CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - Colorado Department Of Transportation
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentCHAPTER 2ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED2.1 INTRODUCTIONA key part of the NEPA process is theanalysis and consideration of a range ofreasonable alternatives, based on thePurpose and Need as presented inChapter 1. The C-470 Corridor ProposedAction presented at the end of Chapter 2is the result of a screening process thatconsidered a range of reasonablealternatives.Although similar, the C-470improvements proposed in 2015differ from the Preferred Alternativein the 2006 EA in several importantways. The 2015 improvements arebeing referenced with a differentname, the Proposed Action.This chapter describes the screeningprocess that was used, and discusses thealternatives that were considered andevaluated. The alternatives developmentprocess was undertaken in conjunction withan extensive public and agency outreachprogram.The contents of this chapter are: Section 2.2 provides an overview ofthe alternatives development andscreening process for the 2006 EA andwhat information is being carriedforward into this Revised EA. Section 2.3 describes alternativesconsidered during the 2006 EAanalysis but which were eliminatedfrom further consideration. Section 2.4 discusses alternatives thatwere carried through the screeningprocess for detailed evaluation in the2006 EA. Section 2.5 describes the processthrough which the 2006 EA PreferredAlternative was identified. Section 2.6 discusses modifications ofthe 2006 EA Preferred Alternative. Section 2.8 identifies alternativescarried forward for environmentalevaluation in this Revised EA. Section 2.8 describes the ProposedAction for this Revised EA. Section 2.9 provides a brief conclusionregarding the alternatives developmentprocess.The NEPA process calls for consideration ofa No-Action Alternative as a basis forassessing the comparative effects of anyaction alternative(s). The No-ActionAlternative is assessed for future conditions,and thus is not identical to current, existingconditions. The No-Action Alternative iscarried through the entire evaluationprocess, not eliminated in any of the variousscreening steps. Please see Section 2.4.1for more information about the No-ActionAlternative.2.2 ALTERNATIVESDEVELOPMENT AND SCREENINGPROCESSAn alternatives development and screeningprocess was completed as part of the 2006EA. Since that time, the PreferredAlternative from 2006 has been refined tobetter meet corridor stakeholder needs.Prior conclusions about eliminatedalternatives have been reviewedqualitatively to ensure their continuedvalidity in this 2015 Revised EA.Various transportation technologies wereconsidered initially, resulting in a range of20 alternatives. Each alternative wasevaluated using screening criteria based onproject goals and objectives, discussed inSection 2.2.1. These criteria were thenused to determine the alternatives that bestmet the project Purpose and Need.Figure 2-1 depicts the overall process.Alternatives Considered2-1
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentFigure 2-1Screening Process OverviewAlternatives Considered2-2
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental Assessment2.2.1 Goals, Objectives, andEvaluation CriteriaDuring preparation of the 2006 EA, inputfrom the project scoping processcontributed to the development of goals andobjectives which served as the basis forevaluation criteria used to assess eachalternative. Six study goals were developedfrom the Purpose and Need. Project goalssuch as relieving congestion and delay andimproving reliability correspond to theproject purpose. In addition, project goalssuch as reasonable and cost-effectiveimplementation, minimizing harmful effectsto the environment, creating ease ofmovement, and improving safety areadditional considerations.The goals, objectives, and evaluationcriteria for the 2006 EA are shown inTable 2-1. After the goals and objectiveswere defined, screening criteria weredeveloped for each objective to determinehow well the alternative could meet eachobjective. These screening criteria werethen used to evaluate each of thealternatives throughout the screeningprocess. The screening process results areshown in Figure 2-2.In the figure, the abbreviation GPL meansGeneral Purpose Lanes, EL means ExpressLanes and HOV lanes means HighOccupancy Vehicle lanes. These were theterms used in the 2006 EA.2.2.2 Initial ScreeningAn initial range of alternative categories wasdeveloped, refined, and evaluated in a fatalflaw analysis. This process evaluatedalternatives on the basis of whether or notthey were feasible for C-470.A fatal flaw analysis was used to eliminatecategories of solutions with fundamentalsafety, mobility, engineering design, orenvironmental effects, rendering thesolutions unreasonable for furtherconsideration. Feasibility was evaluatedwith respect to meeting the project’sPurpose and Need, compatibility withexisting technologies on adjacent corridors,and the ability to design and construct thealternative without significant adverseenvironmental effects. Categories that hadfatal flaws or did not address or meet theintent of the project’s Purpose and Needwere eliminated from further consideration.The remaining categories were carriedthrough to qualitative screening.2.2.3 Qualitative ScreeningAfter the initial screening, each category ofsolutions was broken down into a range ofalternatives for qualitative evaluation.Preliminary analysis of each alternative wasconducted based on data collected duringthe scoping process. Traffic modeling,conceptual design, and environmentaleffects analysis were completed to asufficient level of detail to provide data toqualitatively assess the differences amongalternatives.Alternatives that did not perform well, orthose that had substantially more adverseenvironmental effects to known resources,were eliminated from further consideration.The resulting short list of alternatives wascarried forward into quantitative screening.2.2.4 Quantitative ScreeningIn this detailed analysis, the short-listedalternatives were further developed andrefined to avoid and minimize adverseeffects. Alternatives were evaluated bydetermining and comparing effects for therespective resources. This resulted incarrying forward two action alternatives andthe No-Action Alternative for detailedanalysis in the 2006 EA.Application of the above goals, objectivesand criteria yielded the screening resultsthat are presented in Figure 2-2.Alternatives Considered2-3
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentProject PurposeTable 2-1C-470 Corridor EA Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria (2006)GoalsObjectivesPM peak hour level of service(LOS)Congestion/Delay:Reduceforecasted congestionalongthe C-470 CorridorReduce forecastedcongestion on C-470 fromKipling Parkway to I-25Provide a reasonablebalance betweeninterchange capacity andfreeway operationsMinimize delay over a limitedtimeframeProvide predictable traveltimesLOS; actively managed lanesManage capacityDegree of flexible versus fixedcapacityDegree of providing accidentmanagementReliability: Provideconsistent travel timesalong C-470 betweensimilar time periodsAdditional ConsiderationsImplementation: Providetransportation solutionsthat can be implementedin the short term and thatsatisfy the project’sPurpose and NeedEase of Movement:Provide for the ease ofmovement through andaccess to the C-470CorridorSafety: Provide for thesafe movement of peopleand goodsManage accidents (vehiclecollisions, sun glare,weather, etc.)Evaluation CriteriaIntersection LOSC-470 travel timeProvide choices to mostusersNumber of choices and number ofusersInform users of systemstatusNumber of intelligent transportationsystem (ITS) elements includedImplement in a timelyfashionFunding availabilityMinimize total project costTotal project costProvide appropriate accessto C-470Provide appropriate accessacross C-470Number of access points. Providesaccess for most usersIntegrate multimodalsolutionsAvailability of transit service andevaluation of effective ridershippotential. Coordination withsupporting entities such as RTDAvailability of transit service andevaluation of effective ridershippotential. Coordination withsupporting entities such as RTDAvailability of transit service andevaluation of effective ridershippotential. Coordination withsupporting entities such as RTDWill alternative reconstructdeficient pavement areas?Does alternative meet projectdesign criteria?Provide transportationchoices to the most usersProvide a transportationsystem that is consistentwith regional transportationplansAddress pavement conditiondeficienciesAddress existing mainlinesafety issuesAlternatives ConsideredNumber of crossings2-4
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentTable 2-1C-470 Corridor EA Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria (2006, Continued)GoalsObjectivesAdditional Considerations (continued)Minimize impacts toadjacent bicycle/pedestriantrail systemMinimize noise impacts tothe built environmentEnvironment(continued):Provide transportationsolutions that minimizeimpacts to the natural,cultural, and socialenvironment of thesurrounding communitiesMinimize traffic diversiononto local road networkMaintain compatibility withlocal land use plansMinimize impacts towetlands and waters of theU.S.Minimize impacts to criticalwater sources that degradesurface and groundwaterquality and quantityMinimize impacts tothreatened and endangeredspecies habitatMinimize encroachment onhazardous materials sitesMinimize impacts to culturalresources (historic,archaeological, andpaleontological)Minimize impacts torecreation and parklandresourcesMinimize impacts to riparian/streamside habitatMinimize visual impacts toneighboring communitiesMinimize air quality impactsEnhance opportunity forwildlife movement acrossC-470Minimize impacts to minorityand low-income populationsMinimize floodplain impactsMinimize right-of-wayacquisitionMinimize economic impactsto local businessesAlternatives ConsideredEvaluation CriteriaLinear miles of trail relocationNumber of locations where CDOTnoise abatement criteria areexceededDegree of traffic diversion ontoadjacent facilitiesIs alternative consistency with localland use plans?Acres, intensity, and severity ofwetlands and known waters of theU.S. impactedAcres of increased impervioussurface areaAcres, intensity, and severity ofthreatened and endangeredspecies habitat impactedIntensity and severity of potentialenvironmental disturbance fromhazardous material sites impactedNumber, intensity, and severity ofcultural sites impactedAcres, intensity, and severity ofpark or recreation land impactedAcres, intensity, and severity ofriparian habitat impactedDegree and severity of visualimpactDoes alternative causeexceedances of National AmbientAir Quality Standards?Does alternative provide additionalopportunity for wildlife movement?Are impacts disproportionatelyhigh and adverse as compared toother populations along theCorridor?Is 100-year floodplain impacted?Amount, severity, and location ofimpactNumber and severity of parcelsimpacted; acres of ROW acquiredNet loss to businesses2-5
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentFigure 2-22006 Screening Process and ResultsAlternatives Considered2-6
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentFigure 2-22006 Screening Process and Results (Continued)Alternatives Considered2-7
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental Assessment2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDBUT ELIMINATEDThe following alternatives were eliminatedfrom further consideration during thescreening process in 2006 for the reasonsstated. More detail is provided in the in theAlternatives Screening Report (March2005).2.3.1 Transit AlternativesThe transit category consisted of fixedguideway and non-fixed guidewayalternatives. These technologies includedlight rail transit (LRT), commuter rail,monorail, magnetic levitation (“MagLev”)transit, and bus rapid transit. They requiresubstantial capital investment ininfrastructure design and construction andare less compatible with adjacent corridortechnologies.RTD is the public transit provider for theDenver metropolitan area. RTD’s SouthwestCorridor light rail line extends southwardalong Santa Fe Drive south to MineralAvenue (north of C-470), with a proposedfuture extension across C-470 and eastwardto Lucent Boulevard. RTD’s SoutheastCorridor follows I-25 southward to a stationat the Parks Meadows Mall near C-470 andYosemite Street. RTD’s adopted FasTracksPlan does not include any planned eastwest line along C-470 to connect thesestations. Nevertheless, the non-transitalternatives developed for the 2006 EAwould not preclude such an addition in thefuture.RTD currently does not operate anycommuter buses on C-470 because thehighway does not provide reliable traveltimes necessary for fixed-route bus service.Many factors, such as regional plans,service type, difficulties in serving thedispersed land use base, origin anddestination patterns, low potential ridership,and lack of congestion reduction wereconsidered in the decision to eliminatethese alternatives.RTD currently operates no buses onC-470 and has no plans to build lightrail between I-25 and LucentBoulevard. C-470 roadwayalternatives do not preclude futuretransit development.For this Revised EA, the prior assessmentof transit’s potential on C-470 remainsunchanged. The C-470 Corridor Coalitionhas indicated willingness to exempt RTDcommuter buses from tolls and RTD hasindicated it would consider possibly usingC-470 in the future if travel time reliabilitycan be provided.2.3.2 Mobility EnhancementsThe mobility enhancement categoryincluded several non-construction strategiesthat could contribute to relieving congestionand delay on the C-470 Corridor andimprove reliability. These strategiesincluded use of teleworking, variable workhours, employer carpooling subsidies andincentives, connective transit service,transportation management organizations,improved bicycle/pedestrian trails and trailmarketing, and freeway ramp metering.Some of these facilities or practices arealready in place to some extent along theC-470 Corridor, so their further potential forcongestion relief is limited. Note that CDOThas no control over some of these ongoingcommunity programs but can only makerecommendations to the entities that do.Because these strategies in themselves donot have the ability to address the project’sPurpose and Need, this category waseliminated from further consideration as astand-alone action alternative. However, itwas noted that beneficial elements such asmobility enhancements could be added toalternatives carried forward. For thisRevised EA, no new information or corridordevelopments would alter this conclusion.Alternatives Considered2-8
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental Assessment2.3.3 General Purpose LaneAlternativesThe general purpose lane alternativescategory included all non-tolled capacityexpansion options, including combinationswith HOV lanes.Six General Purpose Lanes: The typicalsection for the Six-Lane GPL Alternativewould provide three 12-foot lanes in eachdirection, an 8-foot inside shoulder, a10-foot outside shoulder and a barriermedian. An advantage of 6-lane alternativesis that they could be built within the existingmedian without widening to the outside.This alternative would afford minimal reliefto congestion and delay, but it would notprovide the means to actively manage traveltime reliability. Projected traffic Level ofService (LOS) would range from D to Fduring peak hours, resulting inunpredictable travel times for all of C-470except the section between WadsworthBoulevard and Kipling Parkway. Because asix-lane typical section provides acceptabletraffic operations for this part of the Corridor,it was included as part of the GPLAlternative from Wadsworth Boulevard toKipling Parkway. This alternative was notadvanced for further consideration forcorridor-wide use because it does not meetthe project’s Purpose and Need, nor does itprovide the means by which to activelymanage reliability.The Revised EA uses the 2035 planninghorizon year, reflecting even morepopulation and employment growth thanwas considered in the 2006 EA. Thisalternative that did not meet traffic needs for2025 also would not meet them for 2035.Six General Purpose Lanes with AuxiliaryLanes: This alternative is the same as thesix-lane GPL alternative but with theaddition of a 12-foot auxiliary lane in eachdirection. The auxiliary lanes act ascontinuous acceleration/deceleration lanesbetween interchanges and facilitate betterAuxiliary lanes connect one on-rampwith the next off-ramp. This improvesmerging operations, improving safety,but does not add as much capacityas an ordinary through lane.traffic operations at interchanges, thusincreasing capacity. While the auxiliarylanes provide some additional congestionrelief, the facility would still only achieveLOS E on several segments. Thus, it doesnot address the project’s reliability goal, nordoes it provide active management ofreliability. This alternative was eliminatedfrom further consideration because it wouldnot provide reliable travel times, especiallybetween Quebec Street and Broadway.Six General Purpose Lanes withHigh-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Thisalternative includes the addition of one12-foot HOV lane in each direction to theSix-Lane GPL Alternative. While the HOVlane provides the potential for increasedreliability due to lower expected volumes,there is no mechanism to ensure thatvolumes do not increase to a level at whichcongestion degrades reliability.While this concept does provide somecongestion relief for the general purposelanes, volume forecasts indicated that theoverall operations of the facility are still notacceptable in many eastern highwaysegments, largely due to limited usage ofthe HOV lanes. Because this alternativedoes not provide appropriate levels ofcongestion and delay relief, it was removedfrom further consideration, as it did not meetthe project’s Purpose and Need.As noted for other alternatives, shifting tothe 2035 planning horizon year in theRevised EA does not improve the viability ofthis previously eliminated alternative.Six General Purpose Lanes with Auxiliaryand High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Thisalternative combines the capacityAlternatives Considered2-9
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental Assessmentimprovements of the Six-Lane GPL withAuxiliary Lanes Alternative with one 12-footHOV lane in each direction. With theadditional capacity from the auxiliary lanesand reliability component of the HOV lanes,the traffic volume forecasts for thisalternative indicate only slightly improvedoperations over the Six-Lane GPLAlternative. Reliability is similar to thatdiscussed under Six-Lane GPL with HOVAlternative. Because this alternative doesnot provide necessary levels of congestionand delay relief, it was eliminated fromfurther consideration.No new conditions in 2015 resolve thepreviously identified deficiencies of thisalternative.Eight General Purpose Lanes: This is thesame as the Six-Lane GPL Alternative, butwith the addition of one 12-foot lane in eachdirection. This alternative providescomparable operational improvements tothe Six-Lane GPL with Auxiliary LanesAlternative. This alternative would providegood peak period traffic operations betweenSanta Fe Drive and Wadsworth Boulevard,with operational breakdown in the highestvolume segments between Quebec Streetand Santa Fe Drive.The uncertainty of the consistent reliabilityfor the eastern segments led this alternativeto be eliminated from further considerationas a typical section from I-25 to Santa FeDrive. This deficiency identified in 2006remains valid in 2015.A variation of this alternative that addsauxiliary lanes is discussed in Section 2.4as the General Purpose Lanes Alternativecarried forward for additional consideration.2.3.4 Express Lanes AlternativesIn both alternatives discussed here, tolledexpress lanes would be added to theexisting four-lane general purpose lanes.Reversible Express Lanes: This alternativewould add a single express lane to C-470.Reversible lanes are lanes that areoperated only in one direction during themorning peak period and only in theopposite direction during the evening peakperiod. They can be operated for a largerportion of the day, as long as there is aperiod of non-use in-between so that thelanes are completely empty before thedirection of flow reverses. This concept canbe successfully in an area with highlyimbalanced peak period traffic flows,typically from residential areas and majoremployment centers. A benefit is costsavings accrued from having the samelane(s) serving both peak traffic flowsinstead of building separate lanes to servethese directional flows.Forecasted 2025 volumes showed nodistinct directional split, indicating that thedemand for the facility was approximatelyequal in both directions. As a result, thereversible lanes concept is not appropriate.This alternative would not providecongestion relief for westbound morningtraffic or eastbound evening traffic and thuswould not fully meet the project’s Purposeand Need.As updated in 2015, projected directionalvolumes on C-470 for the year 2035 remaintoo balanced to make reversible laneconcepts attractive.Reversible lanes works best when trafficis heavily oriented one way in themorning and the other direction in theafternoon. C-470 traffic volumes aremore balanced, because employmentopportunities are dispersed throughoutthe region.Two Express Lanes (one lane in eachdirection): Another variation of the expresslanes studied was a two-lane concept,providing one new express lane in eachdirection. This alternative does not provideAlternatives Considered2-10
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental Assessmentthe capacity and operational improvementsto meet the project’s Purpose and Need.It was therefore eliminated from furtherconsideration.No new conditions or projections in 2015correct the issues for which this alternativewas eliminated in 2006.An alternative that adds four express lanes(two in each direction) is discussed inSection 2.4 as the Express LanesAlternative, carried forward for additionalconsideration.2.4 ALTERNATIVES CARRIEDFORWARD IN 2006In the 2006 EA, the Eight-Lane GeneralPurpose with Auxiliary Lanes Alternative(hereafter referred to as the GPLAlternative) and the tolled Express LanesAlternative (hereafter referred to as the ELAlternative) were retained from thescreening process and carried forward fordetailed environmental analysis. TheNo-Action Alternative was also retained.2.4.1 No-Action AlternativeUnder the No-Action Alternative, CDOTwould not improve the existing C-470roadway other than performing basicmaintenance and/or safety improvements tomaintain roadway operation. Currently,C-470 has two general purpose lanes ineach direction from Kipling Parkway to I-25.An auxiliary lane in each direction existsbetween the Quebec Street interchange andthe I-25 interchange, serving as continuousacceleration and deceleration lanes.The existing roadway consists of 12-foottravel lanes, including auxiliary lanes insome locations, with inside and outsideshoulders, plus a 34-foot median, as shownin Figure 2-3. Paved shoulder widths varybetween four and 10 feet.2.4.2 GPL AlternativeThe 2006 GPL Alternative would add up tofour additional travel lanes and auxiliarylanes to the existing four travel lanes,extending from Kipling Parkway to I-25.It would include improving ramps andreconstruction of the C-470/Santa Fe Driveinterchange. The typical sections are shownin Figure 2-4.MEDIANMEDIANSHLDRGENERALSHLDR PURPOSE LANESSHLDRFigure 2-3No-Action Alternative Typical SectionsGENERALPURPOSE LANES SHLDR10AUXLANE12GENERALPURPOSE 1210EXISTING TWO LANES EACH DIRECTION – KIPLING PKWY TO QUEBEC STTOTAL WIDTH 110 FEET417174GENERALPURPOSE LANES1212AUXLANESHLDR1210EXISTING TWO LANES PLUS AUXILIARY EACH DIRECTION – QUEBEC ST TO I-25TOTAL WIDTH 134 FEETAlternatives Considered2-11
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentFigure 2-42006 GPL Alternative Typical SectionsMEDIAN BARRIERSHLDRGENERAL PURPOSELANESSHLDRSHLDRGENERAL PURPOSELANESSHLDR1212121212 2 1212121212THREE LANES EACH DIRECTION – KIPLING PKWY TO WADSWORTH BLVDTOTAL WIDTH 122 FEETMEDIAN BARRIERSHLDRGENERAL PURPOSE LANESSHLDRSHLDRGENERAL PURPOSE LANES1212121212 2 1212121212FOUR LANES EACH DIRECTION – WADSWORTH BLVD TO SANTA FE DRTOTAL WIDTH 146 FEET12SHLDR12MEDIAN BARRIERSHLDR8AUX12GENERAL PURPOSE LANESSHLDRSHLDRGENERAL PURPOSE LANESAUX1212121212 2 121212121212FOUR LANES PLUS AUXILIARY LANE EACH DIRECTION – SANTA FE DR TO I-25TOTAL WIDTH 162 FEETThe width of the GPL alternative would varyby location. The westernmost segmentbetween Kipling Parkway and WadsworthBoulevard would be 122 feet wide, due toaddition of only one new through lane ineach direction. From there to Santa FeDrive, two through lanes each way would beadded, requiring a total width of 146 feet.Between Santa Fe Drive and I-25, auxiliarylanes would typically be present, pushingthe total roadway width to 162 feet.2.4.3 EL AlternativeThe EL alternatives described in Section2.3.4 both added a total of two new lanes(one each way, or two reversible) and wereeliminated, but an EL alternative adding fournew lanes (two each way) was carriedforward for environmental evaluation. Thisalternative would add two barrier-separatedexpress lanes each direction on the easternportion of the corridor, between I-25 andSHLDR8Platte Canyon Road, where existing andfuture predicted traffic volumes are highest,and one buffer-separated express lane eachdirection between Platte Canyon Road andKipling Parkway. The typical cross sectionsare shown in Figure 2-5.The barrier-separated EL lanes would beaccessed from the general purpose lanes atonly six locations: Kipling Parkway;Wadsworth Boulevard; between LucentBoulevard and Broadway; betweenBroadway and University Boulevard;Quebec Street; Colorado Boulevard; andI-25.Between Platte Canyon Road and I-25,C-470 would require widening to the outsideto accommodate the necessary roadwaywidth. The overall roadway width for thesection between Kipling Parkway and PlatteCanyon Road is 110 feet; from PlatteCanyon Road to I-25, the width is 162 feet.Alternatives Considered2-12
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental AssessmentFigure 2-52006 EL Alternative Typical SHLDRPURPOSEBUFFERMEDIAN BARRIERGENERAL124TOLL4 2 4GENERALPURPOSELANES12SHLDR1210KIPLING PKWY TO PLATTE CANYON RD – ONE TOLL LANE EACH DIRECTIONTOTAL WIDTH 110 FEET1012124 2SHLDR12EXPRESS LANES12124 2 4BARRIERTOLLEDEXPRESS LANES1212SHLDR12SHLDRTOLLEDSHLDRSHLDR PURPOSE LANESMEDIAN BARRIERSHLDRGENERALSHLDRBARRIERGENERALPURPOSE LANES SHLDR2 4121210PLATTE CANYON RD TO I-25 – TWO TOLL LANES EACH DIRECTIONTOTAL WIDTH 162 FEET2.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE INTHE 2006 EABased on the decision-making processdescribed above, FHWA and CDOTidentified a Preferred Alternative in the 2006EA. They concluded that there was areasonable expectation that the ELAlternative would be financiallyself-supporting, and therefore would beeligible for amendment into the fiscallyconstrained DRCOG RTP and subsequentimplementation. No available fundingoptions for the GPL Alternative wereforeseen, and therefore it was notconsidered to be implementable.While both action alternatives would meetthe project’s Purpose and Need and havecomparable environmental effects, only theEL Alternative had the demonstrated abilityto be implemented. As a result, FHWA andCDOT identified the EL Alternative shown inFigure 2-5 as the Preferred Alternative forthe 2006 EA.No updated traffic analysis has beenperformed for the 2006 EL alternativebecause that alternative is no longer underconsideration. It has been modified andupdated for 2015 conditions as describedbelow.2.6 REFINEMENTS TO THE 2006PREFERRED ALTERNATIVEIn 2006, there was not yet widespreadpublic acceptance of the fact that theFederal Highway Users Trust Fund hasbeen depleted and that State highwayfunding resources also are insufficient tokeep pace with rising costs andmaintenance demands. The Denver regionhad just witnessed the 2006 completion ofthe 1.67 billion “T-REX” widening projecton I-25. Users of C-470 wondered why theyshould have to pay tolls when previousmajor projects simply received governmentfunding instead. A decision document wasnever obtained for the 2006 EA andprogress on corridor improvements to C-470halted.Since then, other corridors in the regionincluding US 36 and I-25 North have facedsimilar funding constraints and have movedforward with tolling programs. Theseprojects have increased public awarenessAlternatives Considered2-13
C-470 Corridor Revised Environmental Assessmentand acceptance of modern transportationfunding limitations. The conclusion in 2006that funds were not available to implementthe General Purpose Alternative has provento be correct.2.6.1 C-470 Corridor CoalitionExplores Funding OptionsIn 2011, the cities, counties and otherstakeholders along the highway corridorformed the C-470 Corridor Coalition. CDOTand FHWA were welcomed as affiliate (nonvoting) members of this organization, whosevoting members and affiliates are listed inthe accompanying text box.The purpose of this coalition has been toprovide a forum for local governments,business organizations and citizens toconsider technical solutions, fundingoptions, and to ultimately reach consensuson a plan to pay for implementingimprovements on the full 26-mile extent ofC-470 between I-25 and I-70. The C-470Corridor Coalition is seeking solutions notonly for the eastern half of the highway thatis examined in this EA, but also to thewestern half (entirely within JeffersonCounty) which will be addressed in futurestudies.The C-470 Corridor Coalition heldnumerous public meetings and telephonetown hall events during 2012 to explorepotential revenue sources for C-470improvements, including tolls and sales taxor property tax districts. Through thisprocess it
validity in this 2015 Revised EA. considered initially, resulting in a range of 20 alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated using screening criteria based on project goals and objectives, discussed in Section 2.2.1. These criteria were then used to determine the alternatives that best met the project Purpose and Need.
Part One: Heir of Ash Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26 Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Chapter 29 Chapter 30 .
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Contents Dedication Epigraph Part One Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Part Two Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18. Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26
DEDICATION PART ONE Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 PART TWO Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 .
Circle Line Alternatives Analysis Study -*- (ARRIS #4%%NGINEERS A*OINT6ENTURE Alternative Analysis (AA) Process Screen 1, 2 and 3 Evaluation Criteria Alternatives Considered Screen 3 Public Input LPA Screen 1 Reviewed universe of alternatives - Eliminated alternatives that were not suitable - Three public involvement meetings - May 2006 .
Alternatives 6-4 January 2015 - Version 6.0 Runway 27 (In-Line Taxiway 'E') Alternatives: The following three alternatives evaluate the recouping of Taxiway 'E' as runway while resolving the non-standard in-line taxiway condition. The alternatives presented in this section are compatible with
COLORADO SECTION OF THE PGA COLORADO GOLF ASSOCIATION COLORADO GOLF HALL OF FAME ROCKY MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION COBANK COLORADO OPEN CHAMPIONSHIPS. 2 colorado avid golfer.co 720-493-1729 THE MISSION COLORADO AVIDGOLFER’s tagline—“elevating the game”—defines our philosophy. Viewing golf as
colorado section of the pga colorado golf association colorado golf hall of fame rocky mountain golf course superintendents association cobank colorado open championships 2020 digital media kit. 10 colorado avid golfer.co 720-493-1729 digital ad options colorado avidgolfer website
Colorado Wage Withholding Tax 1 Revised December 2021 Every employer making payment of Colorado wages is subject to Colorado wage withholding requirements. In general, Colorado wages are any wages that are either paid to an employee who is a Colorado resident or paid to any nonresident employee for services performed in Colorado.
