DOCSLIB.ORG

FASTLANE US550 Application

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FASTLANE US550 Application April 14, 2016 Cover Page US 550 Previously Incurred Project Cost $55,700,000 (73% state) Future Eligible Project Cost $197,500,000 Total Project Cost $253,200,000 NSF HP Request $113,000,000 Total Federal Funding (including NSFHP) $141,200,000 (72% fed) Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, which No one? Is the project or a portion of the project currently located on National No Highway Freight Network? Is the project or a portion of the project located on the National Highway Yes, on National Highway System. System? Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? Project adds capacity but not to the interstate system. Is the project in a national scenic area? No, it is not in a national scenic area. Do the project components include a railway-highway grade crossing or No grade separation project? Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail project, or No freight project within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, how much N/A of requested NSFHP funds will be spent on each of these project s components? State(s) in which project is located Colorado Small or large project Large Also submitting an application to TIGER for this project? No Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable N/A Population of Urbanized Area N/A Is the project currently programmed in the: Project is currently in: . TIP . State Long-range Transportation . STIP Plan . MPO Long Range Transportation Plan . State Freight Plan . State Long Range Transportation Plan Components of the project have been in the STIP since 1997. State Freight Plan? April 14, 2016 iii Contents Page No. ES. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 A. Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 2 B. Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 6 C. Project Parties ....................................................................................................................................... 6 D. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of Project Funds ................................................................................ 6 E. Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................ 7 Summary of Benefit Cost Analysis ................................................................................................... 7 Estimation of Project Benefits ..................................................................................................... 8 F. Project Readiness ............................................................................................................................... 10 Long-standing Commitment to US 550 and US 160 ...................................................................... 10 Technical Feasibility ....................................................................................................................... 11 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 12 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 13 Environmental Permits and Reviews ........................................................................................ 13 State and Local Approvals ........................................................................................................ 14 State and Local Planning .......................................................................................................... 14 Assessment of Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies ................................................................. 15 G. Merit Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Economic Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 15 Increases Global Economic Competitiveness .......................................................................... 16 Improves Connectivity Between Freight Modes of Transportation ........................................... 17 Improves Roadways Vital to National Energy Security ............................................................ 17 Facilitates Freight Movement across Land Border Crossings .................................................. 17 Addresses the Impact of Population Growth on the Movement of People and Freight ............ 17 Mobility Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 18 State of Good Repair ................................................................................................................ 18 Resiliency .................................................................................................................................. 19 Congestion and Bottlenecks ..................................................................................................... 19 Safety Outcomes ............................................................................................................................ 20 Community and Environmental Outcomes .................................................................................... 21 Minimizes Harm to Communities and the Environment ............................................................ 21 Extends Benefits to the Human and Natural Environment ....................................................... 22 Enhances Personal Mobility and Accessibility .......................................................................... 22 Reduces Negative Effects of Existing Infrastructure ................................................................ 23 Removes Barriers ..................................................................................................................... 23 Avoids Harm to the Human and Natural Environment .............................................................. 23 Uses Design Improvements to Enhance Access and Environmental Quality .......................... 23 Reflects Meaningful Community Input ...................................................................................... 23 H. Other Review Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 24 Partnerships ................................................................................................................................... 24 Innovation ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Cost Share ..................................................................................................................................... 25 I. Federal Wage Rate Certificate .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. April 14, 2016 i Appendices (attached as separate documents) Appendix A. References Appendix B. Benefit Cost Analysis Supplementary Documentation Appendix C. Letters of Support Appendix D. Detailed Statement of Work, Project Cost, and Schedule Appendix E. Traffic and Safety Technical Assumptions Appendix F: CDOT Letter of Funding Commitment Tables Table 1. Benefits of Project Elements ....................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Sources of Funds ........................................................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Uses of Funds ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 4. Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Results .................................................................................... 8 Table 5. Qualitative Benefits Associated with Improvement ................................................................... 10 Table 6. Project Costs ............................................................................................................................. 12 Table 7. Project Milestones to Date ........................................................................................................ 13 Table 8. Status of Environmental Permits and Reviews ......................................................................... 14 Table 9. Potential Project Risks .............................................................................................................. 15 April 14, 2016 ii ES. Executive Summary US 550 is the only direct continuous north-south route in western Colorado. It is a designated Colorado freight corridor between Grand Junction, Colorado (where it connects to I-70 and Utah), and Albuquerque, New Mexico (where it connects to I- 25 and I-40). It is recognized in numerous planning documents as a critical corridor in the southwestern United States. US 550 is a critical transportation link for the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROUND the BEND TEAM Being Through Our Efforts
    Round the bend Farm A CENTER FOR RESTORATIVE COMMUNITY 1 LETTER FROM THE It’s been an AMAZING monarch year for us here at RTB. We even offered CO-VISIONARIES a monarch class in July Desa & Nia Van Laarhoven and we’ve been hatching & Geoff Kinder some at RTB to increase s fall descends on Round the Bend Farm their odds. (RTB), vivid colors mark the passage of time. Autumn’s return grounds us amid Aeach day’s frenetic news cycles. It reminds us of the deeper cycle that connects us all to the earth and to each other. And yet one news story, from late September, has done the same. More than 7.5 million people came together in cities and villages across the planet to call in unison for an environmentally just and sustainable world. This is a story that speaks to RTB’s mission and purpose and demonstrates the concept of Restorative Community that’s so central to our existence. You can see it in the image that juxtaposed September’s global crowds with the prior year’s solitary Swedish protester. You can hear it in the words spoken by an Indigenous Brazilian teen to 250,000 people lining the streets of New York City. Restorative Community is a force multiplier for our own personal commitments to justice, health and peace. It nurtures and supports us as individuals, unites and strengthens us as a movement and harnesses our differences in service of our common goals. In community, we respect, enjoy and learn from each other. As you page through this year’s annual report, we hope you experience the same! We’re This past year, we continued to expand our inspired and encouraged by what we’ve Restorative Community at RTB, more than accomplished this year and we’re honored to doubling the number of people who visited serve our community in ever new ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Best Practices for Ios Devices On
    White Paper Enterprise Best Practices for iOS devices and Mac computers on Cisco Wireless LAN Updated: January 2018 © 2018 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This document is Cisco Public. Page 1 of 51 Contents SCOPE .............................................................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 4 WIRELESS LAN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................... 5 RF Design Guidelines for iOS devices and Mac computers on Cisco WLAN ........................................................ 5 RF Design Recommendations for iOS devices and Mac computers on Cisco WLAN ........................................... 6 Wi-Fi Channel Coverage .................................................................................................................................. 7 ClientLink Beamforming ................................................................................................................................ 10 Wi-Fi Channel Bandwidth ............................................................................................................................. 10 Data Rates .................................................................................................................................................... 12 802.1X/EAP Authentication ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 FASTLANE Grant Program
    IH-35 Laredo Bundle FASTLANE Grant Application i. COVER PAGE Project Name: IH-35 – Laredo Bundle Previously Incurred Project Cost $0 Future Eligible Project Cost $58,600,000 Total Project Cost $58,600,000 NSFHP Request $35,160,000 Total Federal Funding (including NSFHP) $46,880,000 Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? No If so, which one? Is the project or a portion of the project currently located on National Highway Yes Freight Network? Is the project or a portion of the project located on the National Highway System Yes Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? No Is the project in a national scenic area? Do the project components include a railway-highway grade crossing or grade Yes separation project? Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail project, No or freight project within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, how much of $0.0 requested NSFHP funds will be spent on each of these projects components? State(s) in which project is located. Texas Small or large project Small Also submitting an application to TIGER for this project? No Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable. Laredo Population of Urbanized Area. 636,520 Is the project currently programmed in the: (please specify in which plans the project is currently programmed) TIP No STIP No MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Yes State Long Range Transportation Plan Yes State Freight Plan No i ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Residential Provisions of the 2015 IECC for Connecticut
    PNNL-24972 Rev-1 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Residential Provisions of the 2015 IECC for Connecticut February 2016 VV Mendon M Zhao ZT Taylor E Poehlman Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Residential Provisions of the 2015 IECC for Connecticut VV Mendon M Zhao ZT Taylor E Poehlman February 2016 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 *Authors’ Note The present report is a revision of a previous report of the same name published in October 2015. The previous report was revised to update numbers reported in certain results tables. PNNL-24972 Rev-1 Acronyms and Abbreviations BC3 Building Component Cost Community BECP Building Energy Codes Program CPI Consumer Price Index DOE U.S. Department of Energy EIA Energy Information Administration ERI Energy Rating Index ICC International Code Council IECC International Energy Conservation Code LCC Life-Cycle Cost NAHB National Association of Home Builders PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1 PNNL-24972 Rev-1 Highlights The 2015 IECC provides cost-effective savings for residential buildings in Connecticut. Moving to the 2015 IECC from the 2009 IECC base code is cost- effective for residential buildings in all climate zones in Connecticut. The average statewide economic impact (per dwelling unit) of upgrading to the 2015 IECC is shown in the table below based on typical cost-effectiveness metrics. 1 Metric Compared to the 2009 IECC Life-cycle cost savings of the 2015 $8175.03 IECC Simple payback period of the 2015 3.5 years IECC Net annual consumer cash flow in $423.80 year 1 of the 2015 IECC2 Annual (first year) energy cost $552.97 savings of the 2015 IECC ($) Annual (first year) energy cost 19.6% savings of the 2015 IECC (%) 1 A weighted average is calculated across all climate zones in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Statewide Freight Plan
    November 2017 Connecticut Statewide Freight Plan This page intentionally left blank. LIST OF ACRONYMS AHTD – Annual Hours of Truck Delay ATA – American Trucking Association BPA – Bridgeport Port Authority CIP – Capital Improvement Plan CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program CNG – Compressed Natural Gas COG – Council of Governments CPA – Connecticut Port Authority CRA – Connecticut Railroad Association CRFC – Critical Rural Freight Corridors CTDOT – Connecticut Department of Transportation CUFC – Critical Urban Freight Corridors CVISN – Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks DECD – Department of Economic and Community Development DEEP – Department of Energy and Environmental Protection DMV – Department of Motor Vehicles EJ – Environmental Justice EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency FAA – Federal Aviation Administration FAST Act – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FHWA – Federal Highway Administration FMCSA – Federal Motor Carrier Administration FRA – Federal Railroad Administration FTA – Federal Transit Administration FTIP – Freight Transportation Improvement Program GIS – Geographic Information System GPS – Global Positioning Systems HCAADT – Heavy Commercial Average Annual Daily Traffic HHS – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HOS – Hours of Service HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems LEP – Limited English Proficiency LRP – Long Range Plan MAP-21 – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act MPG – Miles Per Gallon MPH –
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities for Solar Industrial Process Heat in the United States
    Opportunities for Solar Industrial Process Heat in the United States Colin McMillan,1 Carrie Schoeneberger,2 Jingyi Zhang,2 Parthiv Kurup,1 Eric Masanet,2 Robert Margolis,1 Steven Meyers,3 Mike Bannister,1 Evan Rosenlieb,1 and William Xi1 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Northwestern University 3 Independent Contractor NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-6A20-77760 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC January 2021 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Opportunities for Solar Industrial Process Heat in the United States Colin McMillan,1 Carrie Schoeneberger,2 Jingyi Zhang,2 Parthiv Kurup,1 Eric Masanet,2 Robert Margolis,1 Steven Meyers,3 Mike Bannister,1 Evan Rosenlieb,1 and William Xi1 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Northwestern University 3 Independent Contractor Suggested Citation McMillan, Colin, Carrie Schoeneberger, Jingyi Zhang, Parthiv Kurup, Eric Masanet, Robert Margolis, Steven Meyers, Mike Bannister, Evan Rosenlieb, and William Xi. 2021. Opportunities for Solar Industrial Process Heat in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-77760. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77760.pdf. NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-6A20-77760 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC January 2021 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Truck Parking Information Management System FASTLANE 2016 • April 14, 2016
    Colorado Truck Parking Information Management System FASTLANE 2016 • April 14, 2016 Previously Incurred Project Cost $0 Future Eligible Project Cost $9,000,000 Total Project Cost $9,000,000 NSFHP Request $5,000,000 Total Federal Funding (including NSFHP) $7,200,000 Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, which one? No Is the project or a portion of the project currently located on National Highway Freight Network? Yes Is the project or a portion of the project located on the National Highway System? Yes • Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? No • Is the project in a national scenic area? No Do the project components include a railway-highway grade crossing or grade separation project? No Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail project, or freight project within the No boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, how much of requested NSFHP funds N/A will be spent on each of these projects components? State(s) in which project is located Colorado Small or large project Small Also submitting an application to TIGER for this project? No Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable N/A Population of Urbanized Area? N/A Is the project currently programmed in the: • TIP? No • STIP? No • MPO Long Range Transportation Plan? No • State Long Range Transportation Plan? Yes • State Freight Plan? Yes Table of Contents A. Project Description ............................................................................................... 1 B. Project Location .................................................................................................... 8 C.
    [Show full text]
  • A04120071 Page 1 of 1
    +PC * S NATIONU SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICEOFFICE OF OF INSPECTOR INVESTIGATIONS GENERAL z4 .q$$@!0 CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM D~~~~ \o Case Number: A04120071 Page 1 of 1 In connection with a proactive review, we reviewed an awardee's ' General Ledger. This review revealed that the awardee had spent the last $32,000 of NSF funds on post-award expenditures. Further iilvestigation revealed that the PI had requested an extension of tiine to complete work beyond the award's expiration, but NSF denied this request. In addition, investigation revealed that despite NSF's denial of the second-no-cost extension, the PI engineered the draw down of the $32,000 by falsely characteriziilg the draw down as a reimbursement. However, the ~najorityof the funds, approxi~nately$27,000, were used to fund newly incurred, ongoing, post-award expenses. Thereafter, the awardee filed a false final Federal Cash Transaction Report certifying that all award funds had been spent. Then, the PI filed a Final Report that falsely represented that all work on the award was complete. When asked about this by OIG investigators, the PI said she didn't know the second no-cost extension had been denied by NSF. The weight of the evidence refuted this assertion. Without adinitting liability, the awardee settled a civil false claims case with the Department of Justice for $52,150 and agreed to enter into a self-governance programdesigned to ensure that it will operate with honestly and integrity and in compliance with applicable law. In a separate and unrelated ad~ni~listrativeaction, the PI was debarred by NSF for 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • From Truth to Reconciliation : Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools
    AHF_School_cover_JAN23.qxd:Layout 1 1/23/08 3:57 PM Page 1 RESILIENCE OF THE FLOWER BEADWORK PEOPLE Christi Belcourt 1999 Acrylic on Canvas We have survived through incredible odds. We very easily could have been absorbed into the mainstream society. The pressures were there from all sides. No matter. We are here. Despite direct assimilation attempts. Despite the residential school systems. Despite the strong influences of the Church in Métis communities to ignore and deny our Aboriginal heritage and our Aboriginal spirituality. We are still able to say we are proud to be Métis. We are resilient as a weed. As beautiful as a wildflower. We have much to celebrate and be proud of. – Christi Belcourt (excerpt from www.belcourt.net) T r a F n s r BLOOD TEARS f o o Alex Janvier r m m 2001 i Acrylic on linen n T g From Truth to Reconciliation th r Painted on the artist’s 66 birthday, t u h Blood Tears is both a statement of e t Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools Mr. Janvier’s sense of loss and a h L celebration of his resilience, made all e t g the more powerful with the inclusion o a c of a lengthy inscription painted in his y R own hand on the rear of the canvas. o e f The inscription details a series of c R losses attributed to the ten years o e he spent at the Blue Quills Indian s n i d Residential School: loss of childhood, c e language, culture, customs, parents, Aboriginal Healing Foundation i n l t grandparents, and traditional beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Savings and Benefits of Global Regulations for Energy Efficient Products
    Savings and benefits of global regulations for energy efficient products A ‘cost of non-world’ study Final report Energy European Commission Savings and benefits of global regulations for energy efficient products Prepared by Edith Molenbroek, Matthew Smith, Nesen Surmeli, Sven Schimschar (Ecofys), Paul Waide (Waide Strategic Efficiency), Jeremy Tait (Tait Consulting) and Catriona McAllister (Sea Green Tree) This study was ordered and paid for by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy. The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. © European Union, September 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). September 2015 c2 European Commission Savings and benefits of global regulations for energy efficient products Abstract This study considers the potential for global regulations on energy efficient products. If the most stringent current minimum energy performance requirements (MEPS) for product energy efficiency had been harmonised globally at this point in time, global final energy consumption would be 9% lower, and energy consumption due specifically to products would be 21% lower. This saving of 8,950 TWh is equivalent to closing 165 coal-fired power plants, or taking 132 million cars off the road globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-18-38, Discretionary Transportation Grants
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees November 2017 DISCRETIONARY TRANSPORTATION GRANTS DOT Should Take Actions to Improve the Selection of Freight and Highway Projects GAO-18-38 November 2017 DISCRETIONARY TRANSPORTATION GRANTS DOT Should Take Actions to Improve the Selection of Freight and Highway Projects Highlights of GAO-18-38, a report to congressional committees. Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In December 2015, the Fixing In 2016, the Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a multi-phased America’s Surface Transportation Act review and selection process for a new grant program—the Fostering (FAST Act) authorized DOT to award Advancement in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of $4.5 billion in discretionary grants for National Efficiencies (FASTLANE). DOT awarded FASTLANE grants to 18 fiscal years 2016 through 2020; DOT freight and highway projects. Multiple teams of reviewers evaluated 218 awarded $759.2 million in fiscal year applications based on an evaluation plan that outlined the criteria and process 2016. for evaluating applications. GAO found that the awarded projects addressed key The FAST Act required GAO to assess program requirements, such as ensuring that at least 10 percent of awarded FASTLANE’s processes for selecting funds went to small projects and 25 percent to projects located in rural areas. grants. This report addresses: (1) the DOT generally followed the process outlined in the FASTLANE evaluation plan; processes used to evaluate and award however the plan resulted in inconsistencies and allowed for broad discretion FASTLANE grants, (2) the extent to which DOT followed its FASTLANE during certain team reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • No Holds Barred Elimination Match the Shield Vs Evolution Победител – Evolution 5Т
    NO HOLDS BARRED ELIMINATION MATCH THE SHIELD VS EVOLUTION Победител – EVOLUTION 5т. Финишър –Spear 3т. Winner by – pin 1т. LAST MAN STANDING MATCH JOHN CENA VS BRAY WAYTT Победител – JOHN CENA 5т. Финишър –АА 3т. Winner by –КО 1т. BAD NEWS BARRETT VS ROB VAN DAM Победител – . BAD NEWS BARRETT 5т. Финишър – Bull Hammer 3т. Winner by –pin 1т. SHEAMUS VS CESARO Победител – SHEAMUS 5т. Финишър –Roll up 3т. Winner by – pin 1т. INTERCONTINENTAL TITLE BIG E VS BAD NEWS BARETT or RVD Победител – Bad News Barett 5т. Финишър – Bull Hammer 3т. Winner by – pin 1т. PAIGE VS ALICIA FOX Победител – PAIGE 5т. Финишър – Cloverleaf (RamPaige) 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. RUSEV VS BIG E Победител – RUSEV 5т. Финишър – Аccolade (Camel Clutch) 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. denkata398 No Holds Barred Tag Team Elimination Match The Shield vs. Evolution Победител – The Shield 5т. Финишър – Spear 3т. Winner by – Pinfall 1т. Last Man Standing Match John Cena vs. Bray Wyatt Победител – John Cena 5т. Финишър – Attitude Adjustment 3т. Winner by – KO 1т. Intercontinental Championship Match Intercontinental Champion Bad News Barrett vs. Rob Van Dam Победител – Bad News Barrett 5т. Финишър – Bad News Bull Hammer Elbow 3т. Winner by – Pinfall 1т. United States Championship Match United States Champion Sheamus vs. Cesaro Победител – Sheamus 5т. Финишър – Brogue Kick Winner by – Pinfall 1т. Divas Championship Match Divas Champion Paige vs. Alicia Fox Победител – Paige 5т. Финишър – Scorpion Crosslock 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. Rusev vs. Big E Победител – Rusev 5т. Финишър – The Accolade 3т. Winner by – Submission 1т. 51 точки g2e 1.NO HOLDS BARRED ELIMINATION MATCH THE SHIELD VS EVOLUTION Победител – ЩИТ 5т.
    [Show full text]