and think about, I have said in my earlier comments all that I have to say!

37 OCTOBER 2009

TABLE 3 Response to Agency Comments on the Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comment Number Comment Response 30 Bill DeGroot RTD will coordinate and work with Urban Drainage and Flood Urban Drainage & Flood Control District Control District through final design and the permitting process. 2480 West 26th Ave. Specific responses to your comments are described below. Suite 156-B Clear Creek Bridge: Denver, CO 80211 The Existing BNSF Clear Creek Bridge only has two sets of piers My comments on the DEIS are identified as Comment Number within the floodplain. The piers are generally located to either side 36 in the "Response to Agency and Public Comments." We of the normal flow in the creek. The 100-year water surface asked that proposed new bridges at Ralston Creek and Clear elevation passes below the low chord of the bridge. The floodplain Creek put fewer piers in the waterways so as to not perpetuate appears to split upstream of the existing bridge and some of the the obstructions of the waterways that the existing railroad 100-year flows are directed eastward along the track to Federal bridges create. Boulevard. It is not readily apparent as to the cause of the split. Your response to keep the same number of piers is not Based on past Clear Creek hydraulic model results, the Federal acceptable. I believe that it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Boulevard Bridge just downstream could cause a backwater effect EO 11988, which requires a good faith effort to mitigate flood that causes flows in the channel to split upstream of the BNSF hazards. I believe that RTD can find a consultant who can bridge. The BNSF bridge may also cause some backwater effects. design a bridge, using modern bridge design technology, that The cross section of the channel just upstream of the BNSF bridge can be visually pleasing without perpetuating the current could also be the constriction that is causing the split flows to obstructions to the waterway. Federal Boulevard. RTD will need several permits before these bridges can go By constructing a parallel bridge of similar length of the existing forward and we will do what we have to to stop this disregard of BNSF Bridge, and with piers at approximately the same spans and our concerns and EO 11988. locations of the existing piers, the mapped 100-year water surface elevation would not be significantly affected. In order to determine the affects of constructing a larger bridge, additional hydraulic modeling would need to be performed. Various scenarios of the model could show 1) the new bridge at the same size of the existing BNSF bridge with a larger Federal Boulevard Bridge, 2) the new larger bridge with the existing BNSF bridge and the existing Federal Boulevard Bridge, 3) the new larger bridge with a larger BNSF bridge and the existing BNSF bridge, and 4) the new larger bridge with larger BNSF and Federal Boulevard bridges. Each of these scenarios would demonstrate the sensitivity of the

38 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response bridge structure sizes to backwater effects. The downstream bridges could simply be removed from the model to represent the "improved" downstream conditions. The number of piers in the floodplain does not appear to be a significant contributor to floodplain issues at this bridge location.

Ralston Creek Bridge: The proposed Ralston Creek Bridge has many design restrictions that affect its size, structural dimensions and impacts to the floodplain. The existing track is at a minimum clearance below Ralston Road, which is very close to the creek crossing. Therefore the track cannot be raised. The existing 100-year water surface elevation at the bridge is above the low chord (bottom of deck). Multiple structural design scenarios were performed by CH2M HILL to minimize the bridge deck depth. A minimum deck depth was achieved using the same pier spacing as the existing bridge. The deck depth is less than that of the existing bridge and brings the low chord up to just above the 100-year water surface elevation. The wider the piers are spaced, the deeper the deck depth, which would further impact the 100-year flow. Although the number of piers at this bridge crossing are closely spaced, the close spacing is required to minimize the construction depth of the bridge deck, thereby minimizing the floodplain impact to the bridge deck.

31 Pamela Fischhaber RTD understands the need for continued coordination and Public Utilities Commission approval with/by the PUC. RTD understands that the ultimate 1560 Broadway, Suite 250 configurations for grade crossing improvements will be determined Denver, CO 80202 in PUC hearings. September 15, 2009 David Beckhouse FTA, Region 8 C/O Gold Line Team GBSM 600 17th Street, Suite 2020

39 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Denver, CO 80202 RE: Gold Line Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Beckhouse: Staff of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has reviewed the Godl Line Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and has the following comments: 1) The PUC has jurisdiction in Colorado to determine all public highway-rail crossing matters including the proper location of crossings and the proper safety measures for a highway-rail crossing. The methodology used in the Gold Line Corridor FEIS is not a methodology that has been approved for use by the PUC nor is it binding on the PUC. Although the FEIS and ultimately the Record of Decision (ROD) may take certain recommendations regarding the proposed configuration of the highway-rail crossings along the East Corridor, the PUC is not bound by these recommendations and may order different configurations than those proposed in the FEIS. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please feel free to call or email me. I can be reached by phone at 303-894- 2529 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Pamela M. Fischhaber, P.E. Chief of Rail/Transit Safety and Water 32 Sharon Terranova Page 33 – You are correct. The sentence should read “from Denver Regional Council of Governments 4:00 am to 8:00 a.m.” 1290 Broadway Page 37 – You are correct. The word “feet” should be added to Denver, CO 80203 this sentence, to read “1,000 feet”. Page 33 "When will the train operate?" "During the weekends and holidays, train service would be two trains an hour (30-

40 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response minute headways) from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m." Is this correct? Or should it read 8:00 a.m.? The paragraph continues and states that four trains per hour would run from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on during weekends and holidays. Page 37 "Noise and Vibration: All of these impacts are predicted at noise-sensitive receptors located at distances of up to 1,000 from the proposed tracks and are identical for opening day 2015 and 2030 operations." Should it read 1,000 feet?

33 Ref: 8EPR-N FTA and RTD appreciate your recognition of the extensive interagency and public planning process conducted for this project FTA Region 8 as indicated in your comments. David Beckhouse, Team Leader for Planning and Programs C/O Gold Line Team RTD will comply with permit requirements including reducing GBSM, Inc. pollutants to the maximum extent practical as recommended in 600 17th Street 2020-S your comment. Denver, CO 80202 Per your comment regarding water quality and transit-oriented Re: Comments on the Gold Line development, please see Appendix G, The FasTrack’s FasTracks Corridor Final Programmatic Cumulative Effects Analysis, included in both the Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS and FEIS, which discusses (in the Water Quality section) the CEQ#: 20090289 potential cumulative effects of development related to FasTracks. Dear Mr. Beckhouse: FTA and RTD began using the Driscoll model early in the EIS process based on an EPA staff member request some time ago. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Our apologies about any confusion about the use of the model or the Gold Line FasTracks Corridor. Our comments are provided the explanation of the results. As such, FTA and RTD would be for your consideration pursuant to our responsibilities and pleased to meet with you to continue discussions about modeling authority under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental on future projects. Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7609. The proposed project will provide commuter rail using Electrical Multiple Unit technology from Denver Union Station in downtown

41 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Denver to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The total proposed alignment would be 11.2 miles long and include seven stations; the first 3.5 miles are shared with the proposed Northwest Rail project. EPA commends the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Regional Transportation District (RTD) for the extensive inter- agency and public planning process, which has resulted in strong community support for the project's preferred alternative. We also thank the Gold Line EIS Team for responding to our comments on the Draft EIS in Volume II of this FEIS. We are pleased to see the added documentation of permit required onsite detention ponds for storm water runoff from impervious surfaces in the FEIS. The proposed detention facilities will assist in reducing discharge of pollutants to surface waters from any jurisdictional municipal separate storm sewer system that may be associated with the proposed project. EPA recommends that you evaluate the design considerations for post construction facilities in the context of local contaminants of concern (including the stream impairments for E. coli, aquatic life use, and organic sediment in the project area). Discharge of pollutants should be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, as described in the permit requirements. EPA understands that the Driscoll model predicted increases in annual mass load from parking structures that would not result in runoff concentrations in exceedance of water quality standards. However, EPA does remain concerned that the small increase in discharges, when added to increased transit oriented development, could negatively affect impaired surface waters in the project area. We are also concerned with the level of confusion raised by the use of the Driscoll model, and explanation of model results, in this and other FasTracks projects. EPA is interested in engaging in conversations to resolve this issue. Particularly, we want to ensure that adequate

42 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response documentation and disclosure of potential impacts are provided in the EIS, in accordance with NEPA. We appreciate the opportunity to review and offer comments on this project. If you have any questions on the comments provided in this letter, please contact me at 303-312-6004, or you may contact Molly Brodin of my staff at 303-312-6577. Sincerely, Larry Svoboda Director, NEPA Compliance and Review Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation

34 Alison Michael Please see the mitigations for migratory birds in Appendix B in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ROD where this has been changed.

We have only one comment on the Gold Line FEIS. We are now recommending that the end date for the migratory bird nesting season be August 31 rather than August 15. If you could incorporate that new date into the ROD, that would be great.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Alison

35 United States Dept of the Interior Comment noted. National Park Service 12795 W. Alameda Parkway Denver, CO 80225

The National Park Service reviewed this project, and determined that no parks will be affected; therefore, we have no comments. Signed: Julie Sharp Date: 9/29/09

43 OCTOBER 2009

TABLE 4 Response to Local Government Comments on the Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comment Number Comment Response 36 Jeanne M. Shreve We concur and we will continue coordination with you regarding Adams County Transportation Coordinator the issues you noted. 12200 N. Pecos Street, 3rd Floor Westminster, CO 80234 Liz and Ashland, First thank you for meeting with Adams County last Friday, September 25th to discuss our 30% design comments. The majority of the Final EIS comments Adams County originally prepared were centered around coordination and design issues. Adams County is prepared to work through the remaining coordination and design issues with RTD and the selected concessionaire during the design-build process and our local county permitting processes. The issues needing further coordination on are: Local jurisdictional involvement in the concessionaire selection process Coordination on how the concessionaire will address local concerns as we move forward from the 30% design Development of an Intergovernmental Agreement including local match contribution and credits to the county. Elements to include: Coordination with Pecos Grade Separation Project (County to provide initial language) Right-of-way/property donations (RTD to provide initial language) Permits, review periods and associated fees (RTD to provide initial language) Clay outfall and bike trail coordination (County to

44 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response provide initial language) 60th at-grade crossing (RTD to include in list of additional issues to consider) OCS and/or electrification barriers to structure (RTD to include in list of additional issues to consider) Wetlands mitigation (RTD to include in list of additional issues to consider) Other Quiet Zones and At-Grade Crossing Safety New 60th Avenue at-grade crossing New Clay outfall at-grade trail crossing Insurance for parcels given to RTD (RTD to check with in- house council; County is requesting RTD consider options, and at a minimum acknowledge our Pecos Project is scheduled to start construction at the end of November and extend the timeframe to resolve insurance issue, if necessary) Traffic and transportation issues during county permitting process Other Thank you for the Gold Line Team’s continued efforts to engage the local jurisdictions in the EIS process. Adams County looks forward to our continued partnership with RTD to build the Gold Line and the other 3 FasTracks corridors (Northwest, North Metro and US 36) that traverse Adams County. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Best Regards, --Jeanne

45 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 37 September 25, 2009 FTA Region 8 David Beckhouse, Team Leader for Planning and Programs C/O Gold Line Team GBSM Inc. 600 17th Street, 2020-S Denver, CO 80202 Re: Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement Comments Dear Mr. Beckhouse: The City of Arvada has reviewed the Gold Line Final Environmental Impact Statement and offers the comments contained in this letter and an accompanying Excel spreadsheet addressing the 30% Design Drawings. 38 1) As we commented on the Draft EIS, we commend the Thank you. professionalism and hard work of Liz Telford and the rest of the Gold Line team in addressing community concerns. The Final EIS is an extremely thorough and well presented document.

39 2) Major community and environmental impacts have been The Gold Line team understands the importance of the Quiet Zone properly identified and mitigated. In particular, we are mitigation for the communities that we will serve. appreciative of the Quiet Zone improvements that will be installed at rail crossings which will eliminate train horn noise. We do encourage RTD and its eventual private concessionaire to explore all possible means to accelerate construction of Quiet Zone improvements as an “early action item”.

40 3) We do remain concerned about the small amount of RTD has worked with the City of Wheat Ridge regarding parking at parking being provided at the Ward Road Station, but are Ward Road. The agreement is that RTD will purchase additional willing to address this concern in the intergovernmental right-of-way on opening day such that if overflow parking is

46 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response agreement. required, it will be available in a timely manner.

41 4) While we appreciate the Gold Line study team preparing The Transportation Technical Memorandum completed for this the traffic simulation model for Ridge and Miller Streets, our study has been provided to you. The traffic analysis conducted for concerns with the traffic volumes and associated operation the EIS used industry-accepted standards. In the traffic impact of Olde Wadsworth and Ralston Road remain. methodology developed for FasTracks, traffic analysis is completed for intersections adjacent to park-n-Rides and intersections within 0.25 mile of the station. It is not anticipated that the implementation of a station at Olde Town Arvada will result in a significant change in traffic at the Olde Wadsworth and Ralston Road intersection. 42 5) The transformer planned for the Sheridan Station is of The transformer at the Sheridan Station is much smaller than the some concern with respect to visual impacts. We have not main substation required for the project. RTD will coordinate with seen any images of what it might look like. Mitigation of the the City of Arvada in an intergovernmental agreement regarding visual impact of the transformer should be addressed in the any mitigation required for the visual impact. intergovernmental agreement.

43 6) With respect to crossings, we believe they should be RTD will make accommodations at railroad crossings within our designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists where right-of-way for the City of Arvada’s anticipated pedestrian and a road is a designated bike route. This is an item we want bicycle improvements and we will include this in an to include in the intergovernmental agreement. intergovernmental agreement.

44 7) The design of the Independence and Allison Street RTD agrees. This will be addressed in the Request for Proposal crossings are particularly challenged and additional and in an intergovernmental agreement. investigation is needed to achieve the best solution. As noted in the spreadsheet, this issue should be included with the RFP and be addressed in the intergovernmental agreement.

45 8) We feel it is important for the Olde Town station shelter to RTD concurs with this comment. reflect a historic motif. Our understanding is that the conceptual designs prepared by the city are acceptable to RTD and within the project budget. The intergovernmental agreement should state this.

47 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 46 9) We appreciate the inclusion of the West 56th Avenue RTD concurs with this comment and will work to provide the City extension and RTD’s recognition that they will pledge the of Arvada with a cost estimate for these measures. value of the original mitigation toward its construction. This mitigation value should include signalization of 55th Avenue, the addition of a second eastbound through lane at 55th/Vance Street and the addition of a second eastbound left turn lane with eastbound and westbound left turn protected/permitted phasing in 2015. As CDOT is currently asking the City and our consultant to evaluate all other possible options to a signal at W. 56th Avenue and SH 121, any cost information that you can provide to us that would make up your pledge would be most appreciated.

47 10) Concerning the access drive down to the Sheridan Station, RTD will provide sidewalks at rail crossings according to PUC we view this to be an extension of Wolff Street which requirements as well as adjacent to our properties within our right- should be designed to city standards. The sidewalk system of-way. along the Wolff Street extension should connect to existing sidewalks along West 60th Avenue.

48 11) We have attached typical sections for the planned or As per our comment resolution meeting, RTD will be planning to existing north-south bike corridors that should be used as a include Arvada typical sections within RTD right-of-way. guide for the railroad crossings.

49 12) We would like to reiterate our desire to work closely with RTD concurs with this comment and will address this with the City RTD on the timing and design of the future parking of Arvada in the intergovernmental agreement. structure at the Olde Town station. This issue should be addressed in an intergovernmental agreement.

50 13) While we have concerns as outlined above and in the Please see the Attachment to Comment No. 50 at the end of this accompanying spreadsheet about various design issues, responsiveness summary. we feel confident that these issues can be effectively addressed through either an intergovernmental agreement or by working with the eventual concessionaire as the design proceeds. These concerns and Arvada’s recommended process for resolution is documented on the

48 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response accompanying Xcel spreadsheet. We look forward to working with RTD on execution of an intergovernmental agreement to address future coordination. The City of Arvada strongly supports this project moving forward and encourages FTA to issue its Record of Decision as soon as possible. Sincerely, Bob Manwaring, P.E. Deputy Director of Utilities

Attachment: Xcel Spreadsheet Addressing 30% Design Drawings

Cc: Craig G. Kocian, City Manager Bill Ray, Deputy City Manager Jim Root, Director, Public Works Department Mike Elms, Director, Community Development Department Mike Smith, Planning Division Manager Patricia Lorence, City Traffic Engineer Kevin Nichols, Senior Planner Bill Honer, Civil Engineer 51 Lorraine Anderson Thank you for your support and involvement in the project. City of Arvada The Gold Line team understands the importance of the Quiet Zone P.O. Box 8101 mitigation for the communities that we will serve. Arvada, CO 80001 As the City Council representative of most of the people who live along the Gold Line in Arvada, I would like to encourage RTD to consider an early action of implementing the quiet zones along the Gold Line corridor through residential areas. It would go along way to solidify support for the completion of Fastracks if our residents could see that RTD is working toward completion of the Gold Line and would provide a huge benefit for those

49 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response folks. Of course, cost factors should be weighed in making such a decision. It could mean that costs would be lower earlier in the process rather than waiting until later. Thank you for your consideration.

Lorraine Anderson Council Member, Dist. 3

52 Jennifer Hillhouse City of Denver 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 Denver, CO 80202 Attached are the City and County of Denver comments on the Gold Line FEIS. \ Please let me know if you have questions. Best, Jenn Jennifer Hillhouse | Senior City Planner \ Policy and Planning | Public Works City and County of Denver 720.865.3158 (P) | 720.865.2676 (F)

53 David Marquardt RTD coordinated the temporary detour of the S. Platte Trail with City and County of Denver - Parks & Rec the City and County of Denver and the Parks and Recreation 201 W. Colfax Avenue Department and received written concurrence about the proposed Denver, CO 80202 route (see Appendix F, Correspondence in the FEIS). Temporary detour of S. Platte trail during construction: The proposed detour route may actually deter trail users from using this segment of trail during construction. A more direct route, if possible, would be desired.

54 David Marquardt Thank you for providing the standards that RTD needs to follow. City and County of Denver - Parks & Rec 201 W. Colfax Avenue

50 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Denver, CO 80202 New trail construction should follow DPR trail building standards. (Standards can be provided at appropriate time.)

55 David Marquardt Same as comment 54 above. City and County of Denver - Parks & Rec 201 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Lighting under any under pass for trail users needs to follow DPR standards. (Standards can be provided at appropriate time.)

56 David Marquardt Same as comment 54 above. City and County of Denver - Parks & Rec 201 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Railings for trail sections need to follow DPR standards.

57 David Marquardt Same as comment 54 above. City and County of Denver - Parks & Rec 201 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Landscaping and irrigation plans will also need to follow DPR standards.

58 David Marquardt RTD will continue to coordinate with the City and County of City and County of Denver - Parks & Rec Denver (including Public Works, Wastewater, and Urban 201 W. Colfax Avenue Drainage) throughout final design. Denver, CO 80202 RTD’s contractor will provide erosion control and water quality Plans for crossing the S. Platte River need to coordinate with the measures during construction. River North Greenway Master Plan Allow for adequate space RTD will be replacing the existing trail once construction of the S. and address riverbank stability, water quality and riparian buffer Platte River Bridge is complete. zones in the areas of construction. The S. Platte River Bridge has been designed to span the S.

51 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Coordinate stormwater detention needs with River North Platte River and will not disturb the existing slopes. planning needs and locations. Coordinate trail connections for both sides of the river as proposed in the River North Master Plan North side of river should accommodate riverbank improvements to lessen slopes to a 4:1 ratio Coordinate any needed improvements to existing stormwater outfalls with Public Works Wastewater and Urban Drainage.

59 Hook Thank you for your comment. Since this is the Final EIS the City and County of Denver document will not be rewritten before the Record of Decision. 201 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Section #: ES.1; Page: ES-3; Paragraph: Bullets in middle of page Bullets listing the major engineering changes to the preferred alternative are confusing and contradictory (i.e., Selection of A was made "in favor of" option B). In all three bullets, suggest changing the words "in favor of" to the words "in lieu of" (or similar).

60 Jon Novick EPA recommended that RTD use the Driscoll model for water City and County of Denver quality impact evaluation purposes. Please see response to 201 W. Colfax Avenue comment 33 above. Denver, CO 80202 It is our understanding that this tool used to measure water quality Section #: 3.10.2.3; Page: 3.10-9; Paragraph: Next to last. impacts is currently considered a best practice for evaluating impacts to water quality. CCD continues to be concerned that the use of the Driscoll model to estimate impacts of runoff from Gold Line facilities on the water quality of receiving waters underestimates those impacts. In response to previous comments, RTD has indicated that the Driscoll "...model uses copper, zinc, and lead as

52 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response surrogates for all contaminants of concern including biological oxygen demand (BOD), fecal and total coliform and other organics. However, the model does not specifically measure these contaminants". Fate and transport for many of these contaminants is significantly different from that of copper and zinc; in particular bateria has been shown in numerous studies to not only persist, but to reproduce in surface waters. Accroding to the FEIS, two of the three receiving waters are listed on the State 303(d) list for E. coli, and an E. coli TMDL exists for the third segment. This indicates that closer scrutiny of the impacts of the Gold Line on water quality are warranted.

61 Jon Novick See response to comment 60 above. City and County of Denver 201 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Section #: 3.10.2.3; Page: 3.10-12; Paragraph: Last See comment above on Driscoll modelling (page 3.10-9).

62 Jennifer Hillhouse After your review of the final RFP for the concessionaire, please City of Denver make this comment during that process if you feel that 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 coordination has not been adequately addressed. Denver, CO 80202 It will be very important to develop a statement about the process of coordination between the City and County of Denver and the concessionaire. The statement should include when and how often we'll be able to meet with the contracted concessionaire -- once, quarterly, etc.

63 Jennifer Hillhouse The impacts to the City and County of Denver Park Avenue West City of Denver Maintenance Facility are included in the total number of acres of 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 governmental right-of-way in the text of the FEIS. The impact is Denver, CO 80202 not included in the table because the table identifies only private

53 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Section #: 3.3; Page: 3.3-4; Paragraph: Table 3.3-2 property impacts. In the DEIS response to comments it is indicated that impacts to It has been made clear in the Gold Line ROD (see Table 3) that City and County of Denver Park Avenue West Maintenance City property located at 3501 Park Ave (parcel #0227300092000) Facility located at 3501 Park Avenue would be included in the is impacted by the Gold Line project. (See section Changes from FEIS. However the impacts have not been the Final Environmental Impact Statement). included/documented. Document impacts to the displacement of City property located at 3501 Park Ave (parcel #0227300092000)

64 Jennifer Hillhouse Comment noted. City of Denver 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 Denver, CO 80202 Section #: 4.9; Page: 4.-27 Bike facilities (signage/sharrow) will be required on 41st in Station Area

65 Jennifer Hillhouse RTD understands that the facilities will need to go through the City of Denver development review process. However, bicycle facilities need to 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 be slightly removed from the platform area due to safety and Denver, CO 80202 security reasons. Section #: 4.9; Page: 4.-27 Location and type of bike lockers and racks will have to be approved by Policy and Planning

66 Jennifer Hillhouse Thank you for your comment. Since this is the Final EIS the City of Denver document will not be rewritten before the Record of Decision. 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 Denver, CO 80202 Page: 2.-39; Paragraph: Table 2-14 Table 2-14 does not include planned bus improvements along Inca on the west side of the station. Although the specific routes

54 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response have not been identified the improvements should generally be discussed

67 Jennifer Hillhouse The planned pedestrian structure over 38th Avenue is a City of City of Denver Denver project and, as such, is not part of the Preferred 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 Alternative. Denver, CO 80202 Section #: Chapter 4 Chapter 4 does not mention the planned pedestrian bridge over 38th Ave underpass

68 Jennifer Hillhouse Thank you for your support of this land use mitigation measure. City of Denver 201 W. Colfax Avenue Dept 509 Denver, CO 80202 General comment- We appreciate RTD's need for phasing parking and we hope prior to build out further evaluation will be conducted to understand the need for additional parking, land use changes etc.

55 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 69 September 21, 2009 Liz Telford, AICP Gold Line Project Manager Manager of Corridor Planning-Environmental RTD FasTracks Team 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 Ashland Vaughn, PE Gold Line – Engineering Project Manager RTD FasTracks Team 1560 Broadway, Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 Re: City of Wheat Ridge Review Comments of the Gold Line Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes I, II, and III, dated August 2009 Dear Ms. Telford and Mr. Vaughn, The City of Wheat Ridge staff has completed their review of the above referenced documents dated August 2009 and we have the following comments:

70 Gold Line Corridor FEIS – Volume I RTD completed a VISSIM analysis of the impacts on Ridge Road Executive Summary and presented these results to the City of Wheat Ridge in a meeting on September 24, 2009. The results concluded that there 1. Page ES-77 – Section 3.12 – The Direct Impact section would be negligible effects on traffic operations due to the gate discusses that emergency services may be slightly affected by closures. RTD will convene a fire/life safety committee with local increased response times during peak hours because of emergency service providers to coordinate these types of issues. congestion at the at-grade crossings since the gates will cycle RTD will continue to coordinate with you regarding the proposed every 3.75 minutes. The installation of the recommended turn fire station near Ridge Road. Through our discussions RTD lanes and the coordination of these signals with the train determined that a 75-second cycle length would be most schedules should be included in the Proposed Mitigation section appropriate to match expected train frequencies.

56 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 71 Gold Line Corridor FEIS – Volume I See response comment 70. Executive Summary 2. Page ES-79 – Section 4.0 – The Direct Impact section needs to include a discussion on the impact to the traffic on Ridge Road caused by the installation of the signals. The installation of the recommended turn lanes and the coordination of these signals with the train schedules should be included in the Proposed Mitigation section 72 Gold Line Corridor FEIS – Volume I RTD has provided the City of Wheat Ridge with the Transportation Executive Summary Technical Memorandum supporting the traffic analysis provided in the DEIS and FEIS. 3. Page ES-79 – Section 4.0 – The Direct Impact section needs to include a discussion on the impact to the local street network caused by the relocation of the Ward Road pnR to the proposed Ward Road Station. The additional bus and passenger vehicle traffic on W 52nd Avenue, W 50th Place, Tabor Street, and Ridge Road will have a detrimental impact on the traffic. 73 Gold Line Corridor FEIS – Volume I RTD concurs with this comment; the mitigation has been changed Executive Summary in Appendix B in the Record of Decision. 4. Page ES-80 – Section 4.0 – The Proposed Mitigation section states that the signal at Ward Road and 50th Place would only be installed after Ward Road is widened to 6 lanes. This language should be revised to state that the signal would be added when warrants are met, regardless of the number of lanes. 74 Gold Line Corridor FEIS – Volume I RTD has provided the City of Wheat Ridge with the Transportation Executive Summary Technical Memorandum supporting the traffic analysis provided in 5. Page ES-80 – Section 4.0 – The Proposed Mitigation section the DEIS and FEIS. should include measures to mitigate the impact of the increased bus and passenger vehicle traffic on the local street network around the Ward Road Station. This may include street or intersection improvements.

57 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 75 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The intent of this statement was to indicate that the full completion Chapter 2.0 Alternatives Considered of improvements planned for I-70/SH 58 have not yet been 6. Page 2-37 – Section 2.3.1.1 – This section mentions that the completed. The EIS process does not include revisions to the I-70/SH 58 Interchange as a future project. This interchange has FEIS and will conclude with this Record of Decision. been completed and was opened in December 2008. Therefore, all discussion concerning this interchange as a proposed project should be removed throughout the remainder of this FEIS. In addition, several figures show this interchange as a proposed project and should be revised accordingly.

76 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Comment has been noted. Chapter 2.0-Alternatives Considered 7. Page 2-41 – Figure 2-15 – This figure correctly shows that there is no existing bus traffic on any of the local streets from I- 70 to W 58th Avenue and Ward Road to Kipling Street. This highlights our concern with the increased bus traffic on these local streets.

77 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I New travel demand forecasting was completed for the FEIS that Chapter 2.0-Alternatives Considered used an updated model that was approved by the FTA. The 8. Page 2-45 – Table 2-15 shows the Ward Road Station having results of that modeling indicated less demand for drive access to 75 less spaces than the Draft EIS indicated. the Ward Road Station.

78 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I RTD concurs with this comment, the correct number should read Chapter 2.0-Alternatives Considered “an additional 500 spaces”: 9. Page 2-56 – The legend should read an additional 500 spaces in 2030, not 180.

79 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The table you have provided is an accurate representation of Chapter 2.0-Alternatives Considered Table 4-3 in the FEIS, which describes the proposed Gold Line operating plan. 10. Page 2-65 – Table 2-23 – The following train service frequency is proposed: (Note from RTD: Table included as an attachment)

58 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 80 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The No Action Alternative reflects the projects in the Denver Chapter 2.0-Alternatives Considered Regional Council of Governments 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. 11. Page 2-67 – Section 2.4 – As noted earlier, the I-70/SH 58 Interchange has been completed and should be removed from the “No Action Alternative” column in these financial calculations.

81 Gold Line Corridor FEIS-Volume I RTD concurs with this comment that the land use surrounding the Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental Ward Road Station should be industrial. Consequences 12. Page 3.2-2 – Figure 3.2-1 – The existing land use map is incorrect for the land around the Ward Road station. It should be shown has Industrial land use, not mixed use.

82 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The EIS process does not include revisions to the FEIS and will Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental conclude with the Record of Decision. Consequences 13. Page 3.2-9 – First paragraph, add that Wheat Ridge land use planners also expressed concerns that surface parking at the transit stations would require land that could be better used for TOD.

83 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I In meetings with the City of Wheat Ridge on September 24 and Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental 25, 2009 RTD discussed the inclusion of a statement in an Consequences intergovernmental agreement that structured parking will not be precluded should funds become available. 14. Page 3.2-10 – Table 3.2-3 – This table discusses the “Perceived conflict between proposed parking and TOD planning”. The option of adding structured parking should be listed as one of the mitigation measures. The surface parking takes valuable land that could be used for development. While the City does not have funding or a developer involved at this time for structured parking, the City would like it stated in the FEIS that structured parking is the preference. Also, that RTD

59 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response would participate in funding structured parking instead of additional surface parking as indicated in the FEIS. That if structured parking is not an option in the future, that RTD would work with the City in more creative parking options such as pocket parking as part of an overall mixed use development.

84 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Based on comments made by the City of Wheat Ridge regarding Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental the drainage design, an interim drainage design has been Consequences developed. RTD presented that proposed design to the City of Wheat Ridge on September 24 and 25, 2009 and the solution 15. Page 3.10-11 – Section 3.10.2.3 – The first sentence under proposed in the interim design appeared to be acceptable to you. Direct Impacts states “Changes to the local drainage patterns RTD will continue to coordinate with the City of Wheat Ridge would be limited to the increase in impervious surfaces regarding drainage design. associated with the project, principally at pnR facilities.” This statement is not accurate if the drainage design shown on the 30% plans is followed. The proposed design significantly changes the drainage patterns for the smaller, more frequent storm events from Ward Road to east of Parfet Street with the destruction of the natural conveyance on the north side of the existing BNSF tracks.

85 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I This comment will be addressed in the interim design and in Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental continuing coordination with the City of Wheat Ridge. Consequences 16. Page 3.10-11 – Section 3.10.2.3 – The second paragraph under Direct Impacts discusses the use of under-drains in locations of retained fill. The location of the outfalls for these under-drains will need to be reviewed to ensure that the flows are released at an appropriate location to minimize the impact on downstream properties. Additionally, under-drains may be inappropriate and ineffective in this area.

86 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Based on comments made by the City of Wheat Ridge regarding Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental the drainage design, an interim drainage design has been Consequences developed. RTD presented that proposed design to the City of

60 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 17. Page 3.10-13 – Section 3.10.2.3 – The first paragraph on Wheat Ridge on September 24 and 25, 2009 and the solution this page states that the runoff from the rail structures would be proposed in the interim design appeared to be acceptable to you. collected in a sub-drain system and that in Wheat Ridge, the RTD will continue to coordinate with the City of Wheat Ridge runoff would then be detained in project related facilities regarding drainage design. because there are no storm sewers in the area. No detention facilities for this purpose were shown in the 30% drawings.

87 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Based on comments made by the City of Wheat Ridge regarding Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental the drainage design, an interim drainage design has been Consequences developed. RTD presented that proposed design to the City of Wheat Ridge on September 24 and 25, 2009 and the solution 18. Page 3.10-16 – Table 3.10-7 – The last mitigation measure proposed in the interim design appeared to be acceptable to you. listed for the “Erosion and stormwater discharge” impact states RTD will continue to coordinate with the City of Wheat Ridge “Necessary replacement of existing storm drainage facilities, at regarding drainage design. a minimum, will provide services equivalent to the existing facilities.” This is not being done in the case of the destruction of the natural conveyance that exists on the north side of the existing BNSF tracks. The proposed design does not function at all like the existing facility, particularly during the smaller, more frequent storm events. Local storm drainage is being greatly altered and the proposed plan will damage existing downstream properties.

88 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Based on comments made by the City of Wheat Ridge regarding Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental the drainage design, an interim drainage design has been Consequences developed. RTD presented that proposed design to the City of Wheat Ridge on September 24 and 25, 2009 and the solution 19. Page 3.10-29 – Section 3.10.4 – This section is titled proposed in the interim design appeared to be acceptable to you. “Floodplains/Drainage/ Hydrology”. The discussion throughout RTD will continue to coordinate with the City of Wheat Ridge the section mostly deals with floodplains, with only a passing regarding drainage design. mention of detention being used to mitigate increases in impervious area, and no mention of hydrology. The impacts from the proposed drainage design along the alignment from Ward Road to east of Parfet Street need to be discussed and mitigation measures must be proposed.

61 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 89 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I RTD will convene a fire/life safety committee with local emergency Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental service providers to coordinate these types of issues. RTD will Consequences continue to coordinate with you regarding the proposed fire station near Ridge Road. It is typical that emergency responders are 20. Page 3.12-3 – Table 3.12-4 – The Arvada Fire Protection given signal preemption capabilities from the transit agency. District provides fire protection services for the City of Wheat Ridge north of Clear Creek. The stations on W 52nd and W 57th Avenue are the primary responders for the areas south of the proposed alignment. The City has recently reviewed a plan that would move the station at W 52nd Avenue east to a location on the north side of Ridge Road between the Miller and Parfet Street crossings. This will place the station between two of the proposed signals and could greatly impact the response time from this new location.

90 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I a. RTD completed a VISSIM analysis of the impacts on Ridge Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental Road and presented these results to the City of Wheat Ridge in a Consequences meeting on September 24, 2009. The results concluded that there would be negligible effects on traffic operations due to the gate 21. Page 3.12-6 – Section 3.12.3.2 – The following additional closures. Through our discussions RTD determined that a 75- impacts should be discussed: second cycle length would be most appropriate to match expected a. It will be absolutely critical to minimize the congestion along train frequencies. Ridge Road that could result from the installation of the traffic b. During meetings with the City of Wheat Ridge on September 24 signals and the short cycle lengths in order to minimize and 25, 2009, it was agreed that the crossing at Parfet is as planer increased response times. This can best be done by installing as possible. RTD has agreed to note your concerns about the turn lanes and the coordination of signals with the train Miller Street crossing in the RFP. schedule. b. The crossings at Miller and Parfet Street should be designed to be as smooth as possible to allow emergency vehicles to proceed quickly through the crossings.

62 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 91 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The utility information will continue to be refined throughout the Chapter 3.0-Affected Environment and Environmental process as RTD and the concessionaire complete utility Consequences coordination on the project. 22. Page 3.13-5 – Figure 3.13-1 – The storm sewer information that is shown between Miller and Parfet Streets, items 41 and 42, does not match the 30% drawings. In addition, the sanitary sewer, item 45, is shown as 10” in the 30% drawings.

92 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The figure in Chapter 4 is the existing bus network. The figure in Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems Chapter 2 shows the future (2030) No Action bus network. The assumptions for the No Action are generally not the same as what 23. Page 4-3 – Figure 4-1 – This existing transit map shows a exists today. The EIS process does not include revisions to the local route from Kipling Street along Ridge Road and Miller FEIS and will conclude with the Record of Decision. Street to W 58th Avenue. The map, Figure 2-15, shown in Chapter 2.0 did not show this local route. A table similar to Tables 4-1 and 4-4 should be included for the No Action Alternative. This was included in Appendix B of the Quiet Zone Report, dated May 2009, as Table 34.

93 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The EIS process does not include revisions to the FEIS and will Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems conclude with the Record of Decision. 24. Page 4-7 – Table 4-1 – A figure similar to Figure 4-1 should be included showing the bus operations plan for the Baseline Alternative. This was included in Appendix B of the Quiet Zone Report, dated May 2009, as Figure 11.

94 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The EIS process does not include revisions to the FEIS and will Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems conclude with the Record of Decision. 25. Page 4-7 – Table 4-4 – A figure similar to Figure 4-1 should be included showing the bus operations plan for the Preferred Alternative. This was included in Appendix B of the Quiet Zone Report, dated May 2009, as Figure 12.

63 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 95 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I RTD’s technical staff reviewed your table and feels that it is fairly Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems consistent with the bus frequency service assumptions in the FEIS. 26. Page 4-7 – Table 4-4 – The following bus service frequency is proposed: (Note from RTD: Table included as an attachment)

96 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I The travel demand model used for the EIS forecast does not Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems identify bicycle access to stations. Therefore, this could not be identified in the document. 27. Page 4-9 – Section 4.5.3 – This section does not discuss which category includes the bicycle commuters.

97 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I a. Your description of access to the station from Ward Road is Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems correct. 28. Page 4-23 – Section 4.7.3.7 – This section has the following b. The Preferred Alternative at the Ward Road Station does not issues: include the extension of Tabor Street to Ridge Road. It is clear in the station area diagrams in the FEIS that the roadway extension a. This section states that the Ward Road Station would be is “by others.” Therefore, the FEIS analysis assumed all of the accessed from Ward Road as if the station were located directly access to the Ward Road Station from Ward Road would occur via on Ward Road. This is not accurate; the station is more than 50th Place and 52nd Avenue. Appropriate mitigations were 1,100 feet east of Ward Road. included in the FEIS based on this access assumption. b. The station will actually be accessed from Ward Road via W c. RTD concurs with this comment; the mitigation has been 50th Place and W 52nd Avenue. The station will also be changed in Appendix B in the Record of Decision. accessed by customers from the east and south via Ridge Road d. The graphic in the document is designed to be conceptual. RTD and Tabor Street. This is a critical omission given the fact that will continue to coordinate with the City of Wheat Ridge regarding these streets likely do not have the capacity necessary for the the final design of the access and through the site development increased vehicle traffic, particularly bus traffic. review process. c. This section states that the signal at Ward Road and 50th e. The Preferred Alternative at the Ward Road Station does not Place would only be installed after Ward Road is widened to 6 include the extension of Tabor Street to Ridge Road. It is clear in lanes. This language should be revised to state that the signal the FEIS station area diagrams that the roadway extension is “by would be added when warrants are met, regardless of the others.” number of lanes. f. All bus service has been included in the traffic analysis for this d. This section shows a roadway connection to W 52nd Avenue; project.

64 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response however, the 30% drawings show this as a narrow access drive. This connection should be designed as a complete street to ensure adequate capacity for passenger vehicles, buses, bikes, and pedestrians. e. A direct street connection should also be made from the station to the Ridge Road/Tabor Street intersection. Tabor Street north of Ridge Road is substandard, especially for the proposed bus traffic. During the peak hours, 10% of the bus traffic will access the station from the east. During the off-peak hours, over 15% of the bus traffic will access the station from the east. f. The capacity of 52nd Avenue should be evaluated to ensure that the current cross-section is adequate to handle the proposed bus traffic. During the peak hours, between 28 and 36 buses/hour are proposed to use this street, with 8 buses/hour turning left at Ward Road.

98 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Information on the number of bike lockers and racks at RTD park- Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems n-Ride facilities can be found at http://www.rtd- denver.com/Bike_n_Ride.shtml (click the Bike Lockers tab and at 29. Page 4-27 – Section 4.9 – This section states that there are the bottom click the link that says Click here to see a complete list 8 bike lockers and 2 bike racks at the Ward Road pnR. As of the of bike locker/rack locations). Information on another RTD link date of these comments, the RTD website shows 44 bike does list 44 bike lockers for the Ward Road park-n-Ride; however lockers and 4 bike racks at this pnR. this information is incorrect and RTD will correct this inconsistency on the website. 99 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I As part of RTD’s periodic bicycle parking needs assessment, the Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems use of this initial quantity of lockers and racks will be reviewed roughly 12 months after the opening of the Gold Line for revenue 30. Page 4-28 – Section 4.9.1 – This section states that there service. At that time, bicycle parking may be added if demand will be at least 6 dual bike lockers and 3 bike racks at the indicates the need. Placement of additional lockers, however, is stations. The 30% drawings show only 3 bike lockers and show limited to available space and security requirements. 6 bike racks at the Ward Road Station. Given the limited number of bikes allowed on trains and the large number of lockers at the existing pnR, additional lockers should be considered at this

65 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Station given the large number of lockers at the existing pnR. In addition, the proximity of this Station to the bike trails in Arvada may increase the need for additional lockers.

100 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I Thank you for the information. The baseline information for the EIS Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems was gathered in 2006. 31. Page 4-28 – Section 4.9.2 – Wheat Ridge has an updated Bike and Pedestrian Route Master Plan that was prepared in 2007. This plan shows a future bike connection from the south along Tabor Street from the Clear Creek Trail, an important regional bike route.

101 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume I RTD concurs with this comment. The correct date is 2000 for the Chapter 4.0-Transportation Systems Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. 32. Page 4-30 – Section 4.10 – The current Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2000, not 2006. The Plan is currently being updated with a scheduled adoption date of October 2009.

102 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume II The Preferred Alternative at the Ward Road Station does not include the extension of Tabor Street to Ridge Road. It is clear in 33. Page 12 – Comment 13 – Item 3 to continue Ridge Road the station area diagrams for the FEIS that the roadway extension west to the Ward Road Station was not addressed. is “by others.” Appropriate mitigations were included in the FEIS based on this access assumption. 103 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume II RTD agreed to buy additional property for parking earlier in the process in previous meetings with Wheat Ridge. RTD has many 34. Page 97 – Comment 75 – The response to the discussion existing overflow parking areas (I-25 and Broadway and Mineral about the potential inadequacy of the number of parking spaces for examples) where the overflow parking is gravel only. This at the Ward Road Station states that additional construction will would be a short-term solution if the parking demand is more than not be necessary to convert the existing RV storage site into a expected and presented in the FEIS. usable parking lot. The proposed parking lot will have a much higher volume of daily traffic than RV storage; therefore, an all weather surface must be used. Because of dust concerns, gravel is not acceptable; however, recycled asphalt pavement

66 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response would be acceptable as the minimum surface treatment for this overflow lot.

104 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Since RTD has held comment resolution meetings with the City of Appendix C – Preliminary (30 Percent) Engineering Wheat Ridge, the responses below will be the same as the comment resolutions agreed to in those meetings. 35. The following comments were originally submitted to RTD on June 30, 2009 commenting on the 30% design plans. Since the City of Wheat Ridge has not received a response or resolution from RTD on these comments, the City feels obligated to include these comments as a part of our FEIS comments.

105 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD and the concessionaire will continue to coordinate with the Appendix C – Preliminary (30 Percent) Engineering City of Wheat Ridge through the site development review process. 36. A change was made on the proposed location of the access to 52nd Avenue. After further review, the City is now agrees with the location, but still requires that the access be a complete street to ensure adequate capacity for passenger vehicles, buses, bikes, and pedestrians.

106 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Comment noted. Appendix C – Preliminary (30 Percent) Engineering 37. In addition, the Planning related comments have been divided into more manageable portions.

107 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The mitigation notes in the 30% documents were taken from the Comments on Environmental Mitigation DEIS and are provided in the plan set for information only and are intended to inform the future design about committed 38. In several cases, the proposed mitigation discussion is environmental commitments. The lack of word wrapping is a incomplete. It appears that a portion of the text does not “wrap”. function of the Excel table from which the notes were imported into the CAD files. In the 30% plans the mitigation notes are prefaced with direction to the contractor to refer to the ROD for the most updated mitigation requirements.

67 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 108 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III These modifications have been discussed with the City of Wheat Comments on Environmental Mitigation Ridge (City) and can be provided as part of the final design as discussed in the IGA between the City and RTD. 39. Land Use – The layout of the Ward Road Station has essentially ignored the Northwest Subarea Plan that was prepared by the City and previously shared with RTD. Comments are included below concerning the Ward Road Station that will partially mitigate the impact of the Station layout on the City’s future plans. However, additional discussion should take place between RTD and the City of Wheat Ridge to explore other options to further reduce the adverse impact on the City’s only TOD site.

109 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The design concept has been reconfigured and these changes will Comments on Environmental Mitigation be provided in an Amendment to the P3 RFP. 40. Water Resources/Water Quality – The impact and proposed mitigation of the destruction of the stormwater conveyance on the north side of the tracks from Ward Road to Miller Street should be discussed in this section. In particular, the discussion should address the reduction in infiltration that the natural system currently provides.

110 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The design concept has been reconfigured and these changes will Comments on Environmental Mitigation be provided in an Amendment to the P3 RFP. 41. Floodplains/Drainage/ Hydrology – The impact and proposed mitigation of the destruction of the stormwater conveyance on the north side of the tracks from Ward Road to Miller Street should be discussed in this section. In particular, the discussion should address the fact that the current proposal no longer plans to replace this critical, historic conveyance with an adequate storm sewer system and the dramatic shift in drainage patterns that the current proposal will cause.

68 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 111 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD completed a VISSIM impact analysis to address comments Comments on Environmental Mitigation about Wheat Ridges concerns about impacts to Ridge Road (and concerns that Ridge Road needs to be expanded as a result of the 42. Public Safety and Security – Given the short cycle time, 3.75 Gold Line project). The analysis was completed and presented to minutes, of the crossings during peak hours, the signals along Arvada and Wheat Ridge and the conclusion was that the Gold Ridge Road should be programmed to only stop traffic on the Line project would not impact traffic operations on Ridge Road. All streets that cross the tracks and any turning movements from operations on the facility would be at or above LOS C. The Ridge Road onto the southbound streets when the crossing is analysis was based on “worst case” scenarios where traffic growth closed. The through traffic on Ridge Road and turning would be above 2% per year and headways for the Gold Line movements onto the northbound streets from Ridge Road, an trains would be 7.5 minutes in the peak hours. Also, a sensitivity important collector street, should not be stopped when the analysis was performed and the results indicated that traffic crossing is closed. Otherwise, this signal system will function growth would have to be 300% above projections for any impacts like a pre-timed signal with 225 second cycle which will to occur. undoubtedly create serious congestion on this currently free flowing route. This will require widening of Ridge Road at most of the crossings to allow the additional turn lanes that will be necessary.

112 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Information will be included in an amendment to the RFP. At Grade Crossings 43. All of the public improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and ADA ramps should be constructed at all of the proposed railway crossings as a part of this project. The improvements should be built to current City of Wheat Ridge standards in the City right of way and on the railroad property.

113 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Information will be included in an amendment to the RFP. At Grade Crossings 44. The City requires vertical curves for any grade changes over 0.4%. This will require that additional reconstruction of the streets at several of the crossings be done to add vertical curves to achieve a smoother, more drivable profile.

69 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 114 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III This comment will be addressed in the RFP. RTD cannot provide Tabor Street Crossing improvements to local streets beyond the immediate impact of the Gold Line project. FTA will not fund improvements that are not 45. Tabor Street will be a minor collector street and will serve as related to the impacts of the transit improvement. a major route from the south to the Ward Road and Kipling Street Stations. Therefore, it is important to keep the profile for this crossing as smooth as possible. Specifically, all geometric features shall be designed to the collector street standards. 115 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Information will be included in an amendment to the RFP. Tabor Street Crossing 46. The grade change at the south end of the Tabor Street crossing is very abrupt at around 2%. A vertical curve should be added to the south side of this crossing. 116 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Information will be included in an amendment to the RFP. Tabor Street Crossing 47. The grade change on the north side of the west bound track at the Tabor Street crossing also exceeds the allowable at around 1%. The slope extending north should be flattened. 117 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Tabor Street alignment was designed to provide 485 feet radii, Tabor Street Crossing which is adequate to meet the minimum radius for a collector 48. Horizontal curve for Tabor Street (Station 1+50) should be street classification. designed to collector street standard with a minimum of 415 feet. 118 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The west leg of the intersection is future construction and will not Tabor Street Crossing provide access to Ward Station initially. Access to/from Ward Station will be at West 52nd Ave/Taft Ct and Ward St/West 50th 49. The Tabor Street crossing may require signalization and Place and not at Tabor Street. RTD prepared its 30% design to additional lanes similar to the other crossings when Ridge Road address funded projects listed in the RTP. Addressing unfunded is connected to the Ward Road Station. At a minimum, all projects is beyond the available budget. This local project can be necessary conduit and pull boxes should be installed with this included in the RFP for consideration by the P3 Concessionaire project. during Final Design.

70 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 119 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The current design matches into existing Tabor Street to the south Tabor Street Crossing of the RR. Currently the street turns east on the north side of the tracks, the proposed GL design mimics the existing roadway 50. The intersection of Tabor Street with the existing railroad configuration but provides curves and sight distances to the RR crossing is offset to the west with respect to the existing 40’ of crossing that meet current design standards. Right-of-Way; the existing asphalt roadway lies against the westerly edge of the current ROW. It is recommended the Shifting the Tabor grade crossing to the east by approximately 6 proposed crossing be moved easterly (e.g., about 6’ or so) to feet (as suggested in the comment) would require additional better align with the existing Tabor Street ROW. roadway improvements (and right of way and cost implications) south of the crossing to tie back into the existing pavement. This could result in relocating several underground utilities (water main, telephone and gas line) and overhead line and poles on the east side of Tabor Street. In addition, a couple of parking lot access locations would be impacted and need to be reconstructed on the east side of Tabor. This request can be included in the RFP for consideration by the P3 Concessionaire during Final Design. 120 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD cannot provide improvements to local streets beyond the Tabor Street Crossing immediate impact of the Gold Line project. FTA will not fund improvements that are not related to the impacts of the transit 51. The Tabor Street Right-of-Way south of the proposed improvement. crossing is substandard at 40’ wide. To accommodate the minor collector street design, an additional 20’ of ROW, 10.00’ from each side of Tabor Street, will need to be obtained to the southerly construction limits of this project.

121 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD cannot provide improvements to local streets beyond the Tabor Street Crossing immediate impact of the Gold Line project. FTA will not fund improvements that are not related to the impacts of the transit 52. North of the railroad crossing, the current 45’ Tabor Street improvement. Right-of-Way will need to be brought up to the local street standard of 50’ wide to the northerly construction limits of this project.

71 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 122 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III As noted previously, the extension of Tabor Street is not part of Tabor Street Crossing the Gold Line project. However, this concern will be included in an amendment to the RFP. 53. Depending on the method of traffic control used at the Tabor Street and Ridge Road intersection, there could be stacking issues towards the crossing. The final layout and location of this intersection must take into account the proximity of the intersection to the crossing and the future potential of having a traffic signal at this intersection and the possibility that Ridge Road may become the primary street rather than Tabor Street.

123 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD cannot provide improvements to local streets beyond the Tabor Street Crossing immediate impact of the Gold Line project. FTA will not fund improvements that are not related to the impacts of the transit 54. Given the number of business that are within walking improvement. distance of the station south of this crossing, it is critical that a safe pedestrian path be constructed at this crossing.

124 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III A drive simulation program (Hang-Up) was used to analyze all Parfet Street Crossing grade crossings to determine the vehicle performance across the crossing. The program shows that all vehicles can handle the 55. Parfet Street will be a minor collector street and an important crossing adequately. The grade breaks designed for each crossing future connection from the I-70 Frontage Road to 58th Avenue. are required to minimize impacts to adjacent properties both south Therefore it is important to keep the profile for this crossing as and north of the tracks. smooth as possible.

125 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Placement of curve and redirection of the grade on the south end Parfet Street Crossing of the Parfet St profile would require BNSF track to be lowered (by approx 0.75' to 1' or more if minor collector) even more below 56. The grade change on the south side of the BNSF track is existing ground to fit a curve. This would result in 1) impacts to very abrupt at around 2%. The slope extending south should be underground gas and communication lines and overhead electric negative and then a vertical curve should be added. line south of the BNSF ROW and 2) reverse grade break between BNSF/EB GL crossing panel/tracks or modify entire profile which will lower the Parfet/Ridge intersection. The current profile improves existing grade breaks on Parfet. The existing grade breaks are around 6%. At-grade crossing profiles to be finalized during the D-B Phase of the project. The profile at the track

72 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response crossing meets FHWA requirements for grades at the tracks for maximum grade breaks allowed to provide smooth rides across the tracks. A drive simulation program (Hang-Up) was used to analyze all grade crossings to determine the vehicle performance across the crossing. The program shows that all vehicles can handle the crossing adequately. The grade breaks designed for each crossing are required to minimize impacts to adjacent properties both south and north of the railroad tracks. 126 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Information will be included in an amendment to the RFP. Parfet Street Crossing 57. The intersection of Parfet Street and the existing railroad crossing is offset to the west with respect to the existing 55’ of Right-of-Way (the asphalt roadway actually lays outside of the current ROW). It is recommended the crossing be moved easterly about 18’ or so to better align with the Parfet Street ROW (both north and south of Ridge Road).

127 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD cannot provide improvements to local streets beyond the Parfet Street Crossing immediate impact of the Gold Line project. FTA will not fund improvements that are not related to the impacts of the transit 58. The current 55’ of Right-of-Way south of the railroad improvement. crossing is insufficient for a collector street such as Parfet Street. An additional 5’ of Right-of-Way is needed along the westerly side of Parfet Street, south of the BNSF Railway ROW. The dedication should be of sufficient length as to allow for proper transition from the existing pavement section to the crossing at a 60’ standard collector street width design.

128 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Widening the travel lanes beyond what exists today constitutes a Parfet Street Crossing betterment because it is not required as a mitigation for the Gold Line project based on the results of the VISSIM results as noted 59. Ridge Road should be widened at the Parfet Street crossing above. The cost of that betterment needs to be borne by the City. to allow through traffic to continue when the crossing is closed. Such roadway widening improvements will result in impacts to This will require the addition of a west bound left turn lane, an

73 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response east bound right turn lane, and an east bound left turn lane. The existing RR crossing (crossing panels), additional RR coordination signal should then be programmed to only stop the turning (possibly longer design/construction schedule), additional impacts movements onto southbound Parfet Street and Parfet Street to properties and utilities, adverse impacts to grading and movements when the crossing is closed. driveway profiles, and possibly additional right of way.

129 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Widening Ridge Road is not required for the safe operation of the Parfet Street Crossing Gold Line and the adjacent street network as indicated by the results of the VISSIM analysis. 60. The current 40’Right-of-Way is insufficient to accommodate the additional lanes; therefore, an additional 20’ of Right-of-Way needs to be obtained along the northerly side of Ridge Road at this intersection.

130 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Information will be included in the RFP. Parfet Street Crossing 61. A mast arm should be added on the south side of Ridge Road to control the traffic from the driveway on the north side of Ridge Road. If necessary this driveway should be slightly relocated to the future Parfet Street alignment. This will also serve as the signal for the future extension of Parfet Street.

131 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III A drive simulation program (Hang-Up) was used to analyze all Miller Street Crossing grade crossings to determine the vehicle performance across the crossing. The program shows that all vehicles can handle the 62. Miller Street is a minor collector street and will be a major crossing adequately. The grade breaks designed for each crossing route from the north to the Arvada Ridge Station. Therefore, it is are required to minimize impacts to adjacent properties both south important to keep the profile for this crossing as smooth as and north of the tracks. possible.

132 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Agree the grade break on Miller from the westbound Gold Line Miller Street Crossing track to the intersection with Ridge is shown at 4.66%. The approach proposed in the comment to lower the intersection will 63. The grade change at the north end of the Miller Street impact hundreds of feet of Ridge Road (East and West) and Miller crossing is extremely abrupt at almost 5%. The intersection of Street to the north would need to be reconstructed to maintain Miller Street and Ridge Road should be lowered. proper drainage and meet city standards for vertical alignment. Lowering the intersection and the 3 legs of the intersection will

74 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response result in relocating/lowering several underground utilities such as gas, water main and sanitary sewer lines. Raising the BNSF track is not a practical approach due to the proximity of the industry freight leads on the west side of Miller. The recommended approach is to revisit the profile of the Gold Line tracks with the aim of more evenly balancing the grade brakes on Miller between the tracks so that the grade break in question is less abrupt. This issue is to be addressed by the Eagle P3 Design Team. This request can be included in the RFP for consideration by the P3 Concessionaire during Final Design. 133 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Widening Ridge Road is not required for the safe operation of the Miller Street Crossing Gold Line and the adjacent street network as indicated by the VISSIM analysis. 64. Ridge Road should be widened at the Miller Street crossing to allow through traffic to continue when the crossing is closed. This will require the addition of a west bound left turn lane and east bound right turn and left turn lanes. The signal should then be programmed to only stop the turning movements onto southbound Miller Street and the through movements on Miller Street when the crossing is closed.

134 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The topographic survey data available for the 30% Design Roadway Plans contained insufficient detail to accurately determine the location of the existing pavement for 50th place. The intent is that all 65. The existing conditions at Ward Road and 50th Place are modifications to 50th Place will be within the right of way (ROW) difficult to read, so it is not clear if the proposed improvements lines. Final field survey will be completed by the Eagle P3 Design are within the existing pavement width. It appears that additional Team. improvements and right-of way will be required at this intersection in order to construct the configuration that is shown. The placement of conduit in anticipation for future signalization of If improvements are planned for this intersection, then conduit the intersection will not be performed by RTD. The reason is that and pull boxes should be installed for the future traffic signal. traffic analysis has shown that placing a signal at this location will cause cars to stack on Ward Rd across the RR grade-crossing. This same analysis showed that Ward Road would need to be widened to six thru-lanes (plus turn lanes) to alleviate the staking problem. If that improvement to Ward Road by the City or CDOT

75 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response occurs in the future any conduits placed now would be torn out to address the widened pavement on Ward Rd. so the effort of placing them would be wasted. Information will be included in the RFP. 135 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Traffic analysis has shown that no improvements to 52nd Avenue Roadway Plans or the intersection with Ward Rd are required for safe operations. 66. It appears that improvements and additional right-of-way may be required at the 52nd Avenue and Ward Road intersection to have curb radii similar to what is proposed at the intersection at 50th Place and Ward Road as these intersections will have to accommodate buses.

136 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See response to comment 111 above. Roadway Plans 67. Ridge Road is a minor collector street and will be a major route from the east to the Ward Road Station. Therefore, it needs to be designed as a through street to the Ward Road Station, not as a T intersection. Ridge Road is currently proposed to intersect Tabor Street at a 4% grade to the centerline of Tabor. The slope approaching the intersection needs to be much flatter or an excessive amount of fill will be required on the west side of Tabor Street in order for the grade to transition to the Ward Road Station with reasonable ride quality

137 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The cost of that betterment needs to be borne by the City. The Roadway Plans current Gold Line grade crossing design matches existing sidewalk widths. Adding sidewalk where no sidewalk exists or 68. Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and ADA ramps need widening a sidewalk will most likely adversely impact multiple to be included at the Ridge Road/Tabor Street intersection. properties, grading/utilities, private driveways and possibly require additional ROW.

76 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 138 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The Eagle P3 contractor will provide ROW monuments in Roadway Plans accordance with industry standards and local requirements. 69. Right-of-Way monuments will need to be set at the CL-CL intersection of Ridge Road and Tabor Street, and at all points of centerline curvature, reverse or compound curvature, and points of tangency (see comment below under Land Surveying).

139 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See response to comment 111 above Roadway Plans 70. Ridge Road should be evaluated to determine if the anticipated traffic load will require that the entire corridor be upgraded to having two through lanes with a middle turn lane for the entire length, or if two through lanes with middle turn lane just at the crossing intersections should be constructed.

140 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See response to comment 111 above Roadway Plans 71. If it is determined that the entirety of the Ridge Road roadway section from Miller Street to Tabor Street will need to be upgraded and public improvements fully constructed with this project, Ridge Road must be brought up to the collector Right- of-Way width of 60’. This will require 20’ wide Right-of-Way acquisitions along the northerly side of Ridge Road from Parfet Street to Tabor Street to achieve the 60’ collector street width.

141 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III It is believed that the current design is more cost-effective. Roadway Plans However, the existing configuration may be changed by the successful Concessionaire during value engineering. If the 72. Rather that having guard rail and a roadside ditch along guardrail system remains in the design, RTD would agree to be much of the south side of Ridge Road, the City would prefer to responsible for its maintenance. have curb and gutter. The guard rail is not an acceptable choice because of the long term maintenance that will be required. The design configuration depicted causes the least impact to existing infrastructure beyond the limits of the Gold Line project. Providing curb and gutter on the south side of Ridge would require

77 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response the installation of additional inlets along this stretch of roadway (which will also require long term maintenance). There is limited width (4' or less in some areas) between the existing edge of roadway and the existing ROW to place many of these inlets. The purpose of the ditch was to utilize the existing ground between Ridge Road and the existing BNSF tracks which provides a natural drainage ditch to carry existing flows and minimizes new drainage system needed. 142 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III It is believed that the current design is more cost-effective. Roadway Plans However, the existing configuration may be changed by the successful Concessionaire during value engineering. 73. The ditch on the south side of Ridge Road could be replaced with curb and gutter with inlets and storm sewer to either convey the runoff to the proposed storm sewer crossings or additional smaller crossings could be added at each inlet or for a small group of inlets before crossing the railroad.

143 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The design configuration depicted causes the least impact to Roadway Plans existing infrastructure beyond the limits of the Gold Line project. Providing curb and gutter on the south side of Ridge would require 74. The back of curb should be located 7.5 feet north of the the installation of additional inlets along this stretch of roadway BNSF right-of-way. This is near the edge of existing asphalt for (which will also require long term maintenance). There is limited much of the alignment. Other areas may require pavement width (4' or less in some areas) between the existing edge of widening. roadway and the existing ROW to place many of these inlets. The purpose of the ditch was to utilize the existing ground between Ridge Road and the existing BNSF tracks which provides a natural drainage ditch to carry existing flows and minimizes new drainage system needed. 144 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III It is believed that the current design is more cost-effective. Roadway Plans However, the existing configuration may be changed by the successful Concessionaire during value engineering. 75. With the removal of the ditch along the south side of Ridge Road, the minor wall between Stations 540 and 553 could have the height reduced or even eliminated.

78 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 145 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III It is believed that the current design is more cost-effective. Roadway Plans However, the existing configuration may be changed by the successful Concessionaire during value engineering. 76. With the removal of the ditch along the south side of Ridge Road, the minor walls between Stations 558 and 570 and Stations 583 and 585 could be eliminated.

146 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The Eagle P3 Design team should add these call-outs to the Demolition plans. Information will be included in the RFP. 77. The demolition plans should include the removal of the wooden box culverts that are under the existing BNSF tracks.

147 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III The Eagle P3 Design team should add these call-outs to the Demolition plans. Information will be included in the RFP. 78. The demolition plans should also be revised to incorporate the additional pavement removal required at the various crossings to allow smoother profiles.

148 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III They will be investigated and addressed as necessary. Information Drainage will be included in the RFP. 79. The drainage was very difficult to review because much of what is shown on the plans does not agree with many of the statements and calculations included in the report.

149 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD presented an interim drainage design plan to the City of Drainage Wheat Ridge on September 24 and 25, 2009. The City of Wheat Ridge agreed that this plan will not preclude the future Outfall 80. The report stated that the Outfall Systems Planning for the Systems Plans. Columbine Basin, OSP, would be followed for hydrology calculations and in recommending structures for construction. As noted in the discussion that follows, the OSP has been largely ignored to the future detriment of the downstream property owners.

79 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 150 Gold Line Corridor FEIS – Volume III Comment noted, thank you for the information. Existing Conditions 81. As noted in the OSP, the embankment for the BNSF tracks has historically formed a barrier to stormwater flows, diverting the flows to the east to Kipling Street. This barrier has existed since the tracks were first constructed and predates any of the existing development that is located downstream of the tracks. The tracks are present in an aerial photo from 1937.

151 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Comment noted, thank you for the information. Existing Conditions 82. In addition, the north half of the BNSF right-of-way has served as a stormwater conveyance that directs the runoff to the east towards Kipling Street. Given the granular nature of the material used by the railroad and the prevalence of sandy and gravely soils along the rail corridor, the north half of the right-of- way has not only served as a conveyance, but has also likely served as an infiltration swale.

152 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The interim drainage design concept presented to the City of Existing Conditions Wheat Ridge at the September 24 and 25, 2009 meetings accounts for the smaller design storms. 83. Since the drainage calculations only show the impact of the 100-year event and ignore any infiltration, it is not known at which storm event the runoff starts to overtop the existing tracks. It seems extremely unlikely that this occurs during the smaller design storms and certainly would not occur during a water quality level design event.

80 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 153 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This information can be included in the RFP for consideration by Existing Conditions the P3 Concessionaire during Final Design. 84. The drainage report seems to indicate that most of the overtopping occurs at the street crossings. However, if the location of the proposed storm sewer crossings is any indication, the overtopping appears to occur at several locations during a 100-year storm event. 154 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This information can be included in the RFP for consideration by Existing Conditions the P3 Concessionaire during Final Design. 85. After reviewing the City’s recently acquired LiDAR based topography and visiting the area, it seems unlikely that any overtopping will occur during smaller storm events west of Robb Street. 155 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Existing Conditions the revised drainage calculations and design. The revised design will show the flows directed toward Robb Street. An exhibit will be 86. At the Tabor Street crossing, Ridge Road is lower than the provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. tracks and any accumulated flows are likely diverted to the east towards the Robb Street crossing. 156 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Existing Conditions the revised drainage calculations and design. The revised design will show the flows directed toward Robb Street. An exhibit will be 87. At the Robb Street crossing, Ridge Road is higher than the provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. existing tracks and likely causes the first instance of overtopping the tracks. 157 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Existing Conditions the revised drainage calculations and design. The revised design will attempt to direct storm flows to the east. If is found to not be 88. At the Parfet Street crossing, the portion of Parfet Street that practical, storm flows will be directed to the south. is north of the existing tracks is noticeably lower than the tracks so most of the runoff will continue to the east towards Miller Street.

81 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 158 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Our analysis of the storm sewer shows it to be adequate. Existing Conditions 89. Since the Ridge Home Tributary improvements recommended in the OSP have already been installed east of Quail Street, the adverse impact of the proposed improvements east of Parfet Street is not as significant.

159 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Existing Conditions the revised drainage calculations and design. The revised design will show the flows directed toward Robb Street. 90. All of the existing development that has been done south of the existing tracks was likely designed assuming that the tracks intercepted and diverted any stormwater flows, which would be a valid assumption in all but the largest storm events.

160 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Proposed Design the revised drainage calculations and design. The revised design will show the flows directed toward Robb Street. 91. The proposed project does not significantly increase the impervious area and therefore the magnitude of the stormwater flows, except at the stations which appears to be adequately mitigated. However, with the proposed alignment being on the north side of the tracks, the existing natural stormwater conveyance is being eradicated.

161 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Proposed Design the revised drainage calculations and design. An exhibit will be provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. 92. The removal of the natural conveyance, without any mitigating measures, would likely cause increased flooding on the north side of the tracks and greatly increase the frequency and magnitude of the flows overtopping the tracks to the south.

82 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 162 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Proposed Design the revised drainage calculations and design. An exhibit will be provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. 93. However, the mitigation method that was chosen, just passing the flows across the tracks at numerous locations, is woefully inadequate to mitigate all of the complex issues associated with eliminating the natural conveyance. 163 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Proposed Design the revised drainage calculations and design. An exhibit will be provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. 94. With the proposed design, the properties located south of tracks would now receive stormwater flows during not only the 100-year storm event, but also the smaller, but more frequent storm events. The report discuss that the level of risk has not been increased for those properties; however, there is not enough information in the calculations to adequately determine if the quantity of flow and the location of the overtopping has been replicated. 164 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Proposed Design the revised drainage calculations and design. An exhibit will be 95. Even if the quantity and location of the flow from the 100- provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. year storm event is similar to the existing conditions, the onset of flow from smaller, more frequent storm events will likely cause flooding at locations where stormwater has not been present in the past. 165 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Proposed Design the revised drainage calculations and design. An exhibit will be provided that shows any overtopping that would occur. 96. Most of the crossings are shown with the culverts discharging at right angles to the swales along the south side of the tracks. The swales are also not a consistent depth, particularly the swale east of Ward Road. Therefore, it appears that the flows will discharge from the swales at multiple locations prior to the end of the swale.

83 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 166 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Only ditches will be used to the extent possible to mitigate water Proposed Design quality. 97. The water quality of any flows that are discharged south of There are no locations on the south side of the tracks from Ward the tracks will likely be worse than the existing conditions, since Road to Robb St. where there is a defined drainage path larger the infiltration in the existing conveyance on the north side of the than a curb section for accepting flows. As described in this tracks is being eliminated. section an analysis was made to locate areas where major storm flows would cross the existing tracks and flow south, and on-site drainage system designed that attempted to reproduce this flow pattern. Off-site improvements might be necessary for minor flows. Addressing those details normally occurs after the 30% design phase. 167 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in final design via the Eagle P3 contractor. Proposed Design This will be highlighted in the Eagle P3 RFP. 98. In addition to the issues created south of the tracks, the The 30% design should reduce the existing flooding problems design could also cause potential flooding of Ridge Road if the along Ridge Road. system between the north edge of the improvements and the south edge of Ridge Road is not adequate to convey the flows that will be present.

168 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Preferred Design the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. An exhibit will be provided that shows any overtopping that would 99. At a minimum, a storm sewer system, similar to what was occur. previously proposed and shown to the City on earlier Gold Line drawings, which collects the runoff and conveys the flows east This alternative was found to be much more expensive to the of Robb Street should be constructed. This storm sewer system taxpayers and also resulted in greater potential for flooding of should be sized consistent with the flows shown in the OSP. properties downstream because no major conveyance exists there. As noted numerous times in these comment responses, the 30% design is intended to replicate the existing flow patterns so as to minimize the overall impacts to the downstream drainage basin.

84 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 169 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III We are developing an OSP interim design as an Addendum. Preferred Design 100. This system is a portion of the Ridge Road Tributary which is planned to connect to the Arvada Channel at Oak Street south of 50th Avenue and extend across Ward Road to the west. The Cities of Arvada and Wheat Ridge have consistently required that new developments construct the OSP systems within the limits of any developments.

170 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Location will be determined by the P3 Concessionaire. Preferred Design 101. Since the new track alignment is located north of the existing track, the OSP system could be placed in the southern portion of the right-of-way.

171 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Preferred Design the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 102. The proposed storm sewer crossings could still be constructed at the locations shown to ensure adequate conveyance from the north side of the tracks and also prevent overtopping of the tracks during a 100-year storm event.

172 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This is a design suggestion. Thank you. Preferred Design 103. The size and depth of this system would likely allow the crossings with multiple pipes to be replaced with a single larger pipe.

85 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 173 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Coordination will continue with the Juchem Ditch representatives. Preferred Design However, FTA has an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer to not create further impacts to this resource. 104. The discharge location for this system could be located just east of Robb Street and the Juchem Ditch, rather than near Quail Street. A natural drainage swale occurs at this location that could then convey the stormwater to the southeast towards the Xcel substation.

174 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Comment noted, thank you for the information. Preferred Design 105. However, the downstream OSP system has not been constructed west of Miller Street at this time. The City is currently working on the next portion of the Arvada Channel that needs to be constructed west of Miller Street, but will likely not be able finish the entire system in time for this project.

175 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Preferred Design the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 106. Since the quantity, frequency, and water quality of the stormwater flows has dramatically changed at this location and the downstream system is not present, a temporary detention pond, with water quality components, should be located downstream of the discharge point and upstream of the Xcel substation.

176 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 107. East of Ward Road – The grading shown for the ditch on the south side of the tracks does not match the depth of the ditch shown in the cross section for the multiple culvert crossing.

86 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 177 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 108. Ward Road to Van Gordon Street – Compared to the existing sheet flow onto the BNSF right-of-way, the ponding at the inlets on the north side of the tracks may cause localized flooding.

178 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 109. Station 602+50 and 598+50 – Flows will likely flood 49th Place just upstream of the two channel drops on the south side of the tracks. The proposed channel appears to be less than 2 feet deep at both of these locations.

179 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 110. Station 594+50 to 595+50 – Flows will likely flood the adjacent property just upstream of the channel drop on the south side of the tracks. The proposed channel appears to be less than 1 foot deep in this area. In addition, there are significant flows from a sizable culvert crossing west of the Ward Road Station that will enter the ditch perpendicular to the ditch flows.

180 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 111. West of Tabor Street – An existing swale on the south side of the tracks will likely convey most of the flow that remains in the proposed swale that ends near Station 590 to the property just west of Tabor Street. This property likely has received very little flow from this natural swale in the past.

87 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 181 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The feasibility of moving the intake to the west side will be Specific Locations addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 112. Tabor Street – The drainage design at the Tabor Street crossing should be reconsidered. Most of the runoff from the contributing drainage basin collects at the northwest corner of the Tabor Street crossing. The proposed design of Tabor Street, along with the existing railroad embankment, will serve as barriers to the flows that will further increase the collection of the runoff northwest of the crossing. The upstream end of the major drainage culvert planned near this location should likely be located west of Tabor Street.

182 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 113. East of Tabor Street – Flows will likely flood the adjacent properties east of Tabor Street on the south side of the tracks. The proposed channel appears to be around 2 feet deep on the south side. This is clearly shown on the cross section with the south edge of the ditch being considerable lower than the top of the culvert.

183 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Clearance requirements make it unlikely a siphon can be Specific Locations eliminated. Stormwater flows are not discharged into the ditch by this design. Also unnecessarily relocating a historic feature is not 114. Juchem Ditch – The ditch crossing should be moved to the acceptable to the SHPO. This would likely delay the schedule by 6 east to around Station 564. This would likely allow enough cover months. This change cannot be made at this time - information will to eliminate the siphon, which is not acceptable to the City. The be incorporated in the Eagle P3 RFP. relocated portion on the south side of the tracks could still remain as an open channel, so the only a slight increase in pipe would be necessary. In addition, it will reduce the amount of stormwater discharging into the ditch by eliminating the ditch on the north side of Ridge Road that is west of the proposed storm sewer crossing near Station 565.

88 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 184 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and interim OSP design. 115. Station 565 – In order to be consistent with the OSP, the storm sewer crossing near this location should be extended across Ridge Road to the north. The size should also be increased to accommodate the OSP design flow of 126 cfs from the contributing drainage basin. This flow could be reduced by the amount that will flow through the proposed storm sewer crossing at Station 579. The discharge should also be directed to the southwest towards the natural swale located west of the Xcel substation rather than east towards Parfet Street.

185 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in the Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP with Specific Locations the revised drainage calculations and design. The revised design will attempt to direct storm flows to the east. If is found to not be 116. Parfet Street – The storm sewer should not cross at this practical, storm flows will be directed to the south. location, but should continue to the east between Ridge Road and the tracks to Miller Street. As an alternate, the downstream impacts from this crossing could be mitigated by constructing a detention basin at the northeast corner of the Xcel substation property.

186 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be investigated in the preparation of the Addendum to the Specific Locations Eagle P3 RFP with the revised drainage calculations and cost- effectiveness analysis. 117. Station 541+50 – The storm sewer crossing at this location should be eliminated. The property to the south has substantial drainage issues on the north side of their buildings. The storm sewer should continue to the east to Miller Street.

187 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be investigated in the preparation of the Addendum to the Ward Road Station Eagle P3 RFP with the revised drainage calculations and cost- effectiveness analysis. 118. Ward Road Station – The 400 feet of 30” storm sewer that is located between the tracks could be eliminated if the OSP system is installed south of the tracks.

89 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 188 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III This will be addressed in final design by the successful Eagle P3 Ward Road Station Concessionaire. 119. Calculations should be done for the existing storm sewer to ensure that it has adequate capacity to convey the flows from the area west of the Station’s contributing basins. If it is not adequate, then it appears that the excess flow would enter the proposed western pond, which is designed for on-site runoff only.

189 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD agreed to buy additional property for parking earlier in the Ward Road Station process in previous meetings with Wheat Ridge. RTD has many existing overflow parking areas (I-25 and Broadway and Mineral 120. If the overflow parking area is improved, then adequate for examples) where the overflow parking is gravel only. This detention and water quality facilities will need to be constructed. would be a short term solution if the parking demand is truly more A small regional pond could be constructed at this time for the than expected. eastern portion of the project, the overflow parking and the future expansion area.

190 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The final location of the proposed storm was not determined until Utility Plans just prior to the 30% submittal so last minute changes/adjustments could not be made. The gas line should be shown as relocated by 121. The 12” Xcel gas line may need to be relocated with the the Eagle P3 Design team. This will be addressed in the relocation of the OSP storm sewer system to the south side of Addendum to the Eagle P3 RFP. the tracks between Ward Road and Robb Street.

191 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III See response to comment 111 above Utility Plans 122. The overhead utilities that are being relocated to the north side of Ridge Road from Tabor Street to Parfet Street should be moved an additional 25 feet north to accommodate the eventual 60’ wide right-of-way of Ridge Road and 5’ wide sidewalk easement.

90 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 192 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Your description of access to the station from Ward Road is Ward Road Station Plans correct. 123. The draft EIS assumes that all of the traffic will access this The Preferred Alternative at the Ward Road Station does not station from Ward Road. Since the station does not directly include the extension of Tabor Street to Ridge Road, it is clear in connect to Ward Road, it would be more accurate to state that the station area diagrams that the roadway extension is “by the traffic will access this station from 50th Place and 52nd others.” Therefore, our analysis assumed all of the access to the Avenue. In addition, it is extremely likely that traffic, particularly Ward Road Station from Ward Road would occur via 50th Place Wheat Ridge citizens, will access this station from Tabor Street and 52nd Avenue. Appropriate mitigations were included in the and Ridge Road. FEIS based on this access assumption.

193 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III Our analysis indicates that the traffic volume from the station on Ward Road Station Plans Tabor will not increase significantly as a result of the Gold Line project. This is because travelers to the Ward Road station come 124. Tabor Street north of Ridge Road is not adequate to handle generally from a larger catchment area. RTD provided a map to the volume of traffic, particularly the expected bus traffic. Ridge Wheat Ridge noting the Ward Road station "origins and Road should continue westward to the Ward Road Station, so destinations" some time ago so please refer to that map. As a the additional traffic produced as a result of the new Station will courtesy, at Wheat Ridge's request, a possible road alignment for not use Tabor Street north of Ridge Road. This roadway section extending Ridge Road was shown on the plans to be constructed is currently shown as “By Others” but should be constructed with "by others." Showing this potential alignment on the plans does this project. not commit RTD to building it. RTD is not in the position to fund roadway improvements that are not required as a result of the implementation of the Gold Line. 194 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD buses operate daily on roads narrower than 52nd Avenue Ward Road Station Plans and negotiate intersections more constrained than the intersection of 52nd with Ward Road. Traffic analysis has shown that no 125. Roadway improvements and additional right-of-way will be improvements to 52nd Avenue or the intersection with Ward Rd required for 52nd Avenue from Ward Road to the station access are required for safe operations. drive to accommodate all mode transportation modes to and from the station. This includes turn lanes, bike lanes, curb gutter Providing sidewalks/bike lanes/etc. beyond what exists today and sidewalk. constitutes a betterment for the project. The cost of that betterment needs to be borne by the City. Adding infrastructure creating a wider ROW will most likely adversely impact multiple properties, grading/utilities, private driveways, etc. Impacts to properties and additional ROW acquisition would result in

91 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response additional costs and potential public controversy. It was RTD's goal throughout the project to ensure that we are mitigating for our impacts, while taking into account trying to minimize impacts to private properties. 195 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD is not in the position to fund roadway improvements beyond Ward Road Station Plans what is required as a result of the implementation of the Gold Line. 126. Bike lanes and sidewalks will need to be provided along Traffic modeling performed to date does not show the need for 50th Place in order to accommodate mutilmodal to and from the acceleration or deceleration lanes on Ward Road in conjunction station. Accel-Decel lanes at this intersection (on Ward Road) with the 50th Place access point. also need to be included to accommodate turning traffic to and from the station.

196 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD and the concessionaire will continue to coordinate with the Ward Road Station Plans City of Wheat Ridge through the site development review process. 127. The private access drive from 50th Place to 52nd Avenue will function as a street, not as a private drive to this facility, and should be designed as such. Therefore, the access drive should be improved to local street standards.

197 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD and the concessionaire will continue to coordinate with the Ward Road Station Plans City of Wheat Ridge through the site development review process. 128. This street should be to the City of Wheat Ridge local street standards of 50’ minimum width of Right-of-Way, roadway needs to be 34’ FL – FL in width, curb & gutter, 5’ minimum width sidewalks, preferably detached, and include ADA ramps at all roadway intersections and where applicable.

198 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD and the concessionaire will continue to coordinate with the Ward Road Station Plans City of Wheat Ridge through the site development review process. 129. As with comments above, station access drive which connects to 50th Avenue needs to be designed as a public street. Therefore, access layout to the station needs to be reconfigured by reducing the access points from four to two for

92 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response efficient circulation and safer flow. The reconfiguration will close vehicular access points fronting the drive and relocate them to the bus drive approximately 30-50 feet from the main drive. The two proposed access drive to the overflow lot will be relocated to line up with the bus access drives.

199 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III RTD agreed to buy additional property for parking earlier in the Ward Road Station Plans process in previous meetings with Wheat Ridge. RTD has many existing overflow parking areas (I-25 and Broadway and Mineral 130. The overflow parking should have an all weather surface, for examples) where the overflow parking is gravel only. This not the existing ground. Because of dust concerns, gravel is not would be a short term solution if the parking demand is truly more acceptable; however, recycled asphalt pavement would be than expected. acceptable as the minimum surface treatment.

200 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The re-examination of the grading plan will be occur in Final Ward Road Station Plans Design and referenced in the Eagle P3 RFP 131. The grading at the connection with 50th Place appears to exceed the 2% cross slope that would be expected by the public for this street-like access drive.

201 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The RFP will state that the Eagle P3 contractor will provide ROW Land Surveying monumentation in accordance with industry standards and local requirements. 132. The Quarter-Section Corner land surveying monument located within the BNSF Railway ROW at approximately Oak Street and Ridge Road will need to be reset during this project. Please be advised that this monument will need to be reset in accordance with City of Wheat Ridge standards, on the Current City Datum, and using a City-approved monument. The Current City Datum and monument placement information is available on the City’s website at www.ci.wheatridge.co.us on the Public Works\Land Surveying webpage. A copy of the monumentation sheet required by the State Board must also be sent to the City of Wheat Ridge within 30 days of filing with the State at: City of Wheat Ridge

93 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 7500 W. 29th Avenue PW/Engineering Division Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Attn: City Surveyor, David F. Brossman, P.L.S.

202 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The RFP will state that the Eagle P3 contractor will provide ROW Land Surveying monumentation in accordance with industry standards and local requirements. 133. Right-of-way survey monuments must be established for all new roadways or by the relocation of existing roadways per City of Wheat Ridge standard specifications, at all new road Right-of- Way centerline intersections, center of radius for cul-de-sacs, roadway centerline points of curvature, points of reverse or compound curvature, points of tangency, and at the end of the centerline for dead end streets. Coordinates for all control monuments used will be consistent with the current City of Wheat Ridge datum. The City will supply all of the ROW Intersection Monument and Section Monument hardware upon request at the time of construction. Phone the Department of Public Works at 303.235.2861 to coordinate delivery of the hardware.

203 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III The RFP will state that the Eagle P3 contractor will provide ROW Land Surveying monumentation in accordance with industry standards and local requirements. 134. Right-of-Way dedications and vacations must be approved by the Wheat Ridge City Council. In light of this, what will be the process by which the ROW will be handled? For example, how will the new ROW be dedicated and the existing ROW vacated at Ridge Road & Tabor Street? Will this be done simultaneously by plat or at different times by separate instruments? Please note that all Land Survey Plats and Deeds are to be submitted to the City of Wheat Ridge Department of Community Development (303.235.2846) for review and approval prior to going before City Council.

94 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 204 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III RTD worked with Wheat Ridge over the past 3 years to try to Planning make the Gold Line plans as consistent with the local government plans as is possible/economically feasible. 135. Several items have not been addressed in the public improvements plans or other plans relating to the development RTD will continue discussion with Wheat Ridge during final design. of the Ward Road station in the 30% design drawings. Other items from the Northwest Subarea Plan have been ignored in the design of this station.

205 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Comment noted. Planning 136. The items addressed in this memo are not meant to replace any of the comments already made regarding the station but will be required in addition to items addressed in previous design reviews. These items are mandatory items as required by The City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and will be required to be addressed in the development of updated station plans.

206 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Comment noted. Planning 137. Below are the requirements that are applicable to the design of the Ward Road Gold Line Station. The requirements come from the City of Wheat Ridge zoning Code, Northwest Subarea Plan, and Architectural and Site Design Manual.

207 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III Based on the Eagle P3 RFP, the Concessionaire will follow the Planning requirements from the City of Wheat Ridge Zoning Code and Architectural and Site Design Manual. 138. General Site Comments The future land use map in the Northwest Subarea Plan shows this parcel of land being as used for mixed-use. Mixed use includes higher density housing types in conjunction with commercial and office development,

95 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response preferably over retail development. Minimum residential density is 13 dwelling units per acre. Densities above 20 units per acre require underground and structured parking. • In all cases parking surfaces should be reduced as much as possible.

208 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 139. Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Pedestrian/bicycle circulation, walkways, paths etc. related improvements will be provided on RTD owned rights-of-way and The development must cater to pedestrian and bicycle users within station boundaries. in order to create a safe and inviting place for pedestrians to walk to the transit station. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the roads that will be used to access the transit station as the road will be dedicated right-of-way and will be required to be constructed to full street standards. This requires sidewalks on both sides of the street which must be separated by tree lawns. Pedestrian walkways shall be continued across driveways, drive aisles in parking lots and intersections. The streets, paths, and trails of adjacent neighborhoods shall be extended into the proposed development. At intersections and walkways that extend through drive aisles, enhanced pavement is encouraged to increase safety and to add an aesthetic element to the streetscape. Pedestrian scale lighting is encouraged. Continuous, wide pedestrian sidewalks shall be provided to promote a safe, pleasant walking environment.

96 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Parking lots and drive aisles shall be arranged to maximize the connectivity and continuity of pedestrian walkways.

209 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 140. Landscaping/Buffering Landscaping improvements meeting City specifications will be provided on RTD owned rights-of-way and within station A landscape plan is required to be submitted with the boundaries. required building permit or development plan. A minimum 10 foot landscape area must be established behind the right-of-way on all street frontages. Street trees shall be planted within this landscape strip. A minimum 10 foot landscape buffer must be established between any parking areas and the property line. The buffer can be reduced to 5 feet if a 6 foot fence or wall is installed on the property line. Required within the minimum building setbacks abutting public rights-of-way: one (1) tree, deciduous or evergreen, for every thirty (30) feet (or portion thereof) of street frontage. In addition to trees required based upon public street frontage, one (1) tree and ten (10) shrubs are required for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of required landscape area. Any area of the lot not covered by building, parking, walkways, storage or display area must be landscaped. Landscaping shall not be less than twenty (20) percent of the gross lot area. All new landscaped areas shall be served by a functioning automatic irrigation system which combines drip and

97 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response subsurface irrigation with high efficiency sprinklers. Recirculated water shall be used for new decorative water features and fountains. Artificial turf or plant materials are not allowed. No more than thirty (30) percent of the total landscaped coverage on the lot shall be comprised of turf. The use of low water demand turf varieties such as buffalo grass, blue grama grass and tall fescue is encouraged.

210 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 141. Amenities Amenities related improvements meeting City specifications will be provided on RTD owned rights-of-way and within station Two of the following techniques must be used at the transit boundaries. station as required by the Architectural and Site Design Manual. The FasTracks budget has no funding for public art, so this improvement will not be funded by RTD. Areas of congregation shall be located directly adjacent to the sidewalk and may contain open seating areas, landscaping, informational kiosks or fountains. Pedestrian amenities shall be located throughout the area which may include seating areas, chairs, seat, walls, benches, and planter walls. Exterior art shall be provided in the form of sculptures, statues, or water art.

211 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 142. Signage Signage improvements meeting City specifications will be provided on RTD owned rights-of-way and within station boundaries. Innovative and unique signs are encouraged. Monument signage is encouraged and must be placed within

98 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response a landscaped area. It is encouraged that sign faces be of a darker hue with light colored text to prevent light glare emitted at night. No sign is allowed which would violate the sight distance triangle requirements All illuminated signage shall comply with the zoning and development code. Where two freestanding signs are permitted by because of multiple street frontages, each permitted sign shall be allowed. In addition, the sign area allowed may be transferred from one (1) sign to another; provided, that no freestanding sign shall exceed four hundred (400) square feet in area. Where multiple signs are permitted because of multiple street frontage, the signs may be erected on the same street frontage. For double-faced signs, each sign face can have the maximum square footage allowed. For new development or total redevelopment, all freestanding signs shall be placed within landscaped areas. The planning commission may approve a master sign plan for any existing or proposed commercial or industrial development of at least two (2) acres or more in size which is under unified control either by ownership, legal association or leasehold. Free standing sign regulations: Maximum size is based on the table in Section 26-708 of the zoning code.

99 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Maximum height is 15 feet. Sign setbacks are based on the height of the sign. . Five foot setbacks from the right-of-way if the sign is under 7 feet in height. . Ten foot setbacks from the right-of-way if the sign is over 7 feet up to 15 feet in height.

212 Gold Line Corridor FEIS- Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 143. Parking The “opening day overflow parking” area is indicated as being surfaced with what is currently there. This area must be surfaced with gravel, road base, or other similar material. Grass, dirt or other un-maintainable surface will not be allowed. Areas subject to wheeled traffic for access, parking, sales or storage, shall be properly graded for drainage and on-site detention of storm runoff. The large parking lot will be required to be divided into smaller segments and generously planted with shade trees to allow for pedestrians to safely move through the parking lot. Parking access drives should be minimized to reduce curb cuts. Landscape islands will be required to delineate parking areas. All parking areas in excess of thirty (30) spaces shall have at least one (1) interior landscaped island per thirty (30) spaces. Each such landscaped island shall occupy the

100 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response equivalent of one (1) parking space (minimum) and each such required island shall be landscaped with a minimum of one (1) two-inch caliper tree or larger and four (4) shrubs or accepted groundcover. Any lighting used to illuminate any off-street parking area shall not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. A lighting plan will be required. No vehicle entrances or exits may be closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any property line except when used for joint access for two (2) or more lots. Vehicle entrances or exits on the same lot shall be spaced at not less than 100-foot intervals. The 100-foot spacing shall be measured from the interior edge of both access points. Curb cuts cannot be more than thirty-five (35) feet in width when serving an individual property and shall not in any instance be less than twenty (20) feet. Parking which is designed for one-way traffic shall be clearly indicated as such by the use of a sign or arrow designating the direction of traffic flow and by the words "one-way." All plans for the construction of any parking facility must be approved and a miscellaneous permit issued before construction is started. The parking plan shall include the following: Number, location and size of parking stalls. Widths of aisles and islands. Location of landscaping areas and type of landscaping, including size. Type of surfacing.

101 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response Scale and north arrow. Location of streets, curb cuts and property boundaries. Traffic directional arrows, signage and markings. Loading areas. Drainage provisions. Location and direction of proposed lighting. Location, height, and type of walls or fences to be constructed. In parking lots with thirty (30) spaces or more, twenty (20) percent of the required parking spaces may be designated for small or compact cars; provided, that small car parking area or spaces shall be clearly labeled or otherwise distinguished from full-sized parking areas or spaces.

213 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 144. As a part of a transit station being constructed on the site, there will two processes that will be required to go through. The property is zoned “I”, industrial. The “I” zone district allows transit stations/parking by special use. In order to use the property as proposed, a special use permit must first be obtained. In addition, a subdivision with the dedication of right- of-way will also be required. The two processes are outlined below:

102 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 214 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 145. Special Use The first step in the special use process is to have a pre- application meeting with staff. Next a neighborhood meeting is required in which the applicant informs the neighborhood of what is being proposed. After the neighborhood meeting is held the applicant can submit their formal land use application. Land use case goes on a 15 day referral to outside agencies for their comments. Comments from outside agencies are returned to the applicant for corrections. If all corrections are made, the property is posted with signs, for10 days, notifying the public of the proposal. Public can submit objections/concerns regarding the request. . If objections are received, the special use request must be hear at a public hearing before City Council . If no objections are received, the special use request may be reviewed administratively.

103 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 215 Gold Line Corridor FEIS - Volume III See Comment No. 207 above. Planning 146. Subdivision, with Dedication of Right-of-Way The first step in the special use process is to have a pre- application meeting with staff. Applicant may submit their formal land use application for the subdivision. Land use case goes on a 15 day referral to outside agencies for their comments. Comments from outside agencies are returned to the applicant for corrections. If all corrections are made and the subdivision plat meets all development regulations, a hearing before the City Council will be scheduled The City Council will hear and make a decision on the case. If you have any questions, please contact me at 303-235-2863. Sincerely,

Steve Nguyen, PE Engineering Manager c: Tim Paranto, PE, Director of Public Works Mark A. Westberg, PE, CFM, Project Supervisor Sally Payne, AICP, Senior Planner

104 OCTOBER 2009

Comment Number Comment Response 216 From: NORMAN C LANE [[email protected]] Thank you for your comment. Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:49 PM As a clarification, the CRMF site will have no impact on Utah Junction, which is located well to the north. The CRMF project will Marking and commemoration of Utah Junction is important. May I suggest a flat groundlevel granite marker at the relevant affect a small section of historic freight railroad track and this will spot and an interpretive board with pictures and text at the south be mitigated as required by law. At this time RTD has no plans for including any memorials at the CRMF site. boarder of the Maintenance Facility as a minimum.

217 From: larry rupp [[email protected]] RTD is not planning to have a passenger station at the CRMF Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 7:32 AM We are across the street from the new proposed maintance station and would like to know if this will be a stop to to get on and off the train. This is important to have for emploees

105 OCTOBER 2009

Attachment to Comment # 26 from Jennifer Tibbetts (page 1 of 2)

106 OCTOBER 2009

Attachment to Comment # 26 from Jennifer Tibbetts (page 2 of 2)

107 OCTOBER 2009 GOLD LINE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Attachment to Comment #50 from the City of Arvada

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 3 Construction Sheet MN-002 , 3.2.3 Notes that The mitigation notes in the 30% Include in City of Arvada to provide as-builts to be included in RFP. City has not received as-builts Drawings Wadsworth Bypass grade separation is documents were taken from the DEIS Request for from CDOT and may not receive them before the end of the RFP process. Sheet MN-002 under construction (2007), it is now and are provided in the plan set for Proposals (RFP) finished. information only. The mitigation note was to the Eagle P3 updated in the FEIS to address the bidding completion of the Wadsworth Bypass concessionaires. reconstruction. In the 30% plans the mitigation notes are prefaced with direction to the contractor to refer to the ROD for the most updated mitigation requirements. 4 Construction Sheet V-004 through V-006, shows the Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Juchem Ditch going under Parfet Street coordination with the ditch companies provided in RFP Sheet V-004 on the north side of Ridge Road and then and Arvada will be addressed by the through V-006 paralleling Ridge Road to Miller Street. At Eagle P3 Design team. Parfet Street the Juchem Ditch actually goes into a piped system that runs in a northeast direction through the subdivision to the north. The ditch shown as the Juchem Ditch from Parfet Street east is actually a drainage ditch for storm water. 5 Construction Sheet V-020, at about 371+00 the 60” Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings storm sewer from the south ends about coordination with Arvada will be provided in RFP Sheet V-020 40 feet south of BNSF ROW, from here addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. north under the tracks it is a 42” storm. At about 372+00 36” pipe labeled Arvada storm is the Pachello irrigation lateral, not sure the size of the pipe. 6 Construction Sheet V-021, there is an 18” storm sewer Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings on the west side of the frontage road, it coordination with Arvada will be provided in RFP Sheet V-021 runs from the south side of the tracks addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. south. This probably does not affect Gold Line design.

108 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 7 Construction General comment on the road crossings, This is also a PUC requirement. As above RTD's responsibility Drawings Road many of the road crossings in Arvada do Sidewalks will be provided within RTD's provided in RFP Plan and not currently include sidewalks or are to ROW at all crossing - which will meet Profiles the City’s current standard width of PUC requirements. pavement. At most of the crossings, sidewalks are located in the adjoining neighborhoods leading to the tracks. Due to the addition of two more tracks a safe route should be provided for pedestrians outside of the traffic paved surface by installing sidewalks across the tracks. All crossings should include sidewalks across the tracks and the City’s current standard for roadway width 8 Construction Sheet CP-008, on Independence Street A drive simulation program (Hang-Up) As above See Transportation Technical Memorandum. City has not received the tech memo. (This Drawings profile there are 5 locations where there was used to analyze all grade crossings provided in RFP was couriered to Arvada on September 30, 2009.) Although the proposed design may not Sheet CP-008 are about 4% grade breaks across the to determine the vehicle performance hang up as many vehicles the City does not agree it is a vast improvement over the intersection. This will be an extremely across the crossing. The crossing at existing conditions for the majority of the cars using Independence Street that will poor crossing for cars. Should revise Independence is the only location where experiance a very poor ride over the tracks. track profiles to minimize the extent of vehicles will hang up based on our the grade breaks. design. At that grade crossing the only vehicles that will hang up are the low-boy trailers. The grade breaks designed on Independence are required to minimize impacts to adjacent properties both south and north of the tracks. Adjusting the track profiles to minimize the grade breaks across the tracks would impact several adjacent properties, adversely impact existing grading/drainage flow on properties, impact several driveway grades (possible substandard driveway grades) and possibly require additional retaining walls along Independence both north and south of the tracks and to re- profile our westbound track. This will impact numerous residences.

It should be noted that the design proposed is a vast improvement over the existing condition, where all vehicles with a ground clearance of less than 8" have the potential to hang up.

109 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 9 Construction Sheet CP-013, on Allison profile there A drive simulation program (Hang-Up) As above See Transportation Technical Memorandum. Drawings are two 3% grade breaks, should was used to analyze all grade crossings provided in RFP Sheet CP-013 minimize the extent of these. to determine the vehicle performance across the crossing. The program shows that all vehicles can handle the crossing adequately. The grade breaks designed on Allison are required to minimize impacts to adjacent properties both south and north of the tracks. Adjusting the track profiles to minimize the grade breaks across the tracks would impact several adjacent properties, adversely impact existing grading/drainage flow on properties, impact several driveway grades (possible substandard driveway grades) and possibly require additional retaining walls. 10 Construction Sheet CP-014, at Olde Wadsworth, need Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Part of attachment 9 of RFP, restoration of property. Drawings to note that sidewalks on both sides of by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment Sheet CP-014 the road are made of brick. Also on the resolved. south side of the tracks there is a brick cross walk within the limits that is shown as being replaced. 11 Construction Sheet CP-015, at Vance Street, Comments noted they will be addressed As above RTD's responsibility to meet PUC requirements. Drawings proposed concrete pads are not shown by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet CP-15 long enough for existing walks that cross Speciffically for A) the designer will the tracks now. Gates are also in the finalize the length of the track concrete middle of the walks. Need to show how crossing panels to cover existing sidewalks will be routed around gates sidewalk width during fianl design. For B) and that they are brick sidewalks. There is adequate ADA width behind the gate on the east. The final design will provide adequate ADA sidewalk width behind the gate on the west side of Vance Street and add a note stating sidewalk to be replaced-in-kind

110 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 12 Construction Sheet CP-018 Tennyson Street is being Noted. Further design efforts will As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings raised about 3’ north of the proposed optimize the size and location of the provided in RFP Sheet CP-018 tracks. This may cause major drainage pipes under Tennyson to reduce the problems in this area. The Major impacts to the property on the northwest Drainageway Planning Update for corner of the intersection. This comment Hidden Lake-Bates Lake shows excess will be addressed by the Eagle P3 flows in this area continuing east in to Design team. Jim Backer Reservoir. By raising the road and having the tracks on about a 2 foot retaining wall this will prevent water from going either east or south until it ponds up to the level of the proposed tracks. All of the flows would have to be able to be carried in the existing 54” storm sewer under the tracks which only has a capacity of about 97 cfs. Note that at the northwest corner of this intersection the highest contour on the east side of the existing building, where the main entrance is, is 5249, top of west bound rail is at 5249.74 which may mean that this building could be flooded when the flows exceed the capacity of the storm sewer. Also grading would eliminate both driveways to the building off of Tennyson Street due to steep grades. 13 Construction Sheets CP-029 and CP-030, assume the The 30% roadway profile design matches As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings profile is for the center of the road. This existing Ridge Road to match cross provided in RFP Sheets CP-029 profile shows grades of 0.02%, -0.28% slopes of Ridge Road. The drainage and CP-030 and 0.04% which are all well below the design for this segment of road was City’s minimum criteria of 0.5%. The developed to maintain the existing profile of the south flow line will have to conditions to minimize impacts to be different to meet the minimum of adjacent properties. The Eagle P3 0.5%. Where there will be low points Design Team might be able to warp the (possibly 5+11) need to include inlets. cross slope of Ridge Road to allow the curb/gutter flowline profile to have grades of 0.5%. However doing so would require further drainage analysis and determination as to whether or not the changes cause greater impacts to adjacent properties. 14 Construction Sheet CP-038, north arrow is in the Noted. Close: Drawings CP- wrong direction. comment 038 resolved

111 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 15 Construction On demolition plans where ROW is Detailed coordination with property Close: Part of attachment 9 of the RFP, restoration of property. Drawings adjacent to homes it generally shows owners impacted by the proposed comment Demolition removing fences which are typically a construction normally occurs after the resolved Plans wood privacy fences. It appears that on 30% deisgn phase. Fencing replacement the typical sections that only chain link or is included in that coordination effort. post and cable are proposed. Is the This comment will be addressed by the intent to replace privacy fences with Eagle P3 Design team. chain link? 16 Construction Sheets TT, track typical sections include Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings underdrains, assume they will be 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheets TT-001 connected to storm sewer system where addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. through TT-014 available. Where are they proposed to outlet if there is no storm sewer near by? 17 Construction Sheet DS-104, drainage from Rob Street Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings west to Tabor Street, including what 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet DS-104 comes through the 12X4 box culvert at addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. Tabor Street and a 24” storm at 579+00, is in a drainage ditch on south side of tracks. This ditch dumps out just above the Juchem Ditch east of Rob Street which would flood into the irrigation ditch. This would happen in the minor and major storms. Currently this property and the irrigation ditch do not see these flows in the minor storm. Need to check what the downstream affects will be for future storms. 18 Construction Sheets DS-110 and DS-111, shows an This portion of the ditch was left open at Close: This would require re-opening the environmental process. Drawings open ditch for Allen Reno irrigation ditch the request of RTD in an effort to comment Sheets DS-110 from Garrison Street east. Have been minimize impacts to historic properties resolved. and DS-111 told that this redone as an open channel which is our duty in the EIS process. The because it is a “historic” ditch. Since the State Historic Preservation Officer ditch has to be moved to the north and (SHPO) has concurred with RTD and will be constructed as a totally new ditch FTA (in a written Memorandum of and it is already being piped from station Agreement) that no further impacts to 482+00 to 470+00 it appears that it will historic properties should occur as a lose any of its historic value. For reduced result of the project. Should a future maintenance in the future, including the design impact a greater portion of the need to burn the weeds out of the ditch, Allen Reno ditch, the contractor will have this ditch should be piped the entire to reopen the SHPO/FTA/RTD length. consultation process. While this can occur, it will result in schedule delays and cost increase. 19 Construction Sheet DS-110, on west side of Garrison Addressing those details occurs after the Close: Pipe will be abandoned. Drawings Street indicates to remove existing storm 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be comment Sheet DS-110 sewer under the tracks. Does this require addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. resolved physically removing the pipe or can it be abandoned in place by filling it with flowfill? There are other pipes on the alignment with the same note.

112 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 20 Construction Sheet DS-111, 48” storm at station Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires.. Drawings 483+22 need to indicate making by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet DS-111 connection to existing 18” storm sewer that runs along the south side of Ridge Road. Currently north end of proposed 48” pipe appears to be about 5’ north of the 18” line. In the utility memo states that new 48” pipe is matching the size of the existing pipe, this is incorrect. The existing pipe is a 24” RCP inside of 42” RCP casing. 21 Construction Sheet DS-113, at Allison Street the Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings proposed 24” storm sewer under tracks by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet DS-113 connects to 6” pipe downstream that currently only picks up underdrains from adjacent properties. By connecting in the 24” storm may back up underdrains causing possible flooding in residences. 200’ further down hill on Allison is an existing 18” storm sewer line which should be extended to this proposed 24” storm. 22 Construction Sheet DS-118, there is an existing storm Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings sewer crossing Grandview Avenue at by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet DS-118 about 404+00, need to connect this to the proposed storm sewer on south side of road. 23 Construction Sheet DS-120, shows installing 60” storm Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings sewer under tracks, but does not actually by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet DS-120 connect to new 60” pipe that was constructed through Ralston Business Park Subdivision to the south. This 60” storm sewer ends about 40 feet south of the BNSF ROW which would leave about 40’of 42” line between the proposed 60” pipe and the existing manhole to the south. Note that shows existing pipe under tracks as 60”, it is only a 42”. Also shows a 90 degree bend in the 60” storm sewer, the Major Drainageway Planning Update for Hidden Lake-Bates Lake prepared by UDFCD shows 179 cfs through this pipe. This would result in a velocity in the pipe of about 9 fps which with the 90 degree bend may cause problems at this manhole.

113 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 24 Construction Sheet DS-121, shows jacking (2) 60” Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings RCP under tracks at west frontage road by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet DS-121 of Sheridan Boulevard. With the size of proposed storm sewer and proposed approximate 3’ of cover this storm sewer will be in conflict with existing 8” water line which the plans show it crossing. Will have to replace water line across all of the tracks because of this or relocate the alignment of the 60” pipes. Where proposed 48” storm sewer between the Gold Line and UPRR tracks connects to proposed 60” pipe need a manhole at a minimum, would be better to have a structure connecting 48” line to both 60” pipes to allow flows from 48” into either 60” pipe. Connection to 36” line to the north is shown by making two ninety degree bends, it would be better hydraulically if these could be forty five degree bends. This new pipe could also be in conflict with the water line. Note that this area is a Zone AO (2’ depth) FEMA flood zone. Height of tracks in this area creates a dike preventing flows from continuing south to Clear Creek. Structure on north end of 60” pipe will need to be sized to accept all of the flows from the north.

114 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 25 Construction Sheet DS-123, 42” storm sewer from Noted. Further design efforts will Close a portion Class V pipes if under tracks. The City agrees on closing the issue of the type of pipe Drawings proposed Sheridan Station is shown optimize the size and location of the of comment as however the rest of the comment should be included in the RFP because the City does Sheet DS-123 connecting to existing 54” storm in pipes under Tennyson to reduce the resolved. RFP not agree how the analyses was done. Tennyson Street. The drainage report impacts to the property on the northwest incorrectly analyses the new storm sewer corner of the intersection. This comment system without taking into account flows will be addressed by the Eagle P3 from north of W. 60th Avenue. This 54” Design team. was not sized to handle the 5 year storm and the Major Drainageway Planning Update for Hidden Lake-Bates Lake prepared by UDFCD shows it only has a capacity of 92 cfs with total flows to this point in the 5 year storm of 358 cfs. So excess flows will bubble up in proposed inlet in parking lot of building at northwest corner of Tennyson Street and the railroads. The Major Drainageway report shows excess flows from this point (797 cfs) continuing east into Jim Baker reservoir. By raising Tennyson Street about 3’ and building a retaining wall along north side of tracks will block these proposed flows. The building appears to be low compared to the proposed elevations of the retaining walls and Tennyson Street which means it could be flooded. With the proposed grading showing Tennyson Street sloping south across the tracks some of the 797 cfs will be forced south on Tennyson Street instead of continuing into the Jim Baker reservoir per the Major Drainageway report. Note that the 54” storm sewer under where tracks are proposed is only a Class III pipe. 26 Construction Sheet DS-127, UDFCD prepared a The existing bridge is a 131-foot 3-span. Close: Drawings Phase B Update for Lower Clear Creek The MDP refernced has been comment Sheet DS-127 dated June, 1988. This report was a superceeded by the MDP Phase B by resolved master plan to alleviate flooding on the Icon, dated Feb. 2008. The requirements north side of I-76 from Sheridan included in the newer MDP have been Boulevard east. It proposes constructing addressed in the 30% design. a channel along the north side of I-76 to almost Federal. It also requires replacement of the existing 40’ railroad bridge over Clear Creek with a 200’ bridge. It appears that this bridge may have already been replaced. Was the design of the new bridge for the Gold Line done in conformance of this master

115 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) plan?

27 Construction Sheets CU-005 through CU-009, shows Noted. Tree trimming is a utility As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings relocating overhead Xcel, Quest and maintenance issue that will be addressed provided in RFP Sheets CU-005 Comcast lines from south side of road to by the respective utility companies for through CU- north side from Tabor Street all the way this segment of their network as part of 009 to Independence Street. By moving these their ongoing business operations. lines to north side of street this will bring the lines in conflict with existing trees which are on private property along the north side of Ridge Road. Many of these trees will have to be either severely trimmed or cut down because of their interference with the relocated lines or in the future these trees will need to be trimmed as they grow into the lines. 28 Constructions Utility plans, many of the casings for Addressing those details normally occurs To be resolved City of Arvada still want's to push forward. Part of local match. "by Arvada" will be replace Drawings Utility Arvada water, sanitary sewer and storm after the 30% deisgn phase. This in an Inter with "by other". The IGA can address if the City will being doing this work however "by Sheets sewers have been in the ground for comment will be addressed by the Eagle Governmental Arvada" should not be replaced with "by others" since this will indicate that this work will many years. There are was no cathodic P3 Design team. Agreement not be the responsibility of the P3 if it is decided that Arvada is not going to do this work protection install on any of the casings. (IGA) with as part of the match. Arvada is in the process of replacing all Arvada of the cast iron water mains in the City because they are being corroded by the soils in this area. Other old casing pipes and CMP in the area are in poor shape and are having to be replaced. Because of these reason it is probable that the older existing casings under the railroad are probably in poor shape and will need to be replaced. For new casings and if existing casings are extended cathodic protection should be included. In order to extend casings the existing carrier pipe will probably have to be removed from the existing casing by digging up both ends, the new section of casing welded on and then the carrier pipe reinstalled with restrained joints the entire length. Plans note that most of the work on the Arvada water line and sanitary sewers will be “by Arvada”. There were

116 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) discussions about Arvada doing some of this work as part of the matching funds but there was not a final decision on this. Should eliminate the “by Arvada” until it is determined what of this work will be done by Arvada.

29 Construction Sheet CU-007, with proposed Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings development on both the north and south coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP Sheet CU-007 side of the railroad between Kipling and Arvada will be addressed by the Street and Miller Street a 12” Valley Eagle P3 Design team. Water District water line and an 8” City of Arvada sewer line will be required to cross the Railroad ROW at the Lee Street location. The Arvada Private line shown at about station 525+50 is owned and maintained by the State of Colorado and serves state buildings on the north side of the tracks. As development occurs in this area and the new sanitary sewer line is installed at Lee Street this line will be abandoned

117 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 30 Construction Sheet CU-008, when the under pass for Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Kipling Street was constructed in about coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP Sheet CU-008 1986 the water line was relocated from and Arvada will be addressed by the the old street alignment. It appears from Eagle P3 Design team. the construction plans that a 20 foot casing pipe was installed centered about 36’ south of the existing tracks to allow the construction of a shoo fly to move the tracks south so the bridge could be built. I assume that the tracks were moved and then a 45 foot casing was installed (20’ south and 25’north the centerline of the tracks) so that it would be under where the tracks are now. The problem with this is there is a gap of about 6’ between these two casings and there is a 22 ½ degree bend at this location. This gap is also about where the center line of the future BNRR tracks will be. The plans indicate to extend the casing however according to the Utility Cost Summary it shows 75’ of encasement. This appears to be about the total distance from the south ROW line to proposed retaining wall on the north side. There are also 45 degree bends in the existing pipe that start about 32 feet north of the center line of the existing pipe. This would place the fist 45 degree bend at or south of the proposed retaining wall so this portion of the pipe would also probably have to be rebuilt. 31 Construction Sheet CU-009, the water line in Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Independence Street was replaced in coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP Sheet CU-009 1998 and at that time 100 feet of casing and Arvada will be addressed by the was installed across the entire width of Eagle P3 Design team. the ROW. Plans call out to extend the casing however the Utility Cost Summary does not include anything at this street and it appears it is not necessary. Cathodic protection of the existing casing should be included. 32 Construction Sheet CU-010, from Garrison Street to Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings past Carr Street shows relocating coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP Sheet CU-010 overhead Xcel, Quest and Comcast lines and Arvada will be addressed by the from south side of road to north side. Eagle P3 Design team. There are already some overhead utility lines along this length so some of the

118 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) existing trees are already being trimmed but this relocation may require additional trimming of the trees.

33 Donstruction Sheet CU-011, no depth for the water Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings line at about station 483+70 has been coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP Sheet CU-011 determined but cross section 484+00 and Arvada will be addressed by the shows about a 3’ cut for the drainage Eagle P3 Design team. ditches on either side of the BNSF which may not leave enough cover over the water line. The age of this casing has not been determined but it was probably installed at lest 40 years ago. City believes because the age of the crossing and lack of cover that this line should be totally replaced. If this is the case the City is proposing to move this crossing to Garrison Street. 34 Construction Sheet CU-012, the water line in Carr Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Street was replaced in 1993 and 52 feet 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-012 of casing was installed. Plans indicate to addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. extend the casing, but there may be a vertical conflict with the Allen Reno Ditch pipe which crosses Carr Street at this point. Cathodic protection should be added to the casing. On the proposed sanitary sewer relocation the need to move the south manhole east about 30 feet so there is a maximum of 90 degree deflection at the manhole. Manhole MH- 072 on the north side of tracks may have to be moved north since it may be in conflict with the concrete pads. The sewer line across the tracks should be in a casing pipe with cathodic protection 35 Construction Sheet CU-013, at Balsam Street the Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings existing water line is only a 6” line. The 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-013 age of this casing has not been addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. determined but it was probably installed at lest 40 years ago and will probably need to be replaced. The Utility Cost Summary indicates 100 feet of casing so it appears that the entire line is to be replaced. Need to provide cathodic protection on the casing. The line should be increased to an 8” line

119 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 36 Construction Sheet CU-013, at Allison Street the Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings casing for the water main may be over 40 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-013 years old and in poor condition. The addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. Utility Cost Summary indicates 100 feet of casing so it appears that the entire line is to be replaced. It should include cathodic protection. 37 Construction Sheet CU-013, relocating overhead Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings utilities to north side of Ridge Road from 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-013 Balsam to Yarrow Streets and Olde addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. Wadsworth to Webster Street. This will require removal of about two trees from private property and trimming others. 38 Construction Sheet CU-014, at Old Wadsworth Blvd. Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings the casing for the water main may be 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-014 over 40 years old and in poor condition, addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. will probably need to replace it. On the sanitary sewer not sure the age of casing, if there is one, but will probably need to replace it. The sewer pipe under the tracks is a CI and the capacity has been reduced to about a 2” line. Will need to replace the entire crossing. 39 Construction Sheet CU-015, at Vance Street the water Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings main was replaced in 1996 and 60 feet of 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-015 casing was installed about centered on addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. the existing tracks. Utility Cost Summary shows 50 feet of casing, this may not be required. Cathodic protection should be added to the casing. At about station 429+00 there is an existing sanitary sewer crossing the tracks. This line was installed in 1984 and included 64 feet of casing. The condition of this casing is unknown and may have to be replaced. The north end should be about 26 feet north of the centerline of the track, this will be close to where the proposed retaining wall is. If casing is in acceptable condition it should be extended through the retaining wall and have cathodic protection added. Note that storm labeled Arvada Future 36” Storm in this area was constructed by CDOT and now exists.

120 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 40 Construction Sheet CU-016, water line was installed in Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings about 1990 and included 50’ of casing. 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-016 The north end of this casing will be close addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. to the location of the proposed retaining wall. This casing needs to be extended through the retaining wall and cathodic protection added. The Utility Cost Summary indicates extending the casing 75 feet, this is close to the entire width of the ROW and may not be needed. 41 Construction Station CU-017, casing should extend Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings through the proposed retaining wall. by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet CU-017

42 Construction Sheet CU-018, casing for water line in Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Lamar Street was installed in 1975, 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-018 probably in not in acceptable condition addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. and needs to be replaced. On the sanitary sewer there are two services from the east that are connected to the MH-122 on the north side of the tracks. This manhole appears to be only 10 off the centerline of the tracks. Being this close to the tracks it is going to be very hard to do any maintenance on it without affecting the rail line. This manhole should be relocated to the north. 43 Construction Station CU-020, on the water line Arvada Addressing those details occurs after the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings will probably abandoned the water line 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be provided in RFP Sheet CU-020 that goes north under the UPRR when addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. this work is done as this loop is no longer needed. The new 18” sanitary sewer line is shown connecting into a portion of the abandoned 30” sanitary sewer trunk line. Need verify that this portion of the trunk line is still usable. Not sure of the date when this was installed. At the time 36 feet of 48” RCP was installed as a casing pipe. Plans indicate to extend casing, how will this be done with this large of line and the large amount of flow in it? The 36” line was installed in 1991 and for 62 feet south of manhole MH-132 Class IV RCP was installed. Plans indicate to relocate this manhole and install casing. Is additional IV RCP going to be inserted? This line also has a large flow. Utility Cost Summary indicates 100 feet of encasement.

121 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 44 Construction Sheet CU-021, water main in west Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings frontage road of Sheridan Blvd. is labeled by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP Sheet CU-021 to have the casing extended. This line will be in vertical conflict with the two proposed 60” storm sewers to be jacked under the tracks. The entire casing across the railroad will need to be replaced. 45 Construction Sheet CU-023, there is an existing Addressing those details normally occurs As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings manhole at about station 334+00, 140 after the 30% deisgn phase. This provided in RFP Sheet CU-023 feet north of west bound track. It appears comment will be addressed by the Eagle that it is low enough to connect the P3 Design team. restroom from the Sheridan Station which would save 400 feet of sewer line. The 30” sewer trunk line in Tennyson Street was installed in 1963 and has two separate 48” steel casings, one under the UPRR and one under the BNSF, under the tracks. This entire length of line is a Class V RCP. North of MH-143 this is a VCP, the City will not accept this type of pipe under the west bound tracks. Note that this pipe is flowing almost half full. 46 Construction Sheet CU-23, water line in Tennyson Addressing those details normally occurs As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Street was installed in 1995 and has 140 after the 30% deisgn phase. This provided in RFP Sheet CU-023 feet of casing which extends 35 feet comment will be addressed by the Eagle north of the center line of the UPRR. P3 Design team. About where existing gate valve is, near center line of east bound track, water line angles from being about 9’ deep so that casing could get under fiber optics lines. This will cause extension of casing to be extra deep. 90 feet north of UPRR track water main turns west at a 90 degree angle to the west side of the street and then continues north. This is shown incorrectly on the plans. This is about where the proposed casing extension would end and since the water line will be deep here this east west section of line would also have to be replaced. 47 Constuction Sheet SB-006, need to note that City of Proposed bridge does not preclude As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Drawings Arvada will be installing a sidewalk on future sidewalk along Kipling. Proposed provided in RFP Sheet SB-006 the west side of Kipling Street under the bridge configuration does not modify proposed bridges within the next two existing slope between Kipling and years proposed bridge abutment.

122 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 48 Utilities Page 7, list Arvada sanitary sewer in Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Inventory Page Arvada Ridge Station site, this is actually coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP 7 a State of Colorado sanitary sewer and Arvada will be addressed by the serving State property north of Ridge Eagle P3 Design team. Road 49 Utilities Page 9, criteria notes that “RTD requires Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Inventory page all buried utilities be a minimum of 60” coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP 9 below the base of the proposed base of and Arvada will be addressed by the tracks”. In Arvada there are numerous Eagle P3 Design team. storm sewer crossing that will not meet this and at lest on sanitary sewer trunk line. 50 Utilities Page 12, City of Arvada water lines, Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Inventory Page states that they will require encasement, coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP 12 the water line west of Sheridan and Arvada will be addressed by the Boulevard will need to be replaced due to Eagle P3 Design team. a conflict with the proposed two 60” storm sewers being jacked under the tracks. City of Arvada sanitary sewer lines list one manhole to be relocated. This manhole is on a 30” sanitary sewer trunk line. The line south of this manhole is RCP however the line north of the manhole is an over 40 year old VCP which will end up under the west bound tracks, this needs to be replaced. Under storm the 54” line in Tennyson Street is an Arvada line. 51 Utilities Page 13, under water it states lines to be Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Inventory Page protected and encased, many of these coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP 13 lines are old and the existing casing and Arvada will be addressed by the pipes are probably in poor condition and Eagle P3 Design team. may need to be replaced. See comments on utility construction drawings. Under sanitary it discusses protecting these lines but they also need to have casings extended. This will be difficult to do, especially on the large trunk lines.

123 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 52 Utilities Utility Cost Summary, some of the costs Noted. The cost estimates will be Close: Agree, raw costs do not reflect multipliers. Also need to look at what RR Inventory Utility look low for the work to be done. $5,775 updated by the Eagle P3 Contractor comment agreements/easements in place. Cost Summary to relocate a manhole is probably ok for during later stages of the design. resolved (continue an 8” line but this is also being used for below) the 30” and 36” sanitary sewer trunk lines which have large flows in them. On the encase items if they are an extension of an existing casing the existing casing pipe will probably need to be removed, the new casing welded on and then the entire length of carrier pipe install with restrained joints for the entire length and costs do not appear to reflect all of this work. Several of the locations where encasement is called out run under the existing tracks, in these locations part of the length will have to be bored under the tracks. The last contract the City had to bore under railroad tracks was about $500/ lf for a 24” casing with 12” water line. Item 134, relocating manhole north will place over 40 year old VCP under the proposed west bound track. Need costs for replacing this section of line with RCP. Item 143, this water line will have to be relocated due to a vertical conflict with the proposed 60” storm sewers.

124 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) Items 148 and 149, part of this line will need to be bored under the existing tracks. Item 153, with a 100 foot length appears to be entire length under ROW, $46,200 is not close to being able to do this. Item 154, on GL-51-13-SS is install casing not relocating manhole. Item 156, think this should be an 18” line, not 30”. Item 157, existing casing is over 40 years old, probably will need to replace entire length. Items 171 and 172, part of line will need to be bored under existing track, $52,800 will not cover this cost. Item 206, existing line is a 12”, existing casing is over 40 years old will probably need to replace. Item 207, does not indicate to protect the sewer line that will be under new track. This existing casing is also very old, will probably need to replace it. Item 214, this casing is probably over 40 years old, will need to replace it. Item 223, the existing line is a 6”, should be increased to an 8”. The casing for this line is probably over 40 years old, will need to replace it. Item 229 this relocation will require boring under existing track, $17,600 will not come close for this work. Item 233 this water line will probably need to be lowered because the ditches on either side of the tracks are proposing to be 3’ lower then existing grade, will not have enough cover over pipe. Item 238, should this be Utility Conflict No. GL-54-48-W on Utility Sheet CU-009? Item 264, due to alignment of existing casing will have to replace the entire length, see comment under Sheet CU-008 53 Drainage Section 3.4.6, in last paragraph indicates Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Report Section that at the Moffat overpass there is an coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP 3.4.6 existing 60” storm sewer under the and Arvada will be addressed by the tracks. This is not correct, there is an Eagle P3 Design team. existing 42” storm sewer which extends from about 40 feet south of the south Right-of-way of the BNSF, under both the BNSF and UPRR track and continues to the north. South of this 42” storm sewer is where the 60” pipe begins. The Major Drainageway Planning Update for

125 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) Hidden Lake-Bates Lake proposes to extend the 60” storm sewer under both sets of tracks to the proposed detention pond.

54 Drainage Section 3.4.7.1, at Estes Court indicates Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Report Section that the existing storm sewer under the coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP 3.4.7.1 tracks is a 48”, this is incorrect, it is only and Arvada will be addressed by the a 24” storm sewer which is in a 42” CL V Eagle P3 Design team. casing pipe. 55 Drainage Section 4.2.1, in item 6 of the list of Where RTD needs to replace existing Close: Report Section modifications to the standard criteria culverts under the existing tracks to comment 4.2.1 states proposed culverts shall be Class maintain the integrity of the storm resolved V. Will the existing culverts and storm drainage system the culverts will be sewers under the tracks be replaced if upgraded to the current standards. they are not Class V? Where the existing culverts are functionally adequate they will not be upgraded. 56 Drainage Table 4-2 list FEMA Regulated This crossing is discussed in section Close: Report Table 4- Crossings, at about station 365+00 the 4.4.4 of the drainage report. The design comment 2 alignment does cross the drainage from is intended to cause no rise in water resolved Bates Lake that is a FEMA Zone surface under proposed conditions. A0(Depth 2’) drainage that is not listed in Table 4-2. Note in this area there are proposed retaining walls elevating the tracks which would block this drainage. Need to analysis this area to see if this will increase the amount of flooding in the area. 57 Drainage Section 4.3.3, discusses using a different The statement said that the WSELs in As above Need designer clarifiaction, additional drainage meeting required. Report Section method for determining the BFE for the revised existing conditions model provided in RFP 4.3.3 Ralston Creek then was used in the ranged from 2.5 feet lower to 1 foot FEMA study for the existing conditions higher. This indicates that different which changes the BFE from 2.5 feet models produced different results for the lower to 1 foot higher. Will FEMA same reach of stream. There will not be approve this different method? If so how a 1 foot raise in the BFE. does this 1 foot raise affect adjacent properties?

126 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 58 Drainage Section 4.4.5, Columbine Basin Outfall There are no locations on the south side Close: Report Section System Planning (OSP) report was done of the tracks from Ward Road to Robb St. comment 4.4.5 for the 5 year storm since it was where there is a defined drainage path resolved determined that it was impractical larger than a curb section for accepting economically to design the storm system flows. As described in this section an to accept the entire 100 year storm. The analysis was made to locate areas where OSP design had the 5 year flows running major storm flows would cross the along the north side of the railroad and existing tracks and flow south, and the Ridge Road from Ward Road to about proposed on-site drainage system was Queen Street before the flows passed designed to reproduce this flow pattern. under the railroad. From this point to Off-site improvements might be Miller Street the flows were again necessary for minor flows. These issues collected along the north side of Ridge will be addressed by the Eagle P3 Road and routed to Miller Street where a Design team. storm sewer would take it under the tracks. The Gold Line design has included several crossing points where 100 year flows (which would also include 5 year flows) pass under the tracks and then follow the south side of the tracks until the proposed drainage ditches are shown ending. At these points there is not defined channel to the south so the flows, both minor and major, will spread out across down stream properties. The problem is that this design collects flows along the tracks and then releases them on properties that have not historically seen flows, either minor or major. This probably will result in liability problems for RTD. Need to address how these flows will continue south in a safe manor. 59 Drainage Section 7.0, additional permits that may Comment noted. Appropriate direction As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Report Section be required by Arvada in addition to will be provided to the Eagle P3 Team. provided in RFP 7.0 those listed are a Floodplain Development Permits and a Site Development Permit. 60 Drainage Sheet DM-001, Basins 121 and 122 look Basins in this area were outlined using As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Report Sheet very conservative. Most of this area, topography by the USGS that was provided in RFP DM-001 including Clarabelle Drive, slopes to the obtained from DRCOG. Further north. See basin boundaries from refinement of the basins will be Columbine Master Plan addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team.

127 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 61 Drainage Proposed Stormsewer and Culvert The replaced pipe should be called out As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Report Characteristics chart, culvert at station as a 24-inch pipe. This comment will be provided in RFP Proposed 483+20 states that it is replacing existing addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. Stormsewer with same size. This incorrect, proposed and Culvert pipe is a 48” while the existing is only a Characteristics 24” pipe.

62 Drainage Sheridan Stations calculations, on Normally only flows from onsite areas are As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Report detention pond sizing includes Offsite required to be detained. Offsite basins provided in RFP Sheridan Basins 1 and 2 however narrative are typically the responsibility of the Station indicates offsite basins will pass through offsite land owner. At Sheridan Station Calculations with the release rates from the pond the offsite basins 1 and 2 are included being adjusted. Why are these two because the detention that exists for this included? On the water quality volume area will be removed as a part of the again only Offsite Basins 1 and 2 plan. included. Since the Offsite Basins 4, 5, 6 and 7 also pass through the pond the Further design efforts will optimize the additional flows from these basins will size and location of the pipes under cause water to overtop the water quality Tennyson to reduce the impacts to the level and flow through the 5 year orifice. property on the northwest corner of the This will mean that not all of the flows will intersection. This comment will be be captured and drained in the required addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. 40 hour period reducing the water quality benefit. All of the area draining into the pond should be included to determine the water quality volume. The storm sewer flow calculations for the pipe out to Tennyson Street are incorrect. They only account for the flows from 60th Avenue south (77.1 cfs), the existing 54” storm sewer under the tracks is part of a system that extends north to W. 64th Avenue and then west to Sheridan Street. According to Update for Hidden Lake-Bates Lake Major Drainageway Planning report for the 100 year storm there is 880 cfs at Tennyson Street and the railroad tracks. This would surcharge the existing storm sewer system. On the Outfall table shows a tailwater elevation of 5257.42 for pipes into the detention pond. Since flows being used are for the 100 year storm should use 5258.99 since this is the 100 year detention water surface elevation. 63 Vol-II CU-007 Sanitary sewer listed as Arvada Private Thank you for the information As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. belongs to Ridge Home, State of coordination with the utility companies provided in RFP Colorado. City of Arvada takes no and Arvada will be addressed by the responsibility. Eagle P3 Design team.

128 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 64 Vol-II CU-012 Proposed sanitary reallignment at Carr Further design efforts will optimize the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. St. indicates greater than 90 degree turn size and location of the pipes under the provided in RFP in manhole. Propose new 10" line street to reduce costs. This comment will diagonally to the S.E. under the Allen be addressed by the Eagle P3 Design Reno Ditch. team. 65 Vol-II CU-014 Olde Wadsworth Blvd. sanitary crossing, Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. extend manhole to north, replace line by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP under tracks manhole to manhole with PVC and casing pipe by bore. 66 Vol-II CU-015 Teller St. sanitary crossing is currently Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. 10" PVC with 62 ft. of 22" x 3/8" steel by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP casing. Casing pipe would likely need to be extended to the north. 67 Vol-II CU-018 Lamar St. sanitary, extend manhole to Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. the north as well as reallignment of two by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP services that currently tie into dead end manhole from the east. 68 Vol-II CU-020 Trunk line sanitary crossings, proposed Further design efforts will optimize the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. relocation of 18" sanitary to north would size and location of the pipes under the provided in RFP tie in to section of existing abandoned street to reduce costs. This comment will line north of MH-131. 36" line currently be addressed by the Eagle P3 Design has 62 ft. of RCP Class-IV under BNSF team. track. 30 " sanitary has 40 ft. of 48" RCP casing under tracks.Casing on both likely to require extending to north. Consideration of extending the relocation of the 18" sanitary all the way to the 36" trunk line and abandoning that section of 30" trunk line. This would result in only having to extend the casing on one pipe, not both. This would exclude the ability to bypass between the two trunk lines under the tracks in the event of an emergency. 69 Vol-II CU-023 Tennyson St. sanitary crossing at point of Where RTD needs to replace existing Close: proposal is currently 30" VCP. This will culverts under the existing tracks to comment have to be replaced with appropriate maintain the integrity of the storm resolved class of RCP or with casing pipe. drainage system the culverts will be upgraded to the current standards. Where the existing culverts are functionally adequate they will not be upgraded. 70 Vol-II CU-023 Sheridan Blvd. Station, proposed 6" Further design efforts will optimize the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. sewer service line with cleanouts all the size and location of the pipes to reduce provided in RFP way to relocated existing 8" sanitary costs. This comment will be addressed main. Reconsideration to tie into City by the Eagle P3 Design team. manhole #4-19 instead. This would shorten the length of the private sewer service considerably.

129 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 71 Vol-I DS-111 Estes Ct. storm proposed 48" tying into The replaced pipe should be called out As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. existing 24". Is 48" a requirement for the as a 24-inch pipe. This comment will be provided in RFP railroad for the 100 year flood plan? addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team.

72 Vol-I DS-113 Proposed Allison St. storm shows 24" Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. would tie into existing 6" under drain for by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP approximately 208 ft. before pipe becomes 18" storm. Existing 208 ft. of 6" would need to be replaced and oversized to 18" or 24" storm pipe. 73 Vol-I DS-115 Wadsworth Station storm plan shows tie The Olde Town Station Drainage pipes As above Need clarification. in to Arvada Future 36" Storm. Is this 36" connect to existing manholes, as shown provided in RFP storm currently in place or proposed for on Drawing CG-103. Drawings will be the future? coordinated by the Eagle P3 Design Team. 74 Vol-I DS-115 Detention pond and proposed storm box Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. structure located on top of existing 10" by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP sanitary sewer line and should be redesigned further to east. 75 Vol-I DS-120 Proposed reallignment of 60" storm pipe Further design efforts will optimize the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. has 90 degree bend. Is this advisable size and location of the pipes to reduce provided in RFP under projected flow volumes? 60" storm costs. This comment will be addressed extention ties into short section of by the Eagle P3 Design team. existing 36" storm before reaching existing 60" pipe. Proposed 60" storm reallignment should continue south all the way to existing 60" storm to eliminate bottleneck. 76 Vol-I T-037 Sheridan Blvd. plans show 18" and 36" Noted. This comment will be addressed As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. storm locations reversed. The 36" storm by the Eagle P3 Design team. provided in RFP is east of the 18" storm pipe.

77 Vol-I DS-123 Tennyson St. proposed new storm sewer Further design efforts will optimize the As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. ties into existing 54" storm at greater size and location of the pipes to reduce provided in RFP than 90 degrees. Not advisable. What costs. This comment will be addressed kind of projected volumes will new storm by the Eagle P3 Design team. carry in view of previous capacity issues on existing storm line? 80 Miller St ADA features should be added Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Crossing by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment resolved

81 Independence Same as Miller St comments plus - Agreed, this is also a PUC requirement. RFP/IGA City of Arvada to provide cross section. Future discussion required. St Crossing existing sidewalk should be widened Information from City of Arvada requried from 4' to 8'. The City will be providing to proceed. bike lanes on both sides of Independence.

130 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 82 Street Sign should be provided to show cyclists Addressing grade crossing signage As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. crossings from how to safety cross the tracks. Railroad design details occurs after the 30% provided in RFP Miller to Lamar deck should be wide enough to deisgn phase. This comment will be accommodate bikes and peds, especially addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. given that these will be quiet zones. Roadway widening improvements as suggested would result in impacts to existing RR crossing (crossing panels), additional RR coordination (possibly longer design/construction schedule), additonal impacts to properties and utilities, adverse impacts to grading and driveway profiles, and possibly additional ROW. 83 Traffic Signals - There is not enough information to Addressing traffic signal design details Close: general comment on the future traffic signal - occurs after the 30% deisgn phase. This comment signal plans must meet City of Arvada comment will be addressed by the Eagle resolved specifications. Video bicycle detection P3 Design team. should be included at all signals as well as advance bicycle detection signs and pavement marking. 84 CS-102 Arvada The City of Arvada Land Development Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Ridge Station Code requires that parking stalls are 19’ by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment in length unless there is a continuous resolved curb or wheel stop at the head of the stall, in which case they can be reduced to 16.5’ in length. If the continuous curb is attached to a sidewalk, the width of the sidewalk must allow for 2’ of overhand and 5’ of clear walk, or a minimum of 7’ sidewalk. 85 CS-102 Arvada Handicap ramps should be provided at Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Ridge Station the head of the loading zones for the by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment handicap parking stalls. Handicap access resolved should not require traveling behind or around other parked vehicles. 86 CS-103 Olde Handicap ramps should be provided at Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Town Station the head of the loading zones for the by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment handicap parking stalls. Handicap access resolved should not require traveling behind or around other parked vehicles 87 CS-103 Olde Handicap ramps should be provided at Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Town Station the head of the loading zones for the by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment handicap parking stalls. No ramps are resolved shown in the vicinity of the handicap parking stalls. 88 CS-105 Handicap ramps should be provided at Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Sheridan the head of the loading zones for the by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment Station handicap parking stalls. Handicap access resolved should not require traveling behind or

131 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) around other parked vehicles.

89 CS-105 The plan shows 314 parking spaces. The Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: Sheridan City of Arvada Land Development Code by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment Station requires 8 handicap parking spaces for resolved that number of parking stalls, but only 6 are provided. Please provide 2 additional handicap spaces. 90 CS-105 The City prefers that access to the Station site doesn't have room to As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. Sheridan property just west (sprinkler business) of negotiate with the grade difference for provided in RFP Station the Wolff Street extension be eliminated the access to be designed as described and access provided by a full intersection in the comment. where the T intersection is shown to provide access to the property just west of the extension. 91 Intersection of The DEIS shows the need to add three The comment misinterprets the DEIS, Close: Sheridan and turn lanes -NBRT, EBRT, WBLT - the only one lane is added to the roadways, comment W. 60th plans only show the addition of the NBRT the other lanes are created through re- resolved lane. All turns lanes should be striping. constructed and included in the 30% plans. The FEIS shows mitigation required for this intersection is to construct a westbound 60th Ave left turn (which will be developed by restriping and converting thru/left to just thru lane) and a northbound Sheridan right turn lane. This design will need to be revisited to address the modifications to Sheridan Blvd if CDOT proceeds with the replacement of the bridge over the RR. This comment will be addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. 92 W. 55th and DEIS shows a 4 way stop needed in With the full movement IGA Olde Wads 2015 and a signal by 2030. Neither are access improvement at 56th Ave and shown in the plans. A signal should be Wadsworth Bypass being designed by constructed for opening day. the City some of the improvements near the station identified in the DEIS are no longer required. Hence, in the FEIS the improvements to 55th Olde Wadsworth, 55th and Vance, and 55th and Wads Bypass, are no longer called out.

132 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 93 W. 55th and The DEIS shows a signal in 2030 with an With the full movement IGA Because we are not certain that CDOT will approve a signal as 56th and SH 121, this Vance St added EBLT lane; conversion of the access improvement at 56th Ave and aspect of the design must be included in the IGA existing EBLT lane to a shared Wadsworth Bypass being designed by through/left and the dedicated through the City some of the improvements near lane will become a left turn lane. Nothing the station identified in the DEIS are no is shown in the plans. longer required. Hence, in the FEIS the improvements to 55th Olde Wadsworth, 55th and Vance, and 55th and Wads Bypass, are no longer called out. 94 W. 55th and The DEIS shows the addition of an EBLT With the full movement IGA Because we are not certain that CDOT will approve a signal as 56th and SH 121, this Wadsworth lane with protected/permissive EBLT and access improvement at 56th Ave and aspect of the design must be included in the IGA Bypass WBLT. Nothing is shown in the plans. Wadsworth Bypass being designed by the City some of the improvements near the station identified in the DEIS are no longer required. Hence, in the FEIS the improvements to 55th Olde Wadsworth, 55th and Vance, and 55th and Wads Bypass, are no longer called out. 95 Ridge and The added NBLT and additional vehicle In the DEIS, it was assumed that the Lee IGA and RFP The PUC has decided that Lee is closed so the improvements at Miller are needed. Miller St storage that are shown in the DEIS are St crossing of the railroad was going to not shown in the plans. be closed. The resulting increased traffic on Miller to access the station required the improvements identified in the DEIS. Because in was assumed in the FEIS that the Lee Street at-grade crossing would be open, our recommendations were focused on Lee Street. No improvements are identified for Miller Street in the FEIS. This set of assumptions will need to be revisited if the PUC does not approve the opening of the Lee Street at-grade crossing. 96 Sheridan NBRT The plans for this turn lane do not agree The plans do not reflect CDOT Sheridan As above Information will be provided in the Eagle P3 RFP to the bidding concessionaires. with CDOT's plans for the replacement of bridge replacement plans as they were provided in RFP the Sheridan Bridge. not available at the time the 30% design was completed. Coordination between CDOT/RTD has been on-going. The Eagle P3 Design Team will continue coordination with CDOT to address Sheridan improvements. 97 Retaining Walls too high Retaining wall heights are determined by Close: the site conditions. Please provide comment specific locations where the walls are resolved perceived to be too high for a more meaningful response. 98 CS-103 Olde Sidewalks should be provided on Vance Existing sidewalks along Vance will be Close: Part of attachment 9 of the RFP, restoration of property. Town Station Street maintained, or replaced if they are comment impacted by construction activities. resolved

133 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 99 General The Arvada Comprehensive Plan This is also a PUC requirement. As above RTD's responsibility Comment focuses on two priorities for pedestrian Sidewalks will be provided within RTD's provided in RFP travel: (1) Provide connections between ROW at all crossing - which will meet developments and other travel modes, PUC requirements. and (2) Establish pedestrian-friendly areas throughout the City. The Comp Plan also recommends continuing to identify and complete missing segments of the sidewalk system where funding allows. For these reasons, whenever the RR crosses a street at-grade, the crossing should be wide enough to accommodate future sidewalks on both sides of the street. Where sidewalks exist along the intersecting roadway corridor, the sidewalk facilities should be extended across the RR right-of-way concurrent with the FasTracks improvements. 100 General Similarly, all intersecting streets that are Widening the travel lanes beyond what As above City of Arvada to provide cross section. Future discussion required. Comment identified to include bicycle lanes in the exists today constitutes a betterment. provided in RFP Comprehensive Plan’s Major Bicycle and The cost of that betterment needs to be Trails Corridor Plan and/or the City of borne by the City. Such roadway Arvada Parks and Open Space Master widening improvements will result in Plan should include adequate width at impacts to existing RR crossing (crossing the RR crossing to provide a continuous panels), additional RR coordination bicycle lane treatment. (possibly longer design/construction schedule), additonal impacts to properties and utilities, adverse impacts to grading and driveway profiles, and possibly additional ROW. 101 General The MUTCD has signing and pavement Per PUC requirements, sidewalks goes Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment marking guidelines to address vehicular around gates. comment traffic needs at railroad crossings. resolved However, because specific guidelines are not provided to address pedestrian and bicyclist needs, jurisdictions are currently implementing strategies and measures that they deem appropriate. At RR crossings that are proposed to provide gates, consider having the gate arm lower across the sidewalk as well as street, rather than routing the sidewalk out around the signal pole. Following guidance for light rail transit found in TCRP Report 17, where right-of-way conditions permit, the vehicle automatic gate should be located behind the sidewalk (on the side that is away from the curb), so that the arm will extend across the sidewalk, blocking the

134 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) pedestrian way while the train is passing. Gate arms have a standard length of 32 feet and a maximum of 38 feet, both of which can span two travel lanes plus sidewalk.

102 General The design of pedestrian track crossings Addressing those details occurs after the Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment at the station platforms shall ensure that 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be comment a person who has dismounted their addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. resolved bicycle and is walking it onto the train has adequate width to pass through the bollards at the proposed swing gates and/or adequate turning radii to maneuver through the proposed bedstead barriers. 103 General Independence Street – Continuous Per PUC requirements, sidewalks shall Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment sidewalks and bicycle lane treatments be provided to the limits of RTD's ROW. comment should extend across the RR right-of-way resolved to link with existing facilities. Consideration should be given to using advance stop bars and marked crosswalks at the Independence/Ridge intersection. 104 General Garrison Street – There is a gap in the Per PUC requirements, sidewalks shall Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment existing sidewalk system across the RR be provided to the limits of RTD's ROW. comment right-of-way which should be completed. resolved Since Garrison is proposed to be a shared-roadway bicycle route, no additional RR crossing width is required for on-street bike lanes. 105 General Carr Street, Balsam Street, Allison Street Per PUC requirements, sidewalks shall Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment – Since these corridors have existing be provided to the limits of RTD's ROW. comment sidewalks to the north, the pedestrian resolved accommodation should be continued across the RR right-of-way. Future roadway improvements south of the RR should include the construction of sidewalks in each corridor. In addition, the RR crossing treatment at Balsam Street should consider the future addition

135 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) of bicycle lanes within this corridor.

106 General Olde Wadsworth Boulevard – Noted. This comment will be addressed Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment Construction of a new rail crossing shall by the Eagle P3 Design team. comment retain the Olde Town style of sidewalks. resolved Bicyclists may share roadway lanes with no improvements necessary. 107 General Vance Street – Sidewalk connections It is anticipated that sidewalks across the Close: RTD must meet PUC requirements Comment across the RR right-of-way shall be tracks will be provided on both the east comment retained on both sides of the street. The and west sides of Vance. resolved pedestrian bridge will serve FasTracks park-and-ride users and bus patrons Stairs are introduced into the sidewalk on transferring to commuter rail, but the east side of Vance. There is an ADA sidewalks are needed to provide compliant pedestrian path provided continuous north/south pedestrian through the upper-level pedestrian access along the street. access near the elevator for pedestrians to circumnavigate the stairs if needed. 108 General Reed Street – No need for pedestrian The grade crossing is shown to be Close: Comment accommodation at this crossing (approx. eliminated. comment Station 410+00) resolved

109 General Lamar Street – Because the corridor has Per PUC requirements, sidewalks shall RFP/IGA City of Arvada to provide cross section. Future discussion required. Comment sidewalks and bike lane treatments to the be provided to the limits of RTD's ROW. north, extra width accommodation should City of Arvada to provide cross section be provided to continue these facilities for future discussion. across the tracks. The Gold Line design plans to eliminate the right-turn lane and tighten the turning radii at the Grandview/Lamar intersection will be an improvement to bicycling conditions through this intersection. 110 General Tennyson Street – Sidewalks should Per PUC requirements, sidewalks shall RFP/IGA City of Arvada to provide cross section. Future discussion required. Comment continue across the RR right-of-way. On- be provided to the limits of RTD's ROW. street bike lanes/paved shoulders are City of Arvada to provide cross section recommended to be implemented on for future discussion. Tennyson between W. 64th Avenue and the access to the regional Clear Creek Trail. 111 Fencing Arvada previously indicated that it The FEIS shows the locations of the Close: RTD agrees to chain link fence wanted post and cable fencing from fencing as agreed upon by Arvada and comment Lamar to Miller Street and at Ralston RTD. resolved Creek crossing. Current plans call for chain link from Kipling to Carr Street.

136 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 112 Fencing Demoliton plans indicate removal of Detailed coordination with property Close: Part of attachment 9 of the RFP, restoration of property. some wood privacy fences along south owners impacted by the proposed comment side of tracks (between Carr and construction normally occurs after the resolved Independence) with chain link proposed 30% deisgn phase. Fencing replacement to secure the rail line. Privacy fences is included in that coordination effort. should be replaced in addition to having This comment will be addressed by the whatever type of fencing for security. Eagle P3 Design team. 113 Retaining Walls Need to see detail as to color and Addressing those details occurs after the Close: texture. 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be comment addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. resolved

114 Retaining Walls Earth tone coloring is needed and larger Addressing those details occurs after the Close: wall need some sort of texture treatment 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be comment addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. resolved

115 Landscaping It would appear the Gold Line It is RTD's goal to replace trees, when at Close: construction east of Wadsworth Bypass all possible/feasible, impacted by the comment will result in the removal of several large project. resolved trees located south of Grandview. RTD should plant new trees with no net reduction in the overall number of caliber inches. 116 Bridge Structures should have a earth tone Addressing those details occurs after the Close: Structures color. The rail bridge over Wadsworth 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be comment Bypass should be coordinated with the addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. resolved design of the grade separation bridge in terms of color, materials and fencing. 117 Kipling Station The station and utility layout should be Noted. This comment will be addressed RFP coordinated with the Arvada Ridge Third by the Eagle P3 Design team. Amendment PDP now under review.

118 Kipling Station Need to locate a least a portion of the Noted. However there are public safety RFP bike racks just south of Ridge Road to issues associated with the placement of accommodate cyclists traveling to station bicycle racks that need to be evaluated on Ridge Road (current plans only also. This comment will be addressed by include bike racks south of tracks which the Eagle P3 Design team. forces a cyclist using Ridge Road to cross the pedestrian bridge and park their bike south of tracks and then go back over the bridge to the station.

137 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 119 Kipling Station Examine how to provide bike lanes or Complying with this comment would Close: paved shoulders at Ridge Road bridge require significant improvements to the comment over Kipling. existing Kipling Bridge. Ridge road will resolved not be impacted by the Gold Line project. In addition, widening the bridge to the north may reduce the vertical clearances for Kipling under Ridge. This could result in substandard clearances which CDOT will not allow.

Widening the travel lanes beyond what exists today constitutes a betterment. The cost of that betterment needs to be borne by the City. Such roadway widening improvements will result in impacts to existing RR crossing (crossing panels), additional RR coordination (possibly longer design/construction schedule), additonal impacts to properties and utilities, adverse impacts to grading and driveway profiles, and possibly additional ROW. 120 Kipling Station Very unclear as how kiss and ride drop Passenger drop off along Ridge Road Close: off will be handled for those coming from will be prohibited. All arriving in cars comment either west on Ridge Road. Current plans patrons will be directed to access the resolved don’t include a sidewalk on south side of station through the parking lot. Ridge Road, forcing those folks to drop off south of tracks. This adds vehicle miles and make it much more inconvenient for transit riders being dropped off as they must then traverse the pedestrian bridge to reach platform.

138 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 121 Miller Street Proposed curb and gutter to The Miller Street intersection and at- RFP/IGA accommodate signal gate post and a grade crossing configuration will be right turn lane at the Miller/Ridge Road finalized by the Eagle P3 Design Team. intersection should not neck down the The current design of the Miller Street at- southbound roadway width to prohibit grade crossing and intersection continuation of the existing bicycle lanes geometrics were based on the plans on Miller. Sidewalks are currently lacking provided by the Arvada Ridge across the RR right-of-way, but are Developer's Engineer (TST Inc of Denver present to the north and south. This gap Consulting Engineers) design of Miller needs to be completed. Street for the interim and final phases for the Arvada Ridge Development. (The Miller Street concepts were provided by Taylor Goertz on February 2, 2009 toward the end of the Gold Line 30% design.) Miller Street was modified to tie into the developer's design to be built prior to Gold Line construction. The final roadway section will include continous sidewalk across the tracks (south to the Arvada Ridge Development and north to the Ridge/Miller Intersection) and will provide the same roadway width (36 feet for NB/SB thru lanes and WB left turn lane) and section with curb & gutter and sidewalk designed by the developer per agreement with Arvada and Wheat Ridge. The current design provides a larger curve radius at the SW corner of the intersection to allow for the construction of the raised islands for the insertion of gates and right turn lane while maintaining a 12' lane across Ridge Road. 122 Lee Street Sidewalk is present on the west side If the PUC allows the grade crossing at Closed Lee Street crossing not allowed by PUC only. If Lee Street is to be continued by Lee St to re-open, the PUC requirements the City or private developer into the for controlling pedestrian access across TOD site, the sidewalk needs to also the tracks at Lee required that there continue across the RR right-of-way. should not be any sidewalks across the Pedestrian crosswalks should be tracks and that all pedestrians should provided on all legs of the Lee/Ridge use the pedestrian bridge being provided intersection to facilitate both connection by the GL project. The design will be to the FasTracks station and continuous modified by the Eagle P3 Design Team pedestrian travel along Lee Street when after the PUC decision is finalized. trains are not blocking the intersection. 123 Arvada Ridge Provide appropriate signing per MUTCD Addressing those details occurs after the Closed Station at the mid-block pedestrian crossing of 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be Ridge Road. addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team.

139 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 124 Arvada Ridge We cannot tell from the plans: Is there is Yes, a pedestrian can walk up the north Closed Station a way to access the platform from the platform through the ramp at the west crosswalk at the Ridge/Lee intersection, end of the platform. From the south or must a pedestrian travel west to gain pedestrians must use the pedestrian access at the mid-block crossing bridge to cross the tracks then access location? the platforms using the ramps.

125 Arvada Ridge Consider adding bicycle parking racks Noted. However there are public safety RFP Station near the Ridge Road pedestrian crossing issues associated with the placement of for use by bicyclists accessing the station bicycle racks that need to be evaluated from the north side of the tracks. This will also. This comment will be addressed by eliminate the need for bicyclists to take the Eagle P3 Design team. bikes up in the elevators over the pedestrian bridge, lock them up on the south side of the tracks, and then go back over the pedestrian bridge to board the train. 126 Arvada Ridge On the south side at the parking and bus Noted. This comment will be addressed RFP Station plaza, pedestrians should not be forced by the Eagle P3 Design team. into an indirect travel pattern around the park-and-ride site. Curb cuts and a crosswalk should be provided at the entrance to permit pedestrian access to the internal north/south walkway. 127 Arvada Ridge Bicycle locker placement is somewhat Noted. However there are public safety RFP RFP Station indirect and inconvenient since most issues associated with the placement of bicyclists will be arriving to the site from bicycle lockers that need to be evaluated the west and south. A location near the also. This comment will be addressed by center entrance would be preferred. If the the Eagle P3 Design team. location cannot be moved, at minimum, there needs to be a curb cut provided to access the lockers from the one-way street. 128 Arvada Ridge Bicyclists will want future access to the Due to the steep slope west of the station Closed Arvada Ridge Third Amendment PDP provides opportunity for access which must be Station bus plaza from Miller Street to the west. site, stairs will be needed for accessing coordinated with future transit village site plan A future curb cut will be needed on the that side of the plaza. This improvement west end of the station site to make this may be provided once the adjacent land non-motorized connection. is developed and the need for pedestrian access exists. 129 Arvada Ridge Internal to the TOD site along new Design of the TOD site is beyond the Closed Station streets, future sidewalk development scope of the Gold Line project. shall be detached from the curb and shall provide a pair of perpendicular curb ramps instead of a single diagonal curb ramp at the corner.

140 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 130 Ridge Road City to provide warning signage at Widening the Ridge Rd Bridge over Closed narrow bridge sign at Kipling bridge is a city project. narrow bridge and continue to explore Kipling to the north may reduce the long-term feasibility of adding paved vertical clearances for Kipling under shoulders or bicycle lanes. Due to Ridge. This could result in substandard proximity of the rail corridor, it is clearances which CDOT will not allow. acceptable to provide a sidewalk only along the north side of Ridge Road. The current detached sidewalk along the north side of Ridge Rd between Kipling & Lee can be widenend or modified at the City's expense, the utility ipacts from that effort are unknown.

Due to the limited clearance between the station platform and the Ridge Rd ROW providing a southern sidewalk between the bridge and Lee street is not practial and would probably be unsaffe for pedestrians. Therefore widening the Ridge Road bridge to the south to provide a sidewalk would serve no purpose as the sidewalk would not connet to anything. 131 Olde Town 2030 site plan should reflect a parking The design of the 2030 parking structure IGA IGA to address Arvada/RTD coordination on placement, design of future parking Station and structure moved up to the street with will be determined in the future. Moving structure, including possibility of internal bus ciculation. Environs internal bus circulation bus circulation off of the proposed 56th Ave into the structure is not geometrically or operationally feasible due to the site constraints. Arvada and RTD had meetings about the site configuration and it was agreed upon that bus drop offs on street would be accomodated for in Arvada's design of the roadway. 132 Olde Town Plans need to reflect intent to build The final archtectural styles are to be IGA IGA to address how RTD will work with City to design station shelter to reflect a historic Station and station platform per discussions with city determined and designed during Final motiff consistent with the model prepared by Kip Davis. Environs (a unique style fitting Olde Town) Design per resource mitigation notes and other requirements as described on resource mitigation Sheet and CS-100. Please refer to the FEIS for the general conceptual style for Olde Town as agreed to by the City and RTD. RTD understands that this design will be further evaluated in Arvada's design review process. 133 Olde Town Improvements within the Olde Town Noted. This comment will be addressed IGA Requirement for design review approval to be included in IGA. Station and Historic District and Conservation Area by the Eagle P3 Design team. Environs need to be reviewed by the Olde Town Design Review Committee.

141 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 134 Olde Town W. 56th Avenue is the preferred bicycling The design of 56th Avenue is being RFP Station corridor to provide citywide system performed by consultants hired by the connections to the east. As such, the City of Arvada. The Gold Line design will design of the proposed W. 56th Avenue be refined to address the design extension should accommodate bicyclist provided by the City. This will be use, including permitting access through addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. the center median on the Wadsworth Bypass. If possible, a full-movement, signalized intersection is desired for improved multimodal connectivity to the Olde Town station for both buses and bikes. However, if there is no east/west connectivity, bicycle access to the Olde Town bus plaza will most likely be north/south via Vance Street. 135 Olde Town Continuous east/west sidewalks should The design of 56th Avenue is being RFP Station be provided along W. 56th Avenue to performed by consultants hired by the provide pedestrian connectivity between City of Arvada. The Gold Line design will the walkway systems along Wadsworth be refined to address the design Bypass and Vance Street. provided by the City. This will be addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team.

136 Olde Town Provide bike parking both at the station There are 7 bike racks provided near the RFP city still wants some racks closer to station platform Station platform off of Grandview and near the east ramp to platform. The 3-rack at bus loading area down at 56th Avenue is park-n-ride can be moved closer to 56th desirable. However, more than three bike ave., closer to bike lockers. The number racks will likely be needed at the bus of bike facilities were projected by RTD. transfer site. Minor adjustment (increase or reallocate) of the bike facilities can be coordinated with the Eagle P3 Design team. 137 Sheridan The Wolff Street extension should be Design of the station access to City IGA City doesn't agree with designer feedback. Access to station will be viewed as extension Station built per public streets standards with Street standards is beyond the scope of of Wolff street and must be to city standards- address in IGA detached sidewalks and a tree lawn and the Gold Line project. Also the impacts to trees. The east/west drive aisle providing adjacent property owners and local access to parking should also be utilities from a change like that is likely to designed as a public street. be extensive.

138 Sheridan Need to coordinate design of connection Addressing those details normally occurs RFP Station to parcel to east of Wolff with Traffic and after the 30% deisgn phase. This Fire Departments. comment will be addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team. 139 Sheridan Examine whether the Wolff Street Station site doesn't have room to RFP Discussion with RTD indicate this is possbile and a good idea. Include in RFP Station connection should provide access to negotiate with the grade difference for parcel west of Wolff Street. the access to be designed as described in the comment. 140 Sheridan Need to see detail for the paralleling Addressing those details occurs after the IGA Include in IGA that there will be design review of the paralleling station to ensure that Station station 30% deisgn phase. This comment will be visual impact are mitigated appropriately. addressed by the Eagle P3 Design team.

142 OCTOBER 2009

No. Reference Comment Designer Feedback Resolution Response (items in Red are responses from Arvada to RTD) 141 Sheridan An east-west sidewalk along 60th Providing sidewalks beyond what exists RFP RTD frontage along West 60th is small but we want sidewalks to connect and 60th Station Avenue should be continued across the today constitutes a betterment. The cost sidewalk, not matter how small is important if we insist on sidewalk along west side of northernmost portion of the RTD site. of that betterment needs to be borne by Wolff Street extension. the City. The current Gold Line grade crossing design matches existing sidewalk widths. Adding sidewalk where no sidewalk exists or widing a sidewalk will most likely adversely impact multiple properties, grading/utilities, private driveways and possibly require additional ROW. Impacts to properties and additonal ROW acquisition result in increased project schedule, higher construction costs and possibly deminished public perception of the project. 142 Sheridan Bicyclists will most likely ride on the Noted. This comment will be addressed RFP Station internal drive rather than on the sidewalk by the Eagle P3 Design team. with its sharp turning radii. An additional curb ramp should be provided near the one-way bus loop to provide direct access from the street to the bike parking. 143 Sheridan Bicycle parking racks and lockers should Noted. This comment will be addressed RFP Station be located within the station sites such by the Eagle P3 Design team. that bicyclists are not forced to maneuver around pedestrians on sidewalks. Additional curb cuts should be provided near all bicycle parking facilities to allow bicyclists direct access from the street.

143 OCTOBER 2009 GOLD LINE RECORD OF DECISION

Attachment to Comment # 79 from City of Wheat Ridge Hours of Cycle Service Frequency Headway # of Trains Operation Duration Each Way Total Each Way Total Each Way Total 4:00 am – 1:15 hrs 2/hr 4/hr 30 min 15 min 3 6 5:15 am 5:15 am – 0:45 hrs 4/hr 8/hr 15 min 7.5 min 3 6 6:00 am 6:00 am – 2:30 hrs 8/hr 16/hr 7.5 min 3.75 min 20 40 8:30 am 8:30 am – 0:30 hrs 6/hr 12/hr 10 min 5 min 3 6 9:00 am 9:00 am – 6:30 hrs 4/hr 8/hr 15 min 7.5 min 26 52 3:30 pm 3:30 pm – 3:00 hrs 8/hr 16/hr 7.5 min 3.75 min 24 48 6:30 pm 6:30 pm – 0:30 hrs 6/hr 12/hr 10 min 5 min 3 6 7:00 pm 7:00 pm – 2:00 hrs 4/hr 8/hr 15 min 7.5 min 8 16 9:00 pm 9:00 pm – 3:30 hrs 2/hr 4/hr 30 min 15 min 7 14 12:30 am 12:30 am – 3:30 hrs 0/hr 0/hr NA NA 0 0 4:00 pm Total 97 194

144 OCTOBER 2009

Attachment to Comment # 95 from City of Wheat Ridge

Bus Route Route Service Frequency # of Buses Route Cycle Direction West East West East West East 52f Peak EW on 2/hr 2/hr 30 min 30 min 4/hr 4/hr Off-Peak 52nd 2/hr 2/hr 30 min 30 min 4/hr 4/hr 72f Peak N on Ward 4/hr 0/hr 15 min 0 min 8/hr 0/hr Off-Peak 2/hr 0/hr 30 min 0 min 4/hr 0/hr 117 Peak S on Ward 2/hr 0/hr 30 min 0 min 4/hr 0/hr Off-Peak 2/hr 0/hr 30 min 0 min 4/hr 0/hr 125 Peak NS on 4/hr 0/hr 15 min 0 min 16/hr 0/hr Off-Peak Ward 2/hr 0/hr 30 min 0 min 8/hr 0/hr 44L Peak S on Ward 2/hr 0/hr 30 min 0 min 4/hr 0/hr Off-Peak 0/hr 0/hr 0 min 0 min 0/hr 0/hr Total Peak NA 14/hr 2/hr NA NA 36/hr 4/hr Off-Peak 8/hr 2/hr NA NA 20/hr 4/hr

145 OCTOBER 2009