DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic and Safety Analysis Compendium for the North Meadows Extension to US 85 and Interstate 25

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traffic and Safety Analysis Compendium for the North Meadows Extension to US 85 and Interstate 25 Traffic and Safety Analysis Compendium for the North Meadows Extension to US 85 and Interstate 25 March 2010 Prepared for: Town of Castle Rock Douglas County Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 CDOT Project CC 0852-095 Douglas County Project CI 05-024 FHU Project No. 07-113 This Page Left Intentionally Blank North Meadows Extension to US 85 & I-25 Environmental Assessment Traffic & Safety Analysis Compendium CONTENTS OF THIS COMPENDIUM This compendium of technical reports includes six traffic and safety analysis reports (listed below) that were performed during the environmental assessment process. The different analyses were prepared to provide technical support for various stages of the alternatives development, screening and evaluation processes. Alternative configurations and their assessment have been refined throughout the environmental assessment process; however, the reports included in this compendium have been incorporated in their original form. Thus, some of the specific traffic forecasts and alternative configurations have been refined in later stages of the environmental assessment process. List of Traffic and Safety Reports in this Compendium Completion Title Subject Author Date Felsburg Holt & Refined Traffic operations analysis of Ullevig and Parsons August 2007 Alignments Study Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and 9. Brinckerhoff (PB) Highway Capacity Software / level of service analysis of I-25 operations with alternative I-25 Alternatives configurations between the North Felsburg Holt & January 2008 Traffic Analysis Meadows and Founders/Meadows Ullevig interchanges, including a standard mainline weaving section and a collector-distributor road system. Traffic analysis of North Meadows / US 85 Interchange Felsburg Holt & US 85 interchange configuration April 2008 Traffic Analysis Ullevig options with Alternatives 6 and 7. CORSIM micro-simulation analysis I-25 Alternatives of I-25 operations with alternative configurations between the North Traffic Analysis – Felsburg Holt & Meadows and Founders/Meadows November 2008 CORSIM Analysis Ullevig Results interchanges, including a standard mainline weaving section and a collector-distributor road system. Colorado Safety Accident history and projections for Department of Assessment for I-25, US 85, and SH 86 with No Transportation, HQ January 2009 North Meadows Build, Refined Alternative 6, and Safety and Traffic Interchange Refined Alternative 7. Engineering Branch Introduced and evaluated a modified North Meadows/I-25 Original Town of Castle Rock I-25 Interchange interchange configuration for May 2009 and Felsburg Holt & Configuration Refined Alternative 7 with a Updated Ullevig roundabout west ramp terminal March 2010 intersection. Town of Castle Rock • Douglas County • CDOT • FHWA Page 1 North Meadows Extension to US 85 & I-25 Environmental Assessment Traffic & Safety Analysis Compendium This Page Left Intentionally Blank Town of Castle Rock • Douglas County • CDOT • FHWA Page 2 North Meadows Extension to US 85 & I-25 Environmental Assessment Traffic & Safety Analysis Compendium SUMMARY OF REPORT CONCLUSIONS Following are summaries of the conclusions of the six reports included in this compendium. Refined Alignments Study The North Meadows Extension to US 85 and I-25 System Level Study (SLS) (PB and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, December 2006) recommended advancing two sets of build alternatives. Alternative 6 consisted of the North Meadows extension on a Castlegate alignment. Alternative 7 consisted of the North Meadows extension using an Atrium alignment. Both Alternatives 6 and 7 showed the North Meadows extension connecting from the Meadows neighborhood on North Meadows Drive, passing west and north of Castle View High School. During the public scoping process for the environmental assessment (EA), conducted after the completion of the SLS, the option of using an alignment south and east of Castleview High School, connecting with Elegant Street, was suggested as an alternative to the North Meadows alignment due to safety concerns for pedestrians, specifically students, crossing North Meadows Drive to reach the Castle View High School and the Castle Rock Middle School. Two new alternatives, Alternatives 8 and 9, were developed using the Elegant Street alignment, with Alternative 8 using the Castlegate alignment to US 85 and I-25 and Alternative 9 using the Atrium alignment to US 85 and I-25. The Refined Alignments Study is a technical report prepared to assess the traffic operational characteristics of the Elegant Street connection in Alternatives 8 and 9 with the North Meadows Drive connection in Alternative 6 and 7. The report shows that many of the traffic operational and planning characteristics of the North Meadows Drive Alternatives (6 and 7) and the Elegant Street Alternatives (8 and 9) would be very similar. However, some discernable differences were noted: Elegant Street Alternatives (8 and 9) would result in reduced conflicts for pedestrians crossing North Meadows Drive to reach the high school and middle school. Conversely, Elegant Street alternatives would result in some operational concerns along Meadows Drive associated with the proximity of the Elegant Street/Meadows Drive intersection with the student drop-off area for the Castle Rock Middle School. Also, the Elegant Street alternatives would provide lesser vehicle miles of travel and vehicle hours of travel savings than the North Meadows Drive alternatives, primarily because the Elegant Street alignment does not provide as direct a connection between the northern parts of The Meadows and the North Meadows connection. These conclusions fed into the EA screening decision to eliminate Alternatives 8 and 9. I-25 Alternatives Traffic Analysis With Refined Alternative 6 and Refined Alternative 7, the North Meadows Extension would cross I-25 approximately 0.9 miles north of the existing Founders/Meadows interchange with I-25. Since this is slightly closer than the standard one-mile spacing between freeway interchanges, two alternative lane concepts were considered on I-25: A standard ramp section, where on- and off-movements at the proposed North Meadows interchange and the existing Founders/Meadows interchange would connect directly with the I-25 mainline. This concept is also referred to as the standard ramp/mainline weaving concept. Town of Castle Rock • Douglas County • CDOT • FHWA Page 3 North Meadows Extension to US 85 & I-25 Environmental Assessment Traffic & Safety Analysis Compendium A collector-distributor road concept, with parallel two-lane collector-distributor roads provided in both directions between North Meadows and Founders/Meadows interchanges. This concept would allow on-, off-, and weaving movements at the two interchanges to take place off of the I-25 mainline. The I-25 Alternatives Traffic Analysis provides year 2030 forecasts on I-25 and evaluates operations on I-25 with the standard ramp/mainline weaving and collector-distributor concepts. The report used Highway Capacity Software methodology to evaluate level of service for the two concepts. The analysis shows that 2030 traffic forecasts northbound in the AM peak period and southbound in the PM peak period would be greater than the capacity of I-25 with either the standard ramp/mainline weaving and collector-distributor concepts, resulting in poor levels of service. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance calls for use of micro-simulation to evaluate operations on highly congested, over-capacity systems, because of the limitations of isolated analysis tools like Highway Capacity Software to evaluate the system effects of high congestion locations. The over-capacity findings of the I-25 Alternatives Traffic Analysis resulted in the need to perform a micro-simulation analysis using CORSIM software to further evaluate the standard ramp/mainline weaving and collector-distributor concepts on I-25. US 85 Interchange Traffic Analysis With Refined Alternative 6, the North Meadows Extension would connect with US 85 at a grade- separated interchange at the Castlegate alignment and Refined Alternative 7 would include a grade-separated interchange with US 85 at the Atrium alignment. Two different interchange concepts were developed at US 85 for both Refined Alternative 6 and 7 and evaluated in this traffic analysis. One configuration would be a Diamond Interchange, with signalized ramp terminal intersections on North Meadows Drive spaced approximately 325 feet apart. The second configuration would be a Roundabout Interchange, with eastbound and westbound North Meadows Drive and the northbound and southbound US 85 off-ramps all connecting into a roundabout intersection constructed above US 85. Key conclusions of the analysis included: Both Diamond and Roundabout Interchange configurations are viable options at both the Castlegate and Atrium locations. The Roundabout Interchange configurations were determined to result in the best overall operations at both the Castlegate and Atrium locations. Because there are only approximately 300 feet between US 85 and East Plum Creek at the Castlegate alignment and approximately 1,000 feet at the Atrium alignment, access opportunities west of US 85 are more constrained with Refined Alternative 6 than with Refined Alternative 7. At the Atrium location, the US 85 interchange ramps would merge and diverge from US 85 approximately 1,500 feet from Meadows Parkway. This proximity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CODE of COLORADO REGULATIONS 8 CCR 1507-25 Division of State Patrol
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division of State Patrol RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PERMITTING, ROUTING & TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS AND NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO 8 CCR 1507-25 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] _________________________________________________________________________ AUTHORITY The Chief of the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) is authorized by §42-20-108 (1) and (2) and §§42-20-403, 504, and 508, CRS, to promulgate rules and regulations for the permitting, routing and safe transportation of hazardous and nuclear materials by motor vehicle within the state of Colorado, both in interstate and intrastate transportation. Pursuant to §42-20-108.5, CRS, the Chief of the CSP is authorized to adopt rules and regulations which exempt agricultural products from the hazardous materials rules. APPLICABILITY These rules and regulations shall apply to all persons who transport, ship or cause to be transported or shipped, a hazardous material by motor vehicle over the public roads of this state. COMPLIANCE WITH 8 CCR 1507-1 All commercial vehicles that transport hazardous and/or nuclear materials shall comply with the rules and regulations found at 8 CCR 1507-1, Concerning the Minimum Standards for the Operation of Commercial Vehicles. GENERAL DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise specified, definitions of general applicability throughout these rules are: Enforcement Official: As identified within §42-20-103 (2), CRS, the definition of enforcement official is limited to a peace officer who is an officer of the CSP as described in §§16-2.5-101 and 114, CRS; a certified peace officer who is a certified Port of Entry (POE) officer as described in §§16-2.5-101 and 115, CRS; a peace officer who is an investigating official of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) transportation section as described in §§16-2.5-101 and 143, CRS; or any peace officer as described in §16-2.5-101, CRS.
    [Show full text]
  • I-25/I-80 Fonsi
    Finding of No Significant Impact for the I-25/I-80 Interchange Laramie County, Wyoming WYDOT Project Number I806212 FHWA—WYDOT—EA-20-01 Wyoming Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration August 2020 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the Preferred Alternative (which includes full replacement of both the Interstate (I)-25/I-80 and I-25/U.S. Highway 30 (Lincolnway) interchanges, lengthened merge and diverge areas, flyover ramps, auxiliary lanes, braided ramps, widening the curve along eastbound I-80 approaching the interchange, expanding the radius of remaining cloverleaf ramps, and variable message and new static signage) will have no significant impact on the human or natural environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the Environmental Assessment for the I-25/I-80 Interchange, Laramie County (FHWA—WYDOT—EA- 20-01) (EA) and subsequent comments received during the public and agency review period, which have been independently evaluated by FHWA. FHWA has determined that the EA adequately and accurately discusses the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA. Approved by: Bryan Cawley, P.E. Digitally signed by BRYAN R CAWLEY Date: 2020.08.24 12:30:49 -06'00' Division Administrator Date Wyoming Division Federal Highway Administration FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Statute of Limitations The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may publish a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 139(l), indicating that one or more federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or approvals for a transportation project.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • I-25 Corridor Plan
    May 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 Plan overview 1 Communications and Public Involvement 2 Technical Advisory Committee 2 Policy Committee 2 Regional Manager’s Group Periodic Updates 3 Elected Officials Updates 3 Advisory Boards and Commissions 3 Newsletters 3 Website 3 Community Forums and Focus Groups 3 Private Sector Forum 4 Existing Corridor Conditions 4 Land Use and Development Patterns 4 Open Lands and Natural Areas 5 Generalized Zoning and Annexation 6 Local and Regional Plans 6 II. Issues and Goals 9 Issue Identification 9 Land Use 9 Transportation 9 Environment and Natural Resources 10 Regional Character 10 Goals and Objectives 10 Land Use 10 Transportation 11 Environment and Natural Resources 12 Regional Character 12 Coordination and Implementation 13 III. Corridor Vision 15 Alternatives Development 15 Alternative 1—Uncoordinated Development 15 Alternative 2—Focused Node Development 16 Alternative 3—Parallel Transportation Corridors 16 Preferred Vision 17 Land Use Patterns 17 Transportation 17 Open Lands 18 Corridor Design Principles 18 Corridor Design Principles 19 IV. Development Location and Quality 21 Overview of Design Standards 21 Locational Standards 21 Design Standards for Activity Centers 21 i Design Standards for Areas In Between Activity Centers 22 Application of the Standards 22 V. Open Lands and Natural Areas Element 25 Introduction 25 Open Lands and Natural Areas Inventory 25 Riparian Areas 25 Agricultural Lands 27 Scenic Landscape Corridors 27 Open Lands and Natural Areas Policies 28 Overview 28 I-25
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2017-2018 INFRA Project Applications
    U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2017-2018 INFRA Project Applications Estimated Total Estimated Future # Project Name Applicant Organization State INFRA Request Federal Eligible Project Assistance Costs 1 Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Matanuska-Susitna Borough AK: Alaska $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $125,000,000 Municipality of Anchorage / Port of 2 Port of Anchorage Petroleum/ Cement Terminal AK: Alaska $64,900,000 $65,900,000 $108,100,000 Anchorage CONNECT Mobile - Creating Opportunity Networks for New 3 Alabama Department of Transportation AL: Alabama $250,000,000 $990,000,000 $1,776,339,086 Economic Connections Today Birmingham-Jefferson County Port 4 Port Revitalization and Freight Flow Management Project AL: Alabama $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $18,000,000 Authority Gulf Shores Regional Connectivity and Infrastructure 5 City of Gulf Shores, Alabama AL: Alabama $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $37,000,000 Improvements Project 6 2nd Avenue Connectivity Corridor Project The University of Alabama AL: Alabama $6,025,657 $6,025,657 $16,737,936 7 Interstate 69 (Monticello Bypass - Highway 65) Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $20,000,000 $65,360,000 $81,700,000 8 Interstate 30 - National Freight Corridor Improvements Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $100,000,000 $192,200,000 $609,500,000 9 Interstate 30 (U.S. Highway 70 - Sevier Street) Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $57,900,000 $57,900,000 $181,300,000 10 Securing Multimodal Freight Corridors in the Ozarks City of Fort Smith, Arkansas AR: Arkansas $8,527,892 $8,527,892 $14,213,154 11 Little River County Intermodal Facility Little River County Intermodal Authority AR: Arkansas $10,500,000 $10,500,000 $17,500,000 Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning 12 I-49 Missouri-Arkansas Connector AR: Arkansas $32,364,000 $90,807,000 $169,907,000 Commission Southeast Arkansas and Northeast Louisiana Multimodal Southeast Arkansas Economic 13 AR: Arkansas $29,541,000 $29,541,000 $49,236,051 Freight Corridor Improvement Project Development District, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Counts New Mexico Interstates Prepared by Tamara P
    Tom Church Cabinet Secretary G e n e r a l O f f i c e P. O. B o x 1 1 4 9 S a n t a F e, N M 8 7 5 0 4 – 1 1 4 9 Traffic Counts New Mexico Interstates Prepared by Tamara P. Haas, P.E. For the Transportation Infrastructure Revenue Subcommittee Meeting 10-10-17 1 | Page New Mexico Interstate Traffic 2016 12,700 AADT 10% trucks 38,000 AADT 20,000 AADT 12% trucks 30% trucks 14,800 AADT 40% trucks I-40 I-25: 202,000 I-40: 204,000 11,800 AADT 12% trucks I-25 15,600 AADT 30% trucks I-10 32,400 AADT 22% trucks AADT is the Average Annual Daily Traffic which includes cars and semi- trucks. 2 | Page Interstate 10 Traffic Interstate 40 Traffic I-10 begins at the Arizona State line and ends I-40 begins at the Arizona state line and ends at the Texas State Line. I-10 is 164.26 miles at the Texas state line. I-40 is 373.53 miles long. long. Arizona to Las Cruces: Arizona to Albuquerque (Big-I): AADT=15,600. AADT=20,000 30% trucks 30% trucks The total traffic has been consistent The total traffic has experienced over the past five years on this growth of 2%. portion of I-10. Albuquerque Metro Area: Las Cruces (I-25) to the Texas state line: AADT = 204,000 at I-25 AADT=32,400. Number of trucks is consistent 22% trucks through the metropolitan area; The traffic has experienced growth however, the % of trucks is less due of 2% per year.
    [Show full text]
  • I-80 Corridor Study
    FINAL March 2018 ` Prepared for: Prepared by: In conjunction with: and FINAL March 2018 FINAL March 2018 Contents Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Volumes ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Safety ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Closures ....................................................................................................................... 2-2 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Climbing Lane Locations ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Overview ............................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Cost Estimate Model ........................................................................................ 3-3 Roadway................................................................................................................3-3 Structures ..............................................................................................................3-6 I-25/I-80 Cost Estimate Update ..............................................................................3-7
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate & Highway Routes to Casper, Wyoming
    INTERSTATE & HIGHWAY ROUTES TO CASPER, WYOMING GILLETTE KEYSTONE DOUGLAS RAWLINS WHEATLAND WHO: TO ALL U2017 GLOBAL URANIUM SYMPOSIUM ATTENDEES WHAT: U2017 GLOBAL URANIUM SYMPOSIUM TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS WHEN: AUGUST 21-25, 2017 WHERE: RAMKOTA HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER 800 N POPLAR ST CASPER, WY 82601 (307) 266-6000 HTTPS://RAMKOTACASPER.COM/ PLEASE REFER TO THE CODE SOCIETY OF MINING ENGINEERS TO OBTAIN CONFER- NECE ROOM RATES OF $99.00 (U.S. DOLLARS) + TAXES/NIGHT THE RAMKOTA HAS A COURTESY VAN THAT SERVICES THE AIRPORT WHY: SOLAR ECLIPSE OVER THE CONTINENTAL (LOWER 48 STATES) USA, LAST EVENT OC CURRED IN 1979, A LAPSE OF OVER 38 YEARS! DUE TO THE POPULARITY OF THE SOLAR ECLIPSE, ASTRONOMICAL LEAGUE’S ANNUAL MEETING (ASTROCON) BEING HELD IN CASPER, WY, AND THE ACTIVITIES PLANNED THROUGHOUT WYOMING IN TOWNS LOCATED IN THE TRAJECTORY PATH OF TOTALITY (~60 MILE WIDE) PLEASE MAKE YOUR TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS EARLY. ***AIRPORTS, AIRLINES, RENTAL CARS AND LODGING*** CASPER-NATRONA COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CODE: CPR IS SERVICED BY THE FOLLOWING: UNITED AIRLINES (CONNECTING FLIGHTS FROM DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-DIA), 4 FLIGHTS DAILY 1-800-864-8331 Domestic Reservations 1-800-538-2929 International Reservations DELTA (CONECTING FLIGHTS FROM SALT LAKE CITY, UT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- SLC), 3 FLIGHTS DAILY 1-800-221-1212 Domestic Reservations 1-800-241-4141 International Reservations ~~ continued on next page ~~ 1 of 4 ***DRIVING*** FROM THE SOUTH ~5 HOURS FROM DENVER, COLORADO (CO) DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CODE: DIA DIA IS SERVICED BY MANY
    [Show full text]
  • Highways to the Sky: a Context and History of Colorado’S Highway System
    FINAL HIGHWAYS TO THE SKY: A CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF COLORADO’S HIGHWAY SYSTEM Submitted to: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 Contract Routing No. 01HAA00247 Submitted by: ASSOCIATED CULTURAL RESOURCE EXPERTS 8341 Sangre de Cristo Road, Suite 202 Littleton, Colorado 80127 April 24, 2002 (Funded In Part By A State Historical Project Fund Grant from the Colorado Historical Society. Grant #2001-01-043) HIGHWAYS TO THE SKY: A CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF COLORADO'S HIGHWAY SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 IntroductionandProjectDescription...... ......... ...... 1-1 1.1 Historical Context.................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Sponsorship......................................................... 1-2 1.3 Methods andProcedures.......................................................... 1-3 1.4 Further Areas of Research 1-5 Chapter 2 Setting...... ... ......... ..... 2-1 2.1 Locations and Topographical Description Pertinent to Colorado's Highways........................................................................... 2-1 2.2 General History and Mining, Settlement and Political Organization....... 2-1 2.3 The Colorado Highway Commission and Succeeding Agencies............ 2-3 Chapter 3 The Road Ahead: Early Trails in Colorado.................................. 3-1 3.1 Native Trails: Pre-History to 1850s............................................. 3-1 3.2 Emigrant and Trade Routes ........... 3-3 3.2.1 Santa Fe Trai1....................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Cherokee Trail .., ...,... 3-4 3.2.3 Smoky Hill Trail ,............. 3-5 3.2.4 Overland Trail ,...... 3-5 3.2.5 Trapper's Trai1..................................................................... 3-6 3.3 Military Roads and Federal Involvement. ,... 3-6 3.4 Mining-Related Roads. ,.. ,.. 3-8 3.5 Railroads and the End of the Wagon Trail.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3-11 Chapter 4 Territorial and Pre-Automobile State Roads.............................
    [Show full text]
  • Evanston to Cheyenne CORRIDOR 1 I-80
    )¢ AÝ )« +º A£ Sage Kemmerer +¸ )¢ S W E E T W A T E R AÝ AÜ STATE SIGNIFICANT L I N C O L N Rock CORRIDOR Springs* )¢ !"a$ U I N T A )« Aè Green River* REGIONAL C A R B O N ?× CORRIDOR Evanston* !"a$ Lyman N A÷ Mountain Aõ +¸ Aë View Að Aæ Flaming Gorge- 0 10 20 Mirror Lake Green River Basin Aê MILES Scenic Byway Scenic Byway o BLM USFS Scenic Byway Intercity Bus Route Primary Airport p General Aviation Greyhound Stations Local Service Urban Area Snowy Range ©WYDOT/Rick Carpenter CORRIDOR 1 CORRIDOR 1 Evanston to Cheyenne CORRIDOR 1 I-80 Walcott ?Ñ STATE SIGNIFICANT ?È )¢ Rock River CORRIDOR A¾ !"a$ Rawlins* P L AT T E G O S H E N ?Ð ?¿ +º Añ )¢ !"`$ C A R BAæ O N A L B A N Y REGIONAL )¦ CORRIDOR Saratoga Am Snowy Range Scenic Byway Ah )¥ A÷ Aæ Laramie* Al N LARAMIE Pine Bluffs 0 10 20 Aw Ag !"a$ )¢ MILES Aw +º ?Ï Cheyenne* o BLM USFS Scenic Byway Intercity Bus Route Designated Bike Route Primary Airport p General Aviation Greyhound Stations Local Service Urban Area 19 00403 GOALS CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS Primary interstate route for trucks hauling Trucks Up to 50% trucks goods from West Coast to Midwest Extensive gas and oil development, with Extensive and expensive backlog of Connectivity associated truck traffic improvements Congestion PRIMARY INVESTMENT TYPE: MOBILITY Primary needs for the corridor should focus investments on improving mobility, largely resulting System Preservation from the high percentage of large trucks in the traffic mix.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving to Drowsy Water Ranch
    SAVE THESE! DO NOT RELY ON GPS OR YOUR PHONE TO GET YOU TO THE RANCH! DRIVING FROM DENVER TO DROWSY WATER: To get to us from Denver, head west and take one of three routes to Granby: Route 1: The Fastest Route (This route takes about 2 hours from DIA). Take Interstate 70 westbound, a scenic 4-lane highway, into the mountains. Exit at Exit 232, US Highway 40 to Empire and Granby. Follow Highway 40 over Berthoud Pass to Granby. Continue through Granby on US 40 West. About 6 miles outside of Granby, keep your eyes open to the right. Whoa there!! See that Red Covered Wagon with “Drowsy Water Ranch”? Turn to the right and follow the road 1 1/2 miles to the ranch buildings. Route 2: Mining and History Route (This route takes about 2 ½ to 3 hours from DIA). On the west side of Denver, exit from I-70 onto US Highway 6. Highway 6 takes you past Golden, the home Coors Brewery, then enters the Clear Creek Canyon where the road is built on an old railroad grade and travels through several tunnels. Take a side trip about 10 miles into the canyon when Colo. State Highway 119 heads North to the historic mining towns and modern gambling towns of Central City and Blackhawk. Continuing on US 6, you join Interstate 70 near Idaho Springs, another historic mining town. A scenic side trip from here is the Mount Evans Highway, the nation’s highest paved auto road. This road will take you to the top of the 14,260 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • I-25 / US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) Bridge Replacement and Interchange Improvements
    I-25 / US 85 (Santa Fe Drive) Bridge Replacement and Interchange Improvements Critical safety and mobility improvements for Denver, Colorado A TIGER II Discretionary Grant Request for $10 Million Submitted by the Colorado Department of Transportation Contact: Mickey Ferrell , Federal Liaison Office of Policy & Government Relations, Colorado Department of Transportation; 303-757-9755, Email: [email protected] (DUNS/CCR Number: 960738771) August 23, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 4 I. Project Parties .................................................................................................................................... 6 II. Grant Funds and Sources / Uses of Project Funds ....................................................................... 6 III. Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 7 A. Long Term Outcomes: ...................................................................................................................... 7 i. State of Good Repair : ................................................................................................................... 7 ii. Economic Competitiveness: ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]